Penal Reform

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27151, 22 September 1953, Page 8

Penal Reform

The annual report of the Department of Justice last year set out at some length aims and aspirations in the field of penal reform. Although this year’s report is comparatively modest, disappointment would not be justified. It was not to be expected that the national prison centre, with conveniently grouped facilities,

would yet have progressed much beyond the stage of approval “in “ principle ” by the Government, because this will be a big and expensive undertaking. The department is also still waiting for some overdue amendments to the criminal

law. These two instances of reform waiting an opportunity should not, however, distract attention from the continued progress in the department’s thinking, or from a useful increase of 39 in the number of its staff. It is not clear how the additional members of the staff are disposed. Probably, a good proportion of them are in the augmented probation service, on which the Secretary of Justice (Mr S. T. Barnett) properly places considerable value. If offenders can be dealt with satisfactorily on probation

instead of being sent to some institution, there is a big saving to the taxpayer, directly in maintenance costs and indirectly in the better chance of reforming, an offender who is not brought into contact with more hardened characters. That is not the only function of the probation service. As the report says, the most important sentence that a criminal is given is his first sentence. Undue leniency may encourage him to further crime. On the other hand, undue severity may bring contamination, bitterness, social degradation and loss of employment, which are not conducive to rehabilitation. The Bench can be helped in fixing sentences by probation service reports. It is to be regretted that all magistrates do not make full use of this service. In one city magistrates last year used nearly three times as many reports as in the previous year; but in another city the practice of consulting the probation service is steadily declining. Again, the probation service has great responsibility in planning for the release of prisoners and in their reception into society again. The report shows plainly that the department realises its opportunity and responsibility in the whole field of probation. A useful new thought in the report is the proposal to establish a detention centre for young offenders

who do not require long training in a Borstal institution and who would not be helped by short prison sentences. The idea is that a period of three months in such a centre under, strict discipline would bring suitable offenders, who are not likely to be numerous, to realisation of their conduct and its possible consequences. This has been approved by the Minister only in principle; but, as only a small institution is proposed, it should not be too difficult to make use of one of the smaller existing establishments. The Justice Department is not one of the spectacular public services; but the public has a very real interest in prison administration and its two-fold object of reducing crime by reforming offenders and of protecting society against hardened criminals. A helpful circumstance is that the department has some profitable branches, which help to carry the cost of prisons and similar services. The net result is that last

financial year the department over all its wide range showed a surplus of £58,659. Ideally, this should not matter in 4>enal reform, which is necessary for its own sake; but it must make it easier for the departmental head when he comes to justify the cost of his proposals.