The Justice Statistics

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20989, 18 October 1933, Page 8

The Justice Statistics

The Report on the Justice Statistics for the Year 1932, laid before Parliament, contains a good deal of information to support the views ex- ] pressed by Mr N. -M. Richmond, j chairman of the Dominion executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, in the correspondence columns of " The Press " last May. Using 1930 f-gures, Mr Richmond pointed out that, receptions into English prisons being about 60.0C'. the New Zealand figure of 5761 w1.,: more than twice what might be expected, in proportion to population The 1932 figuie is 6179. Again, Mr Richmond pointed to a still greater disproportion in the daily average of prisoners, the comparable figures for 1930 being 11,346 and 1466. The New Zealand figure for 1932 is 1669. Mi; Richmond calculated also that the oercentage of imprisonments after conviction was twice as high in New Zealand as in England, that the per centage of first offenders included was higher by nearly half, and that the cost of keeping prisoners under sentence was also about half as high again as in England. What explains these really disturbing comparisons is the fact, noted in last year's Prisons Report, that the Dominion's prisons are largely tenanted by first offenders serving short sentences and petty recidivists, who regularly pop in and out. The latest figures illustrate S this very well. Although "total rej " ceptions" were 6179, only 3401 i " distinct prisoners " were received; i.e., 2778 receptions were those of prisoners who had been at least once b-We convince! last year. The T-t *.V.aI rf rccdivhta is given a' . 7fi more '.an 100') of whom had crved sentences rf simple imprisonment or hard labour Of the total. 480 had previously been convicted 1 once, 296 twice, 198 three times, 139 four times, and 782 more than four times, while of 183 the number of previous convictions is not given. It is interesting to note that • of the 2078 persons previously convicted, who were [received in the prisons

last year, only 159 had been put upon simple probation. All these figures should be considered in relation to certain others; for instance, those that cover the ages of the 3401 prisoners received and the length of the sentences served. Less than a week was served by 588, between a week and a month by 579, between one month and three by 791, Lmd between three months and six by 465. Very nearly 2000 prisoners served less than three months; 2423, less than six. It is unnecessary to carry the statistics further, for present purposes, but useful to add that the four short periods above, in order, were served by the following numbers of prisoners under 21 years of age: (1) 11, (2) 37, (3) 42, (4) 17. j Some of these figures only suggest j possible lines of enquiry; but one conclusion is inescapable. Short sentences do no good. They neither reform the offender nor protect the community. On the contrary, it is fairly clear that they expose the community to danger by helping to build up an anti-social class. Lord Brentford—Sir William JoynsonHicks —when Home Secretary, satisfied himself that short sentences were seldom useful and that it was generally better to trust to cautions, probation, or fines, or else to impose a long term; and the New Zealand Prisons Report of 1930 appeared to argue in the same way. It was stated there that in the 17 years of the Prisons Board's control only about 20 per cent, of long term prisoners, when released by recommendation, had relapsed into crime, but it was not uncommon for the same offender to serve several short terms within a single year. Probation makes the offender, the long sentence makes the system, chiefly responsible for his reform; and it may not always be easy to decide which is to be preferred. But the evident failure of the compromise gives the community and the bench clear warning of the danger of falling back on it, because the choice between what seems to be softness and what seems to be severity is difficult.