Evening Post. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1926. THE DETERRENT EFFECT

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 124, 22 November 1926, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1926. THE DETERRENT EFFECT

'"It is a custom of our law," says Montaigne, "to condemn some for the "warning of others. .... He who is hanged is not corrected, but others by him." What w«s the custom of the French law in the sixteenth century is the custom of our own law in'the twentieth, and the example is valuable as illustrating an object of punishment which is ignored or condemned by those who consider thpt its principal object should be the good of the criminal. Primitive society did not worry about the good of the criminal, but in complete disregard of this interests sought by retribution and deterrence, originally left, as in the case of the Maori "utu," to private initiative, to protect its own." A recognition of both these objects of punishment is implied in the declaration of the Jew* ish lawgiver: And tmSse which remain shall hear and foar, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee. And thine eye shall not pity. Though modern ideas of pity and justice have abolished the crude application which follows, "life shall go for. life, eye for eye, tooth for 4 tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot," the principles still stahd, and the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" quotes the passage to demonstrate their antiquity. But it is upon Greek authority that Montaigne relies in support of his cKctum. Referring in the "Laws" to the punishment of injuries arising from theft or violence Plato says:— Besides the compensation ,of the wrong, let a man pay a further-penalty for the chastisement of his offence. . . . Not that he is punished because ho did wrong, for that which is don,e can never be undone, but in order that in future times, he and those who see him corrected may utterly hate injustice, or at any rate abate much of their ovildoing. In the reference to the change produced in the criminal himself, the wise and humane Greek who has left an indelible mark upon Christian theology all the way from St. John to Dean Inge may seem to have anticipated Christian practice in its re- j cent attitude to the criminal. The . inference is made a certainty by a subsequent passage.

The.bad man, says Plato, ought always to be punished, in the hope that he. may be improved, but not the unfortunate; for there is no use in that According to a procedure with which the treatment of Holy Writ has iriade us all perfectly familiar, Plato is quoted on both sides of the controversy, but, in view of the first passages cited, Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise is surely on safe ground when he says thaj: "when Plato said that the object of punishment is to 'make an offender good' he did not intentionally underestimate the 'retributory' theory of punishment." Of greater ' practical importance, however,, is Sir Evelyn's own opinion on the relative importance of the retri« butory, the deterrent, and the reformatory $ objects of punishment, for he is one of the greatest living authorities on the subject. That opinion js conveniently epitomised in the Report for 1913 of the Prison Commissioners for England and Wales of whom he was then chairman:—;

If by "retributory" is meant not the vulgar and exploded instinct of vengeance or personal revenge, but the determination of the human consciousness that the system of rights shall be maintained, and that he who offends against it shall be punished, and that the punishment shall be of such a nature as to deter him and others from anti-social acts: if by "reformatory" is meant the accepted iixiom of modern penology that a prisoner has reversionary/rigits of humanity, and that these must be rosp'octed cftiisjstcntly . with _ the due' execution of the law; and that no effort must be spared to restore that man to society as a better and a wiser man and a good citizen; any inversion of .these-factors of punishment would be fatal. But ampng loose thinkers and loose writers the impressioli seems to be gaining ground that this historic order of the factors of punishment should bo inverted, and that the object .of punishment shall be altogether reformatory, as 'little as possible deterrent, and not at all retributory.

Nobody would dream of advocating in these days a return ,to the brutal,.- cruel, stupid, and wasteful methods of the past, which were equally unjust and injurious to. the criminal and to the community hecause they -degraded him in hody, mind, and soul, and made his return to good citizenship impossible. The practical question now is how far the endeavour to make him a good citizen can be taken without making the prison a more comfortable and cheerful place than the homes of thousands of honest citizens and thus doing them an intolerable injustice and substituting for the deterring effect of prison life attraction and encouragement. It is- a question regarding which it is very easy for the enthusiasts on either side to dogmatise, but, in the absence of anything like a hard-and-fast line the plain man finds it very hard to make up his mind. The operation of the new spirit .was illustrated by the last report of the English Prisons Commission, of which the outstanding

points were summarised in a cablegram dated the 12th March, as follows: — The prison regime has boon transformed through tho introduction of more humane .treatment, interesting work, helpful training, attractive concerts and lectures, and leas rigid rules permitting conversation. Already there are good results. It is noteworthy that gaolbirds are better educated than formerly, but softer and more inclined to whine. The last sentence suggests something in the nature of a set-off to the "good results" previously mentioned, but that the general effect is good is clearly the' opinion of the Prison Commissioners. . For awful examples of the mischief that an unbalanced humanitarianism may do in this matter the anti-re-form die-hard may turn to the United States. One of the causes of American predominance in crime as diagnosed by Mr. Justice Selah B. Strong, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in the "Saturday Evening Post" (19th December, 1925), is leniency. The real cause of crime to-day is leniency. Prison reformers—uplifters —have" done much toward increasing crime. Sanitary conditions, plain food and hard labour should bo the prison life of the criminal. As against this, we find model prisons, with assembly halls for presenting plays and movies; athletic grounds with equipment for all sorts of games. The best shows are taken to Sing Sing. The best; movie feels are displayed there. They have their baseball games every week, weather permitting, with local and professional teams. Their food is brought in upon arrangement from outside. They are permitted to leave the gaol and attend funerals or upon other excuses. With the prison reformers' slogan of "Sunshine in Every Cell," something that even the rich cannot always secure in the modern apartment, where will it end? ..... If a sin'e'ere effort were made to stamp out crime, there should be first a speedy trial, without delays; to be followed by fixed sentences by the trial court when the party is found guilty. Twenty years should mean 'twenty years. The maximum-and-minimum sentence law should be abolished, as should the Parolo Boards. No time off should be given for any cause whatsoever, ■ . '

In America Mr. Justice Strong considers that "twenty years should mean twenty years," and there is a very strong opinion in New Zealand that three years should mean, if not three years, at any rate' something more than eight months, and something more than the sentence of one year passed at the' same time upon a criminal of a much milder type. What becomes of the retributive theory of punishment if the Baume case is allowed to stand as a binding precedent? What evidence was there that there had been any reformation at all? What deterrent effect will this preferential treatment of an educated criminal with money at command exercise upon others possessed of the same advantages? Is a prisoner's readiness and ability to leave the country a sufficient reason for letting him go? All these questions are being asked, and, as the Prisons Board cannot answer them, it is for the Government who followed its advice to do so without delay.