FLOGGING FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22414, 30 May 1938, Page 5

FLOGGING FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES

VO THE IDITOB OF THE PBE9B. Sir, —I do not usually reply to anonymous correspondents, but as "No SobStuff” of the curious misnomer, has made some attempt to support his statements by arguments, these, are perhaps worth a reply. Let us take them in order. (1) He is evidently ignorant of the objects of the Howard League. Its “pet schemes” are not “the abolition of corporal and capital punishment”; but “the right treatment of delinquents in the prevention of crime.” (2) He tells us “the use of the cat and bixch is more than ever strongly championed by the judges, magistrates, and the police officials in Great Britain. This statement is simply incoi’rect. Judges and magistrates in England are using flogging less and less; but see under for statistics. (3) His next argument is really amusing in its inefflcacy. It appears that a criminal who had been flogged after a “terrible record of crime” told an officer of Scotland Yard in effect “.that he was going to be a good boy now.” Surely “No Sob-Stuff” is not so simple as to accept the statement of this confirmed criminal as evidence for his own reformation. No, all investigation goes to show that in sex-cases only a long period of therapeutic detention is of any value. (4) Next we are told that Lady Baldwin considers the cat the only cure in such cases. Well, I have yet to learn that Mrs Baldwin has made any scientific study of the subject, or is regarded as an authority by those who have. (5) An American Commissioner of Police passing through New Zealand thinks there should be less "sob-stuff” in the treatment of criminals. Well, in America we get the best and -worst of penal institutions; but I am afx-aid its police so far have not shown much intelligence in penal reform. In any case, the remarks have nothing to do with the subject under discussion. (6) The use of the rod in Great Britain is increasing rapidly. Well, let us look at a few English figures. In 1895, in convict prisons, there were 14 cases of flogging, and in local prisons 95. The corresponding figures for 1929 were 2 and ,15, In 1917, a war-year, there was only one case of flogging and that in a local prison. In 1935, the latest year for which figures are available, thei'e was no corporal punishment cither in local or convict prisons in • England. I have no space to deal with other equally flagrant mis-statements of “No Sob-Stuff”; but may do so later if opportunity offers. Really he should make further inquix-y into his subject before appearing in print. I would seriously advise him to inquire into the phenomenon of sadism, and he will find it shakes to its foundations the commonly accepted arguments for corporal punishment. If we accept these as legitimate, we must also accept the use of torture in all its foi’ms, and one last word, if he will really make a scientific study of the question, he will give vis less misplaced emotionalism—less “sob-stuff.”—Yours, etc., ROBT. M. LAING, President, Christchurch Branch, Howard League for Penal Reform. May 27, 1938.

to th> iditos or tn r*Bsa. Sir. —Your correspondent “No Sobstuff” has evidently so little knowledge of the aims and objects of the Howard League for Penal Reform that he completely misrepresents its policy, which is not to make the path of the evildoers as comfortable and as easy as possible but to help them to forsake their evil ways and so protect society and bring the offenders back to rectitude. The Howard League is in remarkably good company when it deprecates flogging as either a reformative or deterrent measure. The report of the Committee on Capital Punishment was issued in March in England and recommends that corporal punishment should be completely abolished for all court offences, and should be retained only as a means of maintaining prison discipline. The grounds upon which the committee comes to its decision are interesting and should help to convince your correspondent that the Howard league has just grounds for its attitude. It slates: ‘‘We. have been unable, to find any body of facts or figures showing that me introduction of’ a power of Hogging has produced a decrease in the number of offences for which it may be imposed.” Does it not appear strange to “No Sob-stuff” that in England. where flogging can be administered, a responsible committee should urge its abolition on the ground that it is neither a deterrent nor a cure? Does he really believe that he would be “reformed” by being subjected to the “cat”? Will he kindly produce evidence to demonstrate that the reforms urged by the Howard League, when honestly tried, have failed?— Yours, etc., C. R, N. MACKIE, Hon. Sec. N.Z. Howard League for Penal Reform, Christchurch Branch, May 27. 1938.

