MENTAL DEFECTIVES.

Evening Star, Issue 19952, 23 August 1928, Page 1

MENTAL DEFECTIVES.

TO TUE EDITOU. Sir, —Your correspondent Professor Anderson will, I tee) sure, pardon mo if 1 observe'that to more people than myself it appears that some ax least of tho misconceptions mentioned by him as obtaining in regard to the Menial Defectives Act Amendment Bill have their dwelling within his own mind. For instance, ho begins his list of objections with a dogmatic assertion that the Bill “ propqses to affix the brand ol mental deficiency ■ ■ • chioJly on the verdict of -practitioners in the lioid of insanity"; a proposal that wo cani not, on the one hand, find in the Bill lat all, and, on the other hand, have had contradicted by official assurance that the examiners necessary are to include persons trained to take intelligence tests, and also (to our minds oyen more essential) persons who have ascertained the life history of each case. Then he goes on to give the board a name which the Bill does not give it, and to say that the Bill “ brings school children, 'retarded for whatever reason for a period of two years, under the attentions of this board ” (and apparently ho has chosen tho word “attentions’’ on purpose, instead of “attention,” which has a far less sinister connotation), without adding that tho Bill makes it quite clear that such eases [are to be reported for inquiry only, and that (section 10, clause 3) “ the board shall not direct that the name of any person be entered on the register unless it is of opinion, after such inquiry, that such person is a mentally defective person, properly classifiable undet tho principal Act,” etc. This covers his remarks about dull children, too, and by tho time wo had got so far with his objections wo were beginning to fuel a bit doubtful as lo the fairmhidedness of tho objector. As to appealing, does it really require much money to write to a judge of the Supreme Court, while, as to “ undermining parental authority ” by visiting “ innocents ” at home, why would this be worse in that respect than having a truant officer call to see why mu babes have lot been sent lo nchool? h wo _ were decent parents, genuinely anxious to do all wo could for our poor little hapless one, why should we object to anyone coming to make sure audio give us perhaps further help and advice, while, if we were the casual or careless type of parent, would it not bo far better for the poor child’s sake that wo should be so visited P 1 am inclined to think that tho professor maybo does not really know how much about tho type of home to which such children often belong in New Zealand; indeed, his whole letter suggests academic rather than direct social knowledge of the problem. The '‘narrow biological control” about to risk our duo normal ami moral control, we do not seem to (inti mentioned in tho Bill; but our own experience does convince us that in New Zealand, without sumo externa! control, the normal and moral forces have small chance of having any functioning at all in many who arc mentally or morally defective. Sterilisation is a vexed question on which wo do not as yet feel qualified to give an opinion worth having; but when the professor begins to tell us what the Bill omits, may wo not venture to point out to him that it does at least give the legislative sanction without which no uon-penal “halfway houses” or farm colonics or training homes for our defectives could be established? “Renal machinery for dealing with sexual crimes ” appears to us to be a bit over-plentiful already: and the Bill would ensure that all so accused would at least have the benefit, at present denied them, of a mental examination before sentenced—most necessary in all such cases. As to costliness, 1 wonder if the professor has any idea of tho costliness of our present neglect of the _ menially and morally defective? During eight years of almost constant preoccupation with actual prison inmates, their affairs and their families, I have been appalled at the cost to the country of the crimes which, at present; wo allow so many of our defectives both to perpetrate and lo endure. Many of the sentences have boon preceded by a Supreme Court case, itself a huge expense; in some instances one such defective has cost us numbers of Supreme Court cases; added to which wo have, of course, had to maintain him or her •n prison often for years before wo let the poor thing out to fall in just the same way again. And that is only the financial side; two of our most brutal murders of late have had for victims women who would have been protected, and alive now so far as one can sec, Irad the provisions of tho Bill been at the time in operation; numbers of offences against little girls aro the result of our criminal neglect of the leehlcminded man or boy; and the far too frequent gutter falo of the feebleminded girl and woman must hknown to all who read our newspapers with any kind of first-hand knowledge. In England, whore since 1913 there have already been two Acts dealing with this hapless class, the prison population continues to fall year by year. Prison after prison is being doted, and tho Prison Commissioners attribute this satisfactory state of affairs largely to the operation of the first Act, which it is hoped the second (last year) will improve still further. That the Bill at present before Parliament is ’perfect, we do not say; wo would like to see the Board of Control differently constituted, lor one thing; but tho Government has even inv’ted suggestions, and why should not such men as the professor give it a few that aro constructive? I am certain ho could, if ho would, allow philosophy to alter, dare I say, the tunc and temper of his suggestions a little. New Zealand wants all the help it can get in this problem; but simply to sit still and “let things rip” ns they have boon “ripping” far too long already, will got us nowhere, except into trouble deeper every year.— l am, etc.,

B. E. Bavguax Christchurch. August 22.