FLOGGING AS A PUNISHMENT

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23401, 7 August 1941, Page 6

FLOGGING AS A PUNISHMENT

GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION EXPRESSED AUCKLAND CASE DISCUSSED

(P.R.) WELLINGTON, August 6. “The Government is opposed to flogging as a method of punishment, and is not convinced that it is an effective deterrent,” said the Attorney-General (the Hon. H. G. R. Mason), in reply to questions by Mr W. J. ,Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo), in the House to-day. Because of a Government decision, the Minister said, the floggings on prisoners who assaulted warders at the Mount Eden gaol had not been carried out. Every possible precautionary pleasure was being taken for the protection of warders, said Mr Mason, who added that legislation would be introduced dealing with the sub-, ject of flogging, during the present session.

Characterising it ae “interference with the judgment' of the Court,” Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago) and- several other Opposition speakers criticised the Government’s decision that the sentence of flogging would not be carried out. “I consider that the Minister’s answer is unsatisfactory,’.’ said Mr Bodkin. “He admits that the floggings have not been carried out because of the interference of the Government. Floggings are ordered by the courts only in exceptional circumstances, and this certainly was an exceptional case. Experienced judges thought fit to pass this sentence, and it is a serious thing for the Government to interfere with justice. It. should at least have regard for the laws of the land.”

The law was being tossed aside, Mr Bodkin said, and the decision of the Supreme Court was being flouted. By what training and experience did the Government place itself on a high pedestal, and say that the judiciary of the country was wrong? “The Cabinet has exceeded Its legal right, and it is gross interference with the courts of justice,” said Mr Broadfoot. “The less interference we have with the courts, the better it will be.” The sympathy of the Cabinet apparently went out to the men who had committed the crime, not to the innocent man who were victims of the assault Mr- J. A. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn) said he could not find it in his heart to disagree with the Minister. He felt that he could resist violence in hot blood; but could not administer a flogging for that violence some months afterwards. He would excuse the warder and his mates if in the heat of the moment, they had dealt savagely and brutally with the culprits; but he could not sympathise with them if they attempted to punish them later in cold blood. Unless Opposition members were prepared to carry out the sentence themselves, they should not order someone else to do it. Mr J. O’Brien (Government, Westland) said that no country had advanced where flogging was the general practice. It brutalised both the person flogged and the man who did the flogging. ’There was something wrong in the make-up of men who insisted that the sentence should be carried out. The warders are entitled to protection, if not by arms, then by law, said Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford). If some members of the Government had a little more sympathy for the warders, and less for the criminals, justice in the country would not suffer so much. The trouble was that because ot the attitude of the Government a murderer knew that nothing more could happen to him; but the thought of a flogging would act as » deterrent. In reply, Mr Mason said that while the law was as it was at present, the particular sentence could not be criticised because the case was a particularly bad one; but the proper course was to amend the legislation. The Court could not be guided by a policy tdat was not contained in the legislation.' -and for. that reason legislation would be introduced this session.