OUR PRISON SYSTEM.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19111, 21 September 1927, Page 11

OUR PRISON SYSTEM.

TO THE ZDITOB OT THX PRISS. Sir,—Like my friends 'Mr Maiden and Mr Revell, I was extremely interested in your leading article on the report of the Prisons Board. I do not happen to have the report by me, and, as your leader does not refer to the matter, one can only infer the- proportion of cures among men that have undergone sentences of hard labour. Judging from previous years, it would be safe to say that the proportion of those that have "made good" is less among cases of hard labour than among cases of reformative detention. This is due to the fact that, in long sentences at all events, reformative detention is meted out only where the offence is not considered too grave, or where there is more likelihood of repentance. Most people, however, ruu away with the idea that there is some peculiar efficacy about reformative detention that is lacking in hard labour, and that as soon as a fortunate prisoner is brought under its superior tutelage its magic begins working on him. And on reading that a judge has committed a man. to one of our gaols for "reformative treatment" they comfort themselves with the thought "how progressive and enlightened and humane is the prison system of the Dominion!" It may, therefore, come aS a shock tol some of your readers to learn that between reformative detention and hard labour there is no difference whatsoever, except the difference of a label. It is true that "reformative treatment" men wear a distinguishing uniform, and sit on opposite sides in "church," and are not allowed to mingle with others iii the exercise yards (though they work alougside of hard labour men), and—unlike hard labour men —can 'have their sentences reviewed by the Prisons Board three months after committal. But for all practical purposes there is no difference. I speak from acquaintance with one prison only, but ± presume that in this respect all. our prisons are alike. _ That is >to say, there is no such thing in our prisons as "reformative treatment. The sooner, therefore, we abolish this label, as a misleading sham, the better. For then the eyes of people will be opened to one of the most urgent needs of our prisons. _ The more I see of our prison system the more I am convinced that fifty per cent., if not more, of our prisoners ought not to -have been sent to prison •>t all. Drunkards, as often as not, require kindlier treatment, perhaps a thorough medical overhaul; maintenance men should be making reparation to their neglected families, either by working in some farming camp, or, better still, at some approved occupation under tactful probation. Sexual cases, which point to some physiological or mental abnormality, are pre-eminently suited for careful handling under pronnrlv trained guardians, and not under the bludgeon o*f prison discipline. Ninety-nine per cent, of the JSers in our prisons require just as 2S — al EtftSKC very thing "that cannot be carried out in TWor a e C we plume ourselves, then,, on

system, it might be well,for us to know (a) the percentage of successes and failures under the penal system lionobtaining in England; and (b) the proportion of prisoners to population, both here and at Home. One fact would then emerge—that we are not working the method of probation to the extent that we might do. Both in England and in this country, failures under the probation system are surprisingly few—the cost to the community is a mere bagatelle. Further, offenders who are placed under probation would escape that terrible moral infection, prison contamination. What that contamination means is known only too well to prison chaplains, who have listened to heart-breaking stories, evidently sincere, told by men who, convicted for some offence, it may be l a relatively small one, have nevertheless during their stay in prison learned all there is to learn about crime. No doubt it was' this fact that once led a prison official to say to me, "If you can reform one prisoner out of thirty, you are a lucky man." Personally, I do not share that pessimism. I believe that however far down a so-called "criminal" may have sunk, first and foremost, and to the very end, he is a human being; place him in an environment of uplifting and kindly influence, and he will not always prove, ungrateful, or unworthy of trust. At any rate, before we send these unfortunates to Coventry and boycott them industrially, let us give them another chance, remembering that if we had been born, as so many of them have been, with a mental kink, or subjected to the same severe temptations, we too might have fallen as low, if not lower.

