The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1908. THE PRISONS REPORT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 283, 24 August 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1908. THE PRISONS REPORT.

On its statistical side the report of the Inspector of Prisons does not sufficiently differ from his earlier reports to call for much comment. Its outstanding feature is the regrettable fact that the normal gaol population is almost 1000, while the prisoners received during the year in all the gaols number little short of 6000.' In a country so favoured as New Zealand these figuies are regrettably large. Of the prisoners annually received in the gaols, however, it appears that about three-fourths are persons who have previously served terms of imprisonment." But this is really subject for fresh regret. In these circumstances it was only proper that Mr. Laurenson should have initiated a debate upon the methods of tho Department. -It is unnecessary here to go again into the much-discussed topic of scientific prison-treatment. It is sufficient to say that the New Zealand prisons system, in spite of the tree-planting camps, follows closely the old unintelligent lines from which other countries are departing as quickly and as widely as caution will permit." Tho worst of it is that Mr. M'Gowan seems to havo .little inclination to change the existing condition of things. The other day in Auckland, discussing the tree-planting camps, he stuck sturdily to his guns in defence of the notoriously careless selection of the prisoners. He also declared—for tho astonishment of criminologists everywhere—that he has examined the Borstal system, and has concluded that it should not bo introduced here. He gave a hint of only one reason against its introduction—that under it prison-made goods would compete with the products of free men. This is not much of a reason, in any case, but has Mr. M'Gowan forgotten the Prime Minister's proposal to establisii market gardens in connection with our prisons'! In the House on Friday night lie wound up the discussion with a characteristic complaint that " those who had advocated reform had given no indication upon what lines reform could go." Me. M'Gowan may be a very " safe " mail, but a Minister should be something better than a mere sentry guarding his Departments jigainst the intrusion of ideas. Oile would imagine from his retort to Mr. Laurenson and other friends of intelligent prison administration that he has no occasion to fortify himself with a etudj£ of modern writers on criminology,

that he must tako no account, indeed, of anything save tho suggestions made by members on tho floor of the House. We are afraid that the friends of prison reform havo no greater obstacle before them than tho Minister's hostility to modern ideas. Clearly, they must peg away unceasingly if they hope to achieve anything.