REFORMATIVE DETENTION

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21648, 5 December 1935, Page 17

REFORMATIVE DETENTION

10 THE XDITOa oy THE PRESS. . sir—One is particularly pleased to ree a judge criticising one of the prefaces of our penal legislation. It is rarely done here, but much more fremiently in England. Yet judges and magistrates should, by the position, be better acquainted with the weaknesses of our system than any other persons, "except, perhaps, the criminal. Two days ago I indicated the pretentiousness of our probation system. Now (December 4), Mr Justice Northcroft has passed judgment on what is euphemistically termed "reformative detention." i "Reformative detention" is merely an alias for hard labour. The prisoner sentenced to "reformative detention" does not receive any special educational, corrective, or privileged treatment. The term should, therefore, be blotted from our statute books until true reformative treatment is established. Further, as Judge Northcroft has said, the system is open to serious abuse. "In my opinion," he states, "reformative detention should not be resorted to for the imposition of a longer term of imprisonment than the prescribed maximum, because the offence is a bad one, nor just because the offender has a bad record." What does this mean? Simply that it is usually possible under the Crimes Act to give a man a much longer sentence of alleged reformative detention than of ; simple imprisonment; but we have fcnown of worse cases than that dealt with by Judge Northcroft, or rather ! cases in which the injustice was more I apparent. Thus, the magistrate has isaid: "You, 'A,' were the prime mover ;in the offence and will receive a cer- ' fain period of imprisonment; you, 'B,' the accomplice, and will receive ; a-period of double the length of re- : formative detention." Thus, the accomplice is more heavily punished than ; tjie chief offender. True, theoretically, [tlie "B" may have his sentence re- ; vjewed earlier by the Prisons Board; but in bow many cases is justice thus done? There could no coziplaint against the length of reformative detention sentences, if any real attempt aj; .reform of the offender were being made in the prison?. In the particu■]&r case dealt with by Judge Northcroft the sentence was reduced, on appeal, even though the prisoner's record was a bad one, from two years' r reformative detention to six months' reformative detention, on the ground that " six months' imprisonment was tfte maximum for the offence allowed by the law. Obviously, the first requisite of a pehal system is that it should be just. Our system should therefore free itself from pretence, simulation, and camouflage, and not disguise its inefficiency by high-sounding terms, that merely mask its out-of-date methods. There are hopes that a Labour Government will improve our penal administration.—Yours, etc., ROBT. M. LAING. -December 4, 1935.