JUVENILE CRIME

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25177, 7 May 1947, Page 6

JUVENILE CRIME

DECREASE NOTED IN CHRISTCHURCH MAGISTRATE DISCUSSES CHILDREN’S COURT "There is a very widespread and considerable Impression that there is a rising tide in child delinquency. That is not the case. The figures show that in Christchurch and most parts of New Zealand there has been a steady diminution in child delinquency In the last few years,” said Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M.. who presides over the Children's Court in Christchurch, in an interview with “The Press'* yesterday. “In the year ending March 31 1947, only 213 cases were brought against children in Christchurch, as against 250, 281, and 305 in the three Srevious years, and included in these gures are the cases of children dealt vHth for reasons other than' delta- > quency. For instance, they may be indigent or living in a detrimental environment.

“The impression that child delta, quency is increasing may be created partly by the fact that certain criminal acts to-day tend to seem moot spectacular and damaging; and there is the natural tendency of older people to Imagine that things are going from bad to worse. I am not able to say what the position is regarding the older age groups, nor do I think there is any material available on which we can form a conclusion that adolescent crime is increasing.” The causes of the decrease in child delinquency were probably several, Mr Ferner said. Very efficient preventive work was being done by the trained officers of the Child Welfare Department. Efforts were made to see that children under supervision orders did not relapse into anti-social conduct; prompter and more efficient detection of incipient crime had a bearing on the matter; the Improvement ta the economic circumstances of families was also a factor. The improvement, however, gave no grounds for comSlacency, and improved methods ei ealing with the problem were always to be sought. "Improved Approach" "Here* in Christchurch we have endeavoured to provide an Improved approach to the problem,” Mr Ferner said. "The Children's Courts, as conducted in Christchurch, are presided over by myself, and two excellent and experienced associates in Mrs T. Green and Mr W. C. Colee. These honorary officers give unsparingly of their time and have the status ot honorary justices while sitting at the Court. Wherk a charge is denied and a defence entered, the Children’s Court, of necessity, must adopt the usual legal pro. cedures, and the issue of guilt or innocence is tried in the usual way. But in the vast majority of cases the work of the Court is not so much to punish the guilty offender as to inquire into the circumstances which tended to bring the child under police notice. The child’s condition, activities, and tendencies are closely investigated, and reported upon, and the object of the Court Is, if possible, to remove or at least alleviate the factors which have brought the child under notice. In this work the Court must acknowledge the very generous assistance given by social workers and solicitors, who readily collaborate with this approach to the problem, and who are often of the greatest assistance.” Psychological Examination

For the last two years the Court had had the expert psychological assistance of the Psychology Division of the Christchurch Vocational Guidance centre, Mr Ferner said. The Court had found it advantageous with certain types of offenders, and particu. larly repeaters, to refer the child to Dr. Ralph Winterbourn, of the division, for examination and a report The reports had proved most informative and useful, and in their light the Court was able to see the child, and its problems, with greater clarity. It had information as to the child’s intelligence, its special abilities, both mental and physical, its manual desterity, and other details. The chitfi • temperament and interests were in. vestigated, and often an affirmative recommendation was made on constructive lines. As an example, a child apprenticed to a trade, on finding the work Incompatible, often became frustrated, and subsequently broke out in some direction. Psychological examination disclosed that frustration made known the child’s tendencies and abilities, and pointed the way to a more satisfying and satisfactory occupation, upon adopting which child ceased to be anti-social. Rapeaters who had been given psychological aid had not been seen in the Court again. Case histories were being kept, and it was hoped ultimately that some conclusions about the different approaches used could be reached, but it would take some time before any deductions could be made. The Court was open "to social workers, investigators, and trained observers, and often official observers were present.

Accommodation at Court “The accommodation we have at present is most inadequate for the class of work we are trying to carry out," Mr Ferner said. “What we really need is a small room for the Court, a waiting-room for parents of children whose cases are under consideration, accommodation for welfare officers and prosecutors, and a general ante-room and waiting-room. Accommodation is, of course, very difficult everywhere at present.” Describing the powers given the Court in dealing with children, Mr Ferner said that offenders could be admonished in trivial cases, or they might be placed under supervision for a period, subject to conditions which often included directions as to the child’s conduct and occupation, and might also include provision for institutional training. Children could ba committed to the care of the superintendent of the Child Welfare Department, who then became their legal custodian until they reached 21 years of age, being responsible for their educational training and nurture. Indigent children were often committed to the care of the superintendent, and he, in his turn, and through his officers, found places in various families for them. “Not a Miniature Adult” Child welfare in New Zealand was conducted under the Child Welfare Act, 1924, Mr Ferner said. The intention of the act was to remove children from the rigours of the criminal and penal laws of the country, and therefore the primary consideration of the Courts was not so much punishment as the ultimate welfare of the child. The Court had exclusive discretion on all cases other than murder, with exceptional immunities appropriate to juvenile offenders. The establishment of the Court was a juridical realisation that the child was not a miniature adult. “If anti-social tendencies are dealt with at an early age, a harvest of crime in later years will probably be averted,” Mr Ferner said. “A primary cause of juvenile delinquency is the divided home. Children react very sharply to an unsatisfactory home background. We see repeated examples of this. It would not be incorrect to say that a high proportion of our cases come from homes where there is, or has been, trouble between the parents.” When a child reached its seventeenth birthday it ceased to become • child, but any Magistrate or Supreme Court could order a child who was not 18 at the time of its appearance in Court to be referred to the Children’s Court. In every case the Child Welfare Department had to make a report on the child before the child appeared in Court The child was never charged in technical terms; the charge was explained simply. No special formality was observed, but a procedure to suit the occasion was adopted. However, strictly legal procedure was observed when, as happened on rare occasions, a plea of not guilty was made.