CO TM» BDITOB OT TBB FBKBB. Sir, —In your issue of May 26 a correspondent writes in favour of flogging. I feel it would be useless to argue with him, but as I am tßire many pepole who favour this terrible punishment have no idea what it means, may I quote from someone who has seen men and boys .being flogged? “People who favour flogging have only a hazy idea how it is administered and the effects it has on the prisoner. I have witnessed many a naval caning on youths under 18 years of age, and the spectacle gives one a sickening sensation in the stomach. I also saw a Turk publicly whipped in Asia Minor during the Kemallst rising of 1920, the details of which are too ghastly to print. I am not a churchgoer and could be fairly classed as a hardened sinner, but not too hard to have pity on the unfortunate people who undergo this most soul-searing of punishments''under the guise of justice. Punish them by all means, but not torture the flesh and lash them into insensibility; and I can assure you it is exactly that, and worse. I would say to the people who, favour floggings that they must not call themselves Christians; let them call themselves Mohammedans or followers of any religion that encourages brutality. It would take a very clever man to reconcile the teachings of Christ with floggings.”—Yours, etc., D. M. MIRAMS* Tixnaru, May 27, 1938.

vo Tin xditox or th* muss. Sir, —Once again a characteristic public service has been performed by Miss BaUghan when she draws attention to the superiority of the subtle methods of science, over the crude and sometimes barbarous punishments that still form a prominent feature of our penal code. That we in New Zealand are so hesitant to accept the gifts of psychological medicine, seems hard to explain save »s a concomitant of our insularity. For some 20 years ago, in that cradle of new ideas and experiments, the Pacific coast of North America, the well-known chief of the Berkeley Police Department, August Vollmer, had already achieved renown for his success in weaning men from a daily diet of delinquency. Relatively few of those arrested by his staff found their way before the Court. Still fewer wen! to gaol. The greater number were handled, not by lawyers and warders, but by men of medicine, psychiatry, and psychology. A thorough trial had proven > the new procedure a way of salvation for many weak and erring, wayward ones who had merely grown embittered under the old law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Thence, the new dispensation has spread eastwards as far as London, where the Institute for the Scientific Treatment of Delinquency has already achieved a substantial number of cures of cases refractory under traditional treatment. Unfortunately, our Department 1 of ,Justic# is staffed by men who, cseogl*.

lent jurists and accountants though they be, skilled in the finer points of legal and statistical treatment, yet de* nionstrate a deeper concern for finding fault with the scientific approach and explaining away its successes, than in attempting to use it. As Herbert Spencer might well put it, they busy themselves with the building of an insuperable barrier to their progress in criminology, by condemnation before investigation. In view of our liability to slip—even the best of us—-into the toils of the law. it behoves us to bestir ourselves to overcome official inertia and resistance to progress. Since none dare cast the first stone at the accused, let us help him back to the path of right conduct. Thus we may at once earn his gratitude, prove ourselves our brother’s keeper, and lighten our selfimposed burden of keeping him in durance vile. —Yours, etc., < MAC G. WALMSLEY, Tauranga, May 26, 1938,

XO THE EDITOB OF TEE FBE9B. Sir, —Your delightful correspondent, “No Sob Stuff,” really might have gone one better and called himself “Smile-Stuff.” How amusing is his naive assumptions (X) that “sound and fury” are tfxe same as “sound argument,” and (2) that we shall all fall into that mistake of his in reading his letter! How delicious, too, is his childlike faith in opinions instead of facts, and his artless supposition that we shall now all prefer the views of his own three interesting “witnesses” to the considered judgment of a whole special committee! That committee for many months has sat to hear evidence from a great many persons on the same subject—police, etc., among them, I do not doubt; and that committee has now declared positively against the value of corporal punishment in all Courts. So that, even if one could believe “No Sob-Stuff’s” characteristic exaggeration about English- judges, etc., having hitherto “strongly championed birch and cat”—well, they will hardly be able to continue in that course, after reading the committee’s report, will they? But “No Sob-Stuff” is very useful. He is voicing the views of a good many others who really think of “justice” as mere “retribution.” “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!” they urge—never thinking how horrified they would be if our Courts did in fact act on those (Mosaic) lines and order more noses to be broken and more teeth knocked out by the State, as “just” requittal, after evex-y drunken brawl! Reparation, yes! revenge, no! if the sentence is to be socially useful. For “Tit for Tat” as a State procedure is not only undignified but socially dangex-ous, seeing how likely it is to bi’eed “tat” for “tit” again. Judge Hawkins, e.g., never would order a flogging, on this very ground. It “turns a man into a devil,” he said; and the present results of the Treaty of Vexsailles do not altogether recommend the idea of “retributive punishment,” either, do they? The Committee on Corporal Punishment is quite emphatic on this point—“ Purely retributive punishment is npt justifiable,” they conclude, and “the sooner this principle is generally applied the better,” comments the London “Spectator."—Yours, etc., B. E. BAUGHAN. Akaroa, May 28, 1938. [Subject to the right of reply of B. E. Baughan, this correspondence is now closed.—Ed., “The Press.”}