The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1956. Criticism from the Bench

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27912, 8 March 1956, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1956. Criticism from the Bench

6 Mr S. S. Preston, the Magistrate at 7 Wanganui, seems to have misunderB stood the intention of the new penal 3 system, particularly the section that ) takes the duration of reformative J detention out of the hands of ? magistrates and puts the responsij bility on the Parole Board of t deciding when a prisoner should be t released. Before the law was j altered, Mr Preston said, he could > have sentenced a prisoner to one, ? two, or three years’ detention at the j Court’s discretion. Now he had no > discretion, because the term had to J be three years, leaving the date of ? an earlier release to the Parole j Board. On the face of it, Mr Preston } has some cause for complaint, but , only if reformative detention is to .be regarded as a punishment. In t fact, the whole object of this par- • ticular amendment was to make reformative detention just what it was called. A magistrate sentencing 1 a prisoner cannot possibly foretell how long the process of reformation 1 will take in circumstances over which he has no control. He may be able to form a reasonable idea of the prisoner’s willingness to reform, but he cannot have any knowledge of the later influence of reformatory staff and other persons, including fellow prisoners, on the man he is sentencing. The Parole Board, with its continuing observation of the offender’s progress, is much more capable of putting a correct term to the process of reformation. As for the deterrent effect of reformative detention, so far as it is intended to be deterrent, it is surely greater when offenders know that the Court cannot give them a short term subject to no increase however unco-operative they may be in a reformatory. The provision does not, as Mr Preston complained, reduce the Court to a rubber stamp. The magistrate is still left with the fundamental decision whether reformative treatment is appropriate to the particular case or whether some other sentence should be imposed. Mr Preston was on sounder ground when he said he was worried that one man should be at once head . of the police force, Secretary of Justice, Controller of Prisons, and a 1 member of the Parole Board. The sooner this situation can be ended the better. It should, however, be recognised that it is only the byproduct of a Government decision that has turned out very well. The Secretary of Justice (Mr S. T. Barnett) was put in charge of the police force to meet a special situation. He has been notably J successful in raising the morale. * and presumably the efficiency, of < the force during the few months he J has been its head. The public can see for itself by the restoration of J something like the normal number 1 of policemen on beat duty that the I force has been made sufficiently * attractive to stimulate recruiting. It c is comforting, too, to know that t streets are better patrolled than they ; had been for a long time. Mr 1 Barnett has also done well as Controller of Prisons. Delays in c giving effect to his programme of ) reform cannot be blamed on his lack i of enthusiasm or initiative, but on i circumstances outside his control. L Possibly Mr Barnett’s special r abilities are still needed in all his | multiplicity of offices, but that does •• not mean that the arrangement is v ideal. It should last no longer than necessary, and should not be taken s as a precedent to follow.