CRIME & PUNISHMENT

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 295, 10 September 1941, Page 6

CRIME & PUNISHMENT

Proposed Legislation WARNING BY EX-SUPREME COURT JUDGE (To the Editor.) Sir, —A Bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives abolishing both capital punishment for murder and the infliction of corporal punishment for any offence. I understand that this was a plank of the platform of the Labour Party and that consequently it will be treated as a policy measure and be backed by the full weight of the votes of that party in the House. It seems useless in those circumstances to make any protest. However, I feel that having had more than 17 years’ experience’on the Supreme Court Bench, during which time I also occupied for a period of eight years the position of President of the Prisons Board, my opinion may be some value; in any case I think it is my duty to point out the danger which will arise from the proposed legislation. The only thing that can be said in favour of it is that it is a better method of dealing with the question than that which has been adopted, namely, procuring the exercise of His Majesty’s prerogative of mercy in one of the worst cases of murder and rape that has ever happened in New Zealand, and by the same method in the prisons case overriding the decision of the Court of Appeal upon the only issue before it, namely the sentence. In neither case were there any mitigating circumstances. If the warder in the prisons case had died from his injuries presumably his assailants would have escaped the' gallows. Whether that would have been so or not, the position is clear : as to the future. Among the prisoners' confined' in Mount Eden Jail are the worst in New Zealand, including more than one murderer serving a life sentence. If the proposed legislation passes it will constitute a licence to any murderer to maim cr murder any warder that displeases him, with the knowledge that the limit of any penalty that can be imposed is a sentence of life imprisonment which will be served concurrently with the life sentence he is already serving. With all respect it is farcical if it were,not so serious. If the only reason for introducing this legislation is to comply with pronouncements madein seeking the votes of electors there appears to me to be a perfectly good explanation for change of mind, namely, that; they were made when the party was without experience, and that with experience it'Was now found that in the interests of the community such legislation would be a mistake. The Government already 1 has had to jettison some of its planks for the reason, I suggest, that experience has shown their impracticability. No one can blame it for that. But I understand that that is not the only reason; that in fact the present proposed legislation is thought to be beneficial and necessary. In view of the fact that the Bill in some form will probably go through I have endeavoured to secure a modification in order to assist in the protection of young children from sexual offenders. For that purpose I wrote to my friend the Attorney-Gen-eral suggesting that the prohibition of a sentence of corporal punishment should not apply to such cases. I regret to say that he cannot see his way to comply with’my suggestion, and has referred me to a report in England by a Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment This committee reports against corporal punishment being inflicted in any cases except for assaults on warders in jails. The report does not specifically refer to cases of sexual assaults on youug children, but it would appear that the only exception is as stated. A Bill was introduced into the House of Commons to give effect to the report, but was not proceeded with, probably due to the fact that war broke out and a highly-controversial question such as this was postponed. It might be suggested that the same course should be adopted here. The report is lengthy. The evidence upon which it is basea is not set out, but the general effect can be gathered from the comments. A main issue was the question as to whether corporal punishment was a deterrent. It is stated in the report: “We do not, of course, deny that it has some deterrent effect. All forms or punishment have some deterrent influence, and it is arguable that the more severe the punishment the greatdr the deterrent effect. This alone, however, would not be a sufficient ground for retaining the existing powers of corporal punishment.” . . It is considered that the point is whether imprisonment would not be a sufficient deterrent. The opinion of the judges of the King’s Bench Division was sought. A memorandum was furnished by the Lord Chief Justice which showed “that the judges of the King’s Bench Division consider that corporal punishment operates as a useful deterrent and are of opinion that it is desirable to retain the existing powers to impose sentence of corporal punishment for”—(then follows a list of offences). The memorandum went on to suggest further offences for which corporal punishment might -be imposed if as a matter of policy it was desirable to extend the existing powers. My own opinion is that it is necessary to retain the power to impose corporal punishment as a deterrent. Some years ago in Auckland there was a wave of sexual assaults on youug children. A sentence of flogging was imposed in one case and I was assured at the-time by a responsible police officer that it had a marked afteet hi checking the commission of those offences. I wish to emphasize the fact that this class of offence is generally premeditated; it is committed by the type of man who deliberately frequents children’s playgrounds in the public parks, or hangs about the streets with the intention of inducing youug children by the offer of pennies or sweets to accompany him to isolated places where the offence is committed. This type of man is particularly dangerous to the children of people of small means whose only playground is the public park or the street. If flogging for sexual interference with young children is abolished the fact will soon become known and the principal deterrent to the pervert will be removed.

With all respect I do not think that the Members of the House, with the possible exception of the lady members, are sufficiently experienced to judge this question fairly, and I suggest that the views of members of some of the women’s societies for the protection of women and children and similar women’s societies should be given the opportunity of giving their views on the matter. If the imposition of flogging on an offender deters only one intending offender and thereby one child escapes surely such a possibility overrides any consideration based on theory. —I am, etc., J. H. REED.

Wellington, _ September 9, 1941-