THE PRESS

Press, 20 February 1979, Page 19

THE PRESS

Retenge is a primitive ingredient in the human make-up. When an individual is struck and injured, his first thought usually is to retaliate. This impulse has perpetuated the “pay back” system and an “eye-for-an-ete attitude in other cultures and eras. In our society, the legal responsibility for retribution is removed from the individual to judges and magistrates. The need for the individual to retaliate is neutralised. Their agents, provided with all available facts related to the offence and the offender, mete out punishment. 1 heir detached state means they are more likely to be objective. If justice is simply defined as fairness to all parties, the present system is perhaps as close to the ideal as society can get. objective justice is often not shared by members of the public. Feeling threatened by rising crime rates, and particularly violence, they identify with the victim. Their idea of justice is more likely to be an emotional response—specifically, legal retaliation. Any compromise that panders to public oninion could place the Bench in an invidious position. It might then feel obliged to satisfy public pressure, perhaps in the form of legislative changes, and not impose penalties based purely on the known facts. Many members of society are not satisfied. Sentences do not go far enough, they say, to right the physical and psychological damage caused by the offender in many cases. Punishment can be said to have four basic purposes: to deter others from

committing crime; to protect society from the criminal; to rehabilitate the criminal: and to give the offender his “dues.” Rising crime rates mock deterrent sentences and more people are being bashed for no obvious reason. Attempts to rehabilitate are also a depressing failure, if recidivism rates are a true indication. Many people believe that offenders have had their chance and that judges and magistrates should now consistently impose penalties which reflect the seriousness of the crime. In the following statement. Sandy Brunt expresses concern about sentences imposed on violent offenders. He believes that maximum legal penalties are usually adequate but they are not being implemented. This discrepancy, he claims, has created contempt for the justice system shared by both the “lav abiding” public and offenders. .Mr B. J. Cameron and Mr R. L. Kerr, who are involved in the judicir processes, see the pitfalls of an emotional response. Mandatory sentence: preventive detention, and similar harsh measures have already been trie; and discarded The Minister of Justice (Mr MeLay) is responsible for a system which must be fair to those it deals with, and which satisfies the public for whom acts. He sees the need for some improvements and has already outlined changes. One of these is to place more emphasis on the victim’s plight and to extend the provision for compensation.

Bj

JENNIFER HAMILTON