FINGER PRINTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1509, 3 August 1912, Page 6

FINGER PRINTS.

PRISONS AMENDMENT BILL, BEAD A SECOND TIME. The Hon. A. L. HEEDMAN (Minister for Justice) moved the second reading of the Prisons Amendment Bill. He ■ explained that the Bill concerned the taking of finger prints of prisoners. A question or a doubt had arisen a3 to whether prison officials had tho right to tako tho finger prints of prisoners. Some time ago a prisoner in Auckland who had had his finger prints token had fen advised that the prison oflirials had no right to take them. When he rcgnined his liberty he took action against the gaol official, and recovered damages for assault

I The Bill was being intrniluroil to makb this sort of thing impossible. Tho ilill jirovitled not only for (ho taking lof the prints of accused poisons but «s ! well of those convicted of offences. "When tho Defence Aet wa= being amended, movision would be inmlo for the exception of youths charged with a breach of tho Defence Act. ilo explained that it was necessary to take the prints of accused men in order to make it possible to identify the.'prisoner by comparison with those of other prisoners.. If-a person refused to IHsrmit his prints to bo taken he would bo tried as for an aggravated prison offenco, but ho would be tried in the open Court.

Mr. G. LAUBEXSO.N" (Lyllelton) said ho proposed to ask certain que.siions of the Minister as to tho necessity for a chungo in tho treatment of our criminal population. There were very nearly 1000 locked up in gaols in Xew Zenlnnd'overy day, and tho annual cost was about .■(30.000. Ho thought it would bo worth while for the present Minister for .lustico to giro the matter some consideration, and lie trusted that the Minister would recognise his responsibility to . do something for men in the helpless plight of prisoners serving long terms of penal servitude. Judges of tho Supreme Court had little idea of what thev were sending prisoners to when sentencing them. It was found in other countries- that the moro humane tho treatment of prisoners, tho less the cost of prison administration tended to become. He did not like tho idea of taking the prints of men who happened t-o get info gaol whether they were innocent or guilty. Men of this class who objected were liable to be punished | for an aggravated prison offence. He (Mr. Laurenson) wanted to know what Rind of punishment this might mean. Suggested Amendment, Mr. J. H. Bradney (Auckland West) suggested that tho Minister should 'accept aa amendment to the effect that in tho case of an accused person who had afterwards been acquitted, all record of tho prints should be destroyed, Jlr. J. A. HANAN '(Invercargill) discussed prison reform generally and mentioned the difficulties in the'way of it. Ho hoped that tho Minister would appoint an inspector of prisons, and ho thought such a man could be procured in the Dominion.

. -Mr. JOHN PAYNE (Grey Lvnn) objected to the clauses making it legal to I take tko finger-prints of accused persons. Mr. A S. MALCOLM (Clutlia) could SCO no humiliation to an accused person m having his finger-prints taken, no urged also that by giving his finger-prints an innocent man might l)c able the more easily to establish his innocence. What Parliament had really to look to was the interests of society, which had a right to protect itself, and to take every reasonable means towards that end. Mr A. H. HIXDMARSH (Wellington south) urged that some different treatment from that to which ordinary prisoners were subjected should be meted Gut to persons imprisoned under a judgment summons. Ho also thought that persons so imprisoned should, on filing a petition 111 bankruptcy, bo liberated without formality.

Mr. L'.-M. JSITT (Christchurch North) thought the authorities should be instructed to exercise a. wide discretion in the taking of finger-prints of .accused persons, and. .that they should be instructed' not tptako them unless' they wore .likely, to prove of-service in.the detection of crime. He suggested, for instanc, that it 'would be foolish to take, the' prints" of a man accused of. knocking'another-man down.

The Present Method. Mr. G. J. ANDERSON (Mataura) said ho would like to know from the Minister whether he had anything to tell the House as to tho results of tho present method of dealing with prisoners. Manly people, including himself, doubted very much whether it' was a right method. Mr- W. 11. D. BELL (Wellington Suburbs) challenged tho remarks of Mr. Laurenson as to Judges of tho Supremo Court. , Did the honourable gentleman consider that he knew more about these questions than the Judges of the Supremo Court?

