Stifle crime at birth — Judge

Press, 29 May 1982, Page 24

Stifle crime at birth — Judge

PA Wellington To stifle crime at its birth it was necessary to involve the community to a. greater extent, said the Chief District Court Judge, Judge Sullivan. “It is imperative that purely as a matter of social defence we must explore additional methods to reduce and prevent offending,” he told the annual dinner of the Canterbury Justices of the Peace Association. 'lf we are to stifle crime at its birth, I believe it is necessary to involve the community to a greater extent because it is from the community that the offenders come and it is to the community they must return," he said. Judge Sullivan was a member of the Penal Policy Review Committee, which brought forward recommendations on how to deal with offenders. The report said that as a matter of public policy imprisonment should be restricted to those offenders who needed to be neutralised in the interests of public safety and for the protection of society — banished from society but only banished for a time. Statistics showed the apparent ineffectiveness of prisons in reducing crime in that 47 per cent of offenders returned to prison. The failure of individuals who were returned to the community might well be a consequence of their rejection by society, or the inability of the- penal system to have employed adequate rehabilitation methods, either during the period in prison or immediately after release. The need for a broad range of supporting aftercare service was apparent, as was the need for greater community involvement in easing the reintegration of the offender into the life of the community. The committee proposed a programme called Thoroughcare, and said that there would be three phases of care for persons sent to prison. The first related to services provided at court. There was a great role here for welfare workers to help in dealing with the immediate social, economic, and emotional problems of the offender and his family in a crisis situation. Help at that stage might save the relationship between the parties, and provide the offender with the aim of his release to look forward to. The second phase was the term of the sentence and included the provision of educational and trade training premises especially for young offenders. Training should be provided from either inside or outside the prison walls so

that trainees could cary on 1 after release. The important factor was that while in prison, the offender should make a close contact with the Probation Service. It was ' well documented

that the sooner contact was made with the probation officer, there was less likelihood of a further offence. The third phase was the preparation for release and the period after release. The committee said that the present Probation Service would acquire a greater role in the criminal justice system by its work- at this stage as it was an important time when the offender was readjusting to society.

“It is a crucial period, and if this can be attacked purposefully, it would yield profits in less re-offending,” the report said. The Penal Policy Review Committee said that in the “Thoroughcare” programme the probation officer would be the linch-pin of the whole programme and would acquire the most powerful role in the whole criminal justice system.