The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1926. THE PRISONS BOARD’S DEFENCE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 75, 22 December 1926, Page 10

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1926. THE PRISONS BOARD’S DEFENCE

Though somewhat belated, the reply of the Prisons Board to the attacks made on it and the Government over the release of certain prisoners or detainees before the expiry oi their full term of detention will be generally welcomed. The original complaint arose out of what became known as the Baume case. Charges were made by the Rev. Howard Elliott alleging preferential treatment to Baume, who had been sentenced to detention in a Borstal Institution for a period not exceeding three years. These charges were investigated by Mr. Riddell. 5.M... and in the absence of Mr. Elliott, who objected to .the tribunal and declined to appear before it, the prison officials concerned were exonerated. The more serious aspect of the charges, however, related to the action of the Prisons Board in releasing Baume. a prisoner named Mackay (sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for attempted murder), and a youth'named Baker (committed for indecent assault upon girls). The inference underlying the public discussion of the action of the Prisons Board was that the persons released had received special consideration because of their social standing or because of the exercise of outside influence, which could not have been possiblein the case of persons in a more humble station of life. The report of the Prisons Board oil the circumstances leading up to the release of the three offenders in question is of value and interest not merely for the justification it seeks to offer for the course taken in the particular cases under review, but also for the information it supplies to the public concerning the general policy pursued in regard to reformative methods in our prison administration.

It must be plain that in pursuance of a humanitarian policy, which aims at the rehabilitation of the offender without undue risk to the community, the Prisons Board is called on to act with great care and discretion. It is undertaking a serious responsibility when it lets loose a prisoner before he has fully expiated his offence: and it is quite obvious that there are bound to be differences of opinion in individual cases as to the wisdom of following a course which appears to lighten a just penalty imposed by the Courts of Justice. In the cases under review, the’ Prisons Board has shown that whatever may be the view held as to the wisdom of its action it has acted only after full and careful consideration of the possible effects of its leniency. That its inclination has been to strain its prerogative of mercy in favour of the three persons concerned seems clear. But it seems equally clear that, rightly or wrongly, this has been the policy consistently pursued by the board. The real test, therefore, of the board's policy must be the results attained over a period of years, and in this respect the figures quoted, though they relate only to Borstal institutions, are very striking. The fact that only 3.6 per cent, of the total number released on the board's recommendation have again offended 'and appeared before the Courts indicates that the board in the past has exercised a wise discretion.

While the board is entitled to this credit, we believe that a public service has been rendered by the publicity given to the cases now under discussion. The impression is abroad that i leniency at times has been carried to excess. The free expression of views on the subject during the past few weeks should have a wholesome and helpful influence on those in authority in shaping future policy.