Mr. Laurenson. I do (emphatically). Mr. Bell: I am very glad to have that admission from the honourable gentleman, for I know now how much importance to attach to his opinions on questions of prison reform. He admitted that thero was something to be said for more reformative and less punitive treatment of prisoners, but thero were two classes of prisoners. There was one class of crira'nal who could never bo reformed, and another for whom reformative treatment was the only right treatment. Thero

were criminals who could bo kept from ciimc only by terror of tho gaols. Ho thought there was no good ground for the objection to the taking of tho prints of lingers of accused persons. It was said that they .would be so placed under nn-indignity, but were they not bo ; ng subjected to a greater indignity by being hold in custody? The Hon. A. L. HERDMAN, in replv, said the member for Lytteltou. who claimed to know so much about prison reform, had tho distinction of representing a district in which thero had occurred a strike of prisoners in tho gaol. Did'the member get his knowledge from his experience of that strike? He stated that the gaol administration of tho country was not such as need create alarm. Some very good work was being dono by some officers. "What was really needed was more inspection. The Bill was read a second time.

THE UNIVERSITY. DIPLOMA OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Tho Hon. JAMES ALLEN (Minister for Education) moving tho second reading of tho New Zealand University Amendment Bill, said that tho object of the measure, was to empower the University to grant diplomas in Public Health. *The time had come, he thought, when our experts in Public Health should not be brought from abroad, but trained in New Zealand. Tho training of a number of men in public health would have a very beneficial effect on the community.

Mr. T. K. SIDEY (Dunedin South) asked tho Minister what diploma meant. The University could grant degrees, and it could grant certificates of proficiency, but tho University had no siatutory authority to grant diplomas. Also, why was not authority conferred by this Bill on tho University of granting degrees in domestio science? He supported the Bill.

Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) directed further attention, to the point mentioned by Mr. Sidey. It did not appear that tho University bad power to grant diplomas, which, ho supposed, were somo kind of certificates short of being degrees. It would be an excellent thing, however, if this could bo dono in public health as in other courses of study, to meet tho caso of those who could not for any reason take an extended expensivo course of study. He thought (ho University Senate required modernising and democratis-

ing. i M T- A", S : £ MAL , c OLM (Cluthn) said he trusted that the literary tests for entrance into certain professions would be abolished. ._ The Stale was making n mistake in forcing all pupils in primary and secondary schools, and to a less decree tho students in Universities to go through the same course of (raining. Tho courses provided by the State should vary according to the rapacity of the pupil, and youths who were in no way qualified for receiving higher education should be excluded from entering sccondarv schools and universities.

The Hon. D. BUDDO (Kaiapoi) thoroughly approved- of the 'proposal contained in tlie Bill.

Mr. G. M. THOMSON tDunedin North) referred to tho "heresies" voiced by iho member for Clutha. Tho latter wnsXon wrong lines altogether. Ho sincerely hoped that this now diploma was to bo something ovor and above a medical degree.

The. Hon. JAMES ALLEN (Minister for Education) said that tho diploma which it was proposed to award under the Bill was an entirely different thing hum tho diplomas given by the affiliated colleges. The member for Dmiediu North had quite correctly ■ understood the position. Tne Bill proposed to give the Senate authority to grant a diploma in public health over and ab:ve a medical degree. The Senate already had power to grant a degree in public he'Mrh,' hut this diploma was something different. The de»r»e was given to a man who had specialised in public health through ~O Ui -c This diplonUi was In be given to tho holders of an ordiimrv medical degree, who c:n!d satisfy the .Senate that lic'hnd sufficient kjwwled.ee of public, health. Tho Bill was read a second tim°. The HoiLsa adjourned at 11.3 p.m.