CRIMINAL PROBLEM.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 12 September 1924, Page 7

CRIMINAL PROBLEM.

QUESTION OF GLASSIFICATION

TRAINED PSYCHOLOGISTS

REQUIRED.

An. interesting dissertation on the subject of the separation of the “criminal Jlnsane’i’ from! th]B /‘crimHnal” class is contained in the annual report of the Controller-General of Prisons (Mr. C. E. Matthews). “Useful work and responsibility engender self-respect, and under our present system both the intelligence and self-reliance of the individual prisoner are given an opportunity to develop what was almost entirely wanting under former conditions,” says the report. “Evening school and classes of various descriptions provide further for the mental improvement of the educable. We have, however, arrived at a stage where further advance is difficult jwithouti isomie more eoientifiio method of differentiating between individuals. In other words, in order to keep pace with the times we require something better than mass treatment. After close observation of individual cases, and taking into consideration the number of motiveless crimes that are committed and recommitted, I have come to the conclusion that many of those who' offend against the laws, sometimes repeatedly, are not strictly responsible for their acts: in other words, they really belong' to the class of the ‘criminal insane.’ “In view of this conclusion it- becomes obvious that a means should be provided by which an adequate and proper- classification or separation could be made between the real criminal or calculated offender against the law and the mentally irresponsible. Mr. L. Forbes Winslow, M. 8.. LL.D. (Cantab.), D.C.L. (Oxon.), etc., in his recent work. ‘The Insanity of Passion and Crime.’ has stated. ‘‘The fine line that separates in sanity from reason is still finer when drawn out between crime and' insanity’ ; and later in the same chapter, ‘Criminal insanity turns upon the commission of crime by one who can be proved to be not merely non compos mentis, but, moreover, to have a diseased brain, or one whose nervous system has incapacitated its owner from the pow-er of selfcontrol. But not only should this amount of cerebral disease be proved as existing at the time of the perpetration of the deed, be it what it may. but as also existing some time previous to its perpetration. It is not probable that direful disease of this kind should begin to break out all of a. sudden. It may have been overlooked or disregarded, or its existence might have been recognised and foreseen. but its growth and progress must, have betrayed itself occasionally by obvious signs beforehand, possibly unrecognised. Only let it once be proved that no such disease had ever at any time declared itself, and it then follows, as a matter of course, that the culprit is not a madman, but inost assuredly a criminal. After the existence of cerebral disease, the next plea is that of ignorance. But this plea is soon dismissed. No one ought to be allowed to be so ignorant as to be excused from the penalties of his crime on that account. If he is, then those with whom he is associated, connected, or concerned, or by whom he is supported and maintained, must be made responsible for his good behaviour. But this extreme ignorance at the-present day is an absurdity. It cannot be imagined as possible; it ought- not to be allowed, if true; and Tfc should not be accepted as an excuse for crime, if it exists. The question then turns upon criminal insanity, the helpless and hopeless result disease of the brain.’ To arrive at any useful classification or separation of the responsible criminal from the irresponsible offender or the ‘criminal insane’ we require the services of highlv trained and experienced psychologists and psychiatrists. Scientific men of this class should he available not. only to examine and classify a large number of prisoners -already serving sentences, but also to make a careful examination of offenders before sentence is passed by the courts. This applies particularly, but by no means entirely se*™ l offenders, whose cases cause the judges much perplexity It is not . the patently feeble-minded offender, who presents the problem either W+Vif ° r after ser *tence, but. the border-line case in which the reason for the offence, which is'often motiveless, or is repeated many times requires explanation. ’ Although the necessity for a psychological examination ‘in many cases is here stressed in order that a wasoliable degree of justice may be done, T do not wish to convey the foinid’ trv i mGU Wh ° se offe "<*s are und to be due to some mental ab *T"a! Hbe r rh"™ t m ( ! ack S^ uld * fteir temporary or permaS'* aei/iS gation is probably as urgent or even pUssible r °t P o erl ‘ Y di fr nosed iKmlght^S ca"T ’"CM can be provided for under the ordin a»7 prison routine. Ifirtle can ha' d ?"f’ however, until or unless we are gnen the means to effect the separa yV 0r + p ClaSSlfioation 1 rSerid t) by the appointment of men with X T,rs „ s „ c r ifl v rai " in * t L th LZ\