REFORMATIVE DETENTION.

Evening Star, Issue 21822, 11 September 1934, Page 8

REFORMATIVE DETENTION.

The Controller-General of Prisons is to be thanked for giving, in his latest report, in reply to earnest requests, an explanation of the difference between reformative detention and hard labour. Many prisoners and more members of the public, including prison reformers and even some magistrates, seem to have been under a good deal of misconception in this matter. Unable to discern any difference in the actual gaol treatment, critics are apt to say that there is no such thing as .reformative detention. The prisoner declares his particular grievance when he says that it is only an excuse for giving longer sentences. What the Con-troller-General says is that there is no such thing as hard labour in the traditional sense of the term. The prisons have been beatified as compared with the past. We have not reached the point when A feather bed bad every man, Felt slippers and a warming pan, but we have approached toward' l ? it.

Prison life lias' been made so relatively comfortable that prisoners can learn to enjoy it—or at least not to mind it—for short spells at a time, and so its deterrent influence and its value as a punishment can be lost. The public tends to look upon a man selected for- reformative detention as one who gives signs of being specially susceptible to reformation if only he is treated the right way. The official theory, as we understand it from the latest explanation, works in a different way. The man for whom reformative detention was created is the man thought to require a longer sentence, if gaol is to have any good effect on him, than a moderate hard labour term. A short sentence might meet all the needs of his latest misdemeanour, but he would probably come back again. The whole conduct, character, and associations of the man are considered. Though his sentence may be capable of proving longer than he would receive otherwise he is not given up entirely. It is recognised that consideration may, at any time, especially if he is helped by authorities, “ whip the offending Adam out of hum,” and if that happens he can be released by the Prisons Board. He is, in a manner, specially commended to their oversight, and they can release him at any time if his conduct appears to warrant it, whereas a hard labour sentence cannot be reviewed until half of it has been served. Seventy-five per cent, of such prisoners who have been released before expiry of their terms have justified the faith shown in them. The case for reformative detention is that it provides a flexible system as distinct from a rigid one. The offender, more than the nature of the offence, is considered. Probably, in the infinite variety of cases, it is applied on more considerations than are here set out. But that there is anything very distinctive in the actual prison treatment is not shown by the official explanation. “ Reformation,” it is laid down, “ is not a thing that can be brought about by any definite system or routine.” The means must be as various as the natures to be dealt with. If that indicates that there are no particular means an advantage must he held to rest with the Borstal institutions, which are fov younger offenders. It is admitted that, owing to lack of other accommodation, hard labour and reformative detention prisoners can be mixed together; but that is not done, it is claimed, without discretion. The men of the second class have a greater chance of going to prison farms or camps, where their chance of reformation may be reckoned greater than between the walls of a gaol. The majority of them serve their sentences in the open where that course is compatible with public safety.