It is a very hopeful sign that the Prisons Department. is considering penal reforms in a sympathetic manner, but it can hardly carry them out unless it is supported by public, opinion.—Yours, etc., F. RUTIIERFURD RAWLE. Anglican Chaplain, Paparua Gaol. September 20th, 1927. "Pax," Redcliffs, TO'THE EDITOR 0* THE' PRESS. Sir, —You are to be heartily congratulated upon drawing your readers' attention to the matter of our prison population and system. Only too few of the general public know, or, perhaps, care about 'the state of affairs connected with our penal institution. In the interests of both prisoners, exprisoners, and the community, you are performing a genuine and humanitarian service.

Four points I wish to stress if I may "crave a portion of your valuable space. The first is to express my regret that you quoted entirely from the Prison Board report, and evidently had not the prisons' report before -yoii.\ The report with which you deal is by far the least valuable, for the reason that the Prison Board has nothing to do with the management of prisons, nor with prisoners, except to review sentences; and its figures give little indication of tlje actual condition of affairs. Take one instance. The prison report states (page 2) that the daily average prison population in this Dominion is for the past year 1336, while that of England is 10,509. Had England our proportion as compared with her population she would have some 40,000! On the sanie page we notice that our prison population is steadily increasing, while that of England is decreasing. The main causes for the English drop, given by the report of the English Prison Commissioners just to hand, are the extension of the probation. system, allowance of time for payment of fines, and the operation of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and, the Commissioners add, "the increased efficiency of agencies for the assistance of all classes of prisoners on discharge,' combined with the training: given, to as many as possible during their imprisonment" contributes largely to ' this end. • ;

My second and third points arise out of these last remarks, and deal with "after-care" and mental abnormality and subnormality. Our Government is perpetually holding up the worn-out bogey of itha tremendous cost entailed in the provision of efficient "aftercare," or, for the matter! of-that, any other suggested reform,- and yet on' paste 20. we find that the cost per head of our prisoners is in the region of £6O per annum. Had we readied the mark of success achieved in England, in proportion to our population we should have only 353 as the daily average of prison population, or a saving in cost of roughly £56,000 per annum—enough to more than compensate for the extra expense entailed by reforms. I would commend this aspect to our authorities, and coupled with this is my third point, viz., the scientific care, and treatment of the mentally abnormal and subnormal. At the present time we have no provision for what we may for i convenience call the "feebleminded" (apart from the gaol and mental hospital) as our Mental Defectives Act treats of the insane only. In England the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, does not deal with the insane but with the feeble-minded. Unfortunately great confusion lias been caused by the lack of a clear understanding of this difference. We have no provision for dealing with either the chronic alcoholic, border-line insane, the senile, nor the. mental or moral "infantile" cases in'suitable institutions. Consequently we discover that one-third at least of our prison population is mentally defective (vide Sir Robert Stout, late chairman of the Prison Board), and that many inmates of our mental hospitals - are feeble-minded, . and in neither instance can the necessary care and treatment be provided. The Commission on Mental Defective made some excellent recommendations' in 1925 which apparently the Government has almost entirely ignored, much to its discredit.

My last point concerns a casual reference! by yourself, Sir, to tive detention," when mentioning absconders. You make-110 further comment upon this name without a substance. We have a stupid system in N T ew Zealand by which courts differentiate between serious and ordinary crime by consigning the serious cases to "hard labour" and the less serious to "reformative detention"—apparently upon the belief that some different treatment is meted out when in- gaol. As a matter of simple fact there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. The two classes eat, sleep, work, and We in exactly the same conditions. There is supposed to be a preference shown to "reformatives" by the Prison Board ii.i the matter of release, but even this is remarkably shadowy, because if a man receives' one year "hard" for a serious offence and an accomplice two "reformative" years, in all likelihood the hard labour man will be out first, and as the other receives 110 possible kind of "reformative" treatment fs compared with, his mate, he feels considerably aggrieved and comes out embittered ..and anti-social.- Even the authorities admit that in actual practice there is no difference between these "classes." . Why then should we continue to confuse the public in this wav ?-*-Yours, etc.. C. R. N- MACKIE, Hon. Sec.. Howard League. Christchurch Branch. Sept. 20th, 1927.