TOO MANY PRISONERS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21809, 15 June 1936, Page 7

TOO MANY PRISONERS

TO THE EDITOR Or TUX PRESS. Sir,—l am afraid the reply of the Under-Secretary for Justice to Miss B. E, Baughan on the number of our prison population can only be described as disingenuous: Miss Baughan showed —as often has been done before—that our daily average of prisoners is three times as great in proportion to population as in England. The Under-Secre-tary does not admit or disprove Miss Baughan’s statement, but refers to the comparative numbers of prison receptions, knowing quite well that we have no comparable figures for England and New Zealand. On a previous occasion, when he adopted the same tactics, I went to some trouble to investigate the matter, and have before me a letter from the secretary of the English Howard League—a portion of this I shall quote: “The particular figures for which you ask, the number of distinct persons committed to prison is one of the things our English figures do not show. The prison statistics deal only with ‘recaptions’ and as the Prisons Commissioners are always careful to point out, the number of receptions is higher than the number of different persons sent to prison owing to the inclusion of those who appear more than once in a single year. How much difference this makes to our figures there is no way of estimating, but it must be appreciable. tk pomparipa the English and one Is therefore admittedly comparing two different things, but the difference is in the direction of inflating our figures in comparison with yours, a fact that is not pointed out in the repbrt of the [NJZ.I Prisons Department." After making various allowances the Howard League secretary , comes to the re»im»irminn mat the number of receptions in England for 1932, based on the New Zealand method of computation, was 10.17 for every 10,000. Now the Under-Secretary .admits for 1935 in New Zealand a number of receptions of 13.7 per 10,000, and gives the English receptions for last year as 14.1 for every 10,000. He does not, of course, show us in detail how he arrived at these figures, but the New Zealand Year Book, 1936, gives The number of distinct persons received into prison under sentence of imprisonment. . .. per 10 000 of mean population,” for 1934, as 15.33. , . Well, the Controller-General is entitled to any consolation he can get out of these figures; but in the face of 1050 individuals now in custody they are inconsequent. Definitely there are about three times as many in gaol in New Zealand as in England in proportion to the population: and if Mr and Mrs Sydney Webb are right in saying that “the most helpful and most practical of prison reforms” are to be found in methods which “keep people out of prison altogether,” then New Zealand has still a long way to travel before she equals the Old Country in her prison reforms. Let me quote further from the Manchester Guardian” weekly of May 1:“Separate confinement has disappeared; there have been introduced into prison life lectures and concerts, a weekly news sheet, a system of adult education, physical training, better libraries, better cell- furniture, and a small but much appreciated luxury, safety razors for the prisoners to shave themselves with. . . At Wakefield .the experiment has been tried of sending men outflde the prison walls to W'or* on the land:" . No, we have a long way to go yet before we reach even the standard of the English system in dealing with prisoners. Of the astonishing publication of former prisoners’ dossiers by the Controller-General I say nothing here, —Yours, etc., __ _ . ROBT. M. LAING. June 13, 1936.

TO THE EDITOR OT THE PRESS. Sir, —I, too, am grateful—to the Con-troller-General of Prisons for providing us with the latest New Zealand figures, and to you for obtaining them. So it is true, then. We have some three times the number of ordinary prisoners that we should .b a y e -to proportion to England—loso instead of 343, for us to maintain! On the subject of Borstals and habitual criminals, the Controller-General’s silence is so eloauent that I conclude that of the firs, we have also three times too many, and of the second, some 25 times too many, compared with England. Now, why : is this? .. It would be even more puzzling, if one just took his explanation, would it not? Why, if our prisons really do attempt “reform, ’’ do they not succeed better? Why, since ‘receptions have at last dropped so much, have we stUl so many prisoners to pay for? It is auite true that, as the Control-ler-General agreeably reminds us, I resigned the office of an official prison visitor 10 years ago, in protest against our deplorable penal system, the effects of which I had been having to see for five years. But, ever since, I have gone on as an unofficial worker with gr isomers and former prisoners, and avealso had the benefit of the Con-troller-General’s own admirable yearly reports. Both these sources assure me thitih all essentials the prison system unchanged, though our courts at ifrng laid are following England a exprisoners. Whv? BicaSe they breed crimes 1 Crime is taunt in orison by prisoners to one jSS&Mr Crimes are planned in prison; cHmes are committed by confederates who had not met each other until we introduced them to one another in pri- 1

son 1 If. then, we ready wishto be protected from crime, we shall use prison as little as possible. There are alternatives nowadays, luckily for us. This our courts qmte suddenly became aware of. From ?jSSJ 1 J*", ports I leam that 1931 and 1932 had « Dea k” figures, both in “committals" and in prison numbers. Then, all of a sudden, in JR cent, drop in committals! Why? The police reports showed no such drop in crime, though (may ! beg you to mark this?) no increase in crime followed! What then, had happened? Our daily press had published the prison figures, obtained by our Howard League for Penal Reform, contrasting those of England with those of New Zealand—and the courts took note. _ Now, again, our local press is performing the same good office. Will not our courts take note again? , _ For still they are differing from England on one most salient point, which is the real explanation of our inordinate numbers, now that committals are being so wisely curtailed. Our sentences are far too long, compared with England’s, and the Habitual Criminals Act is far too freely used. That is why we have so many still learning how to harm us daily, in our universities of crime maintained by the State,” as Krapotkin found even model pri,on. to be-Yomy% XvcjHAN Akaroa, June 13. 1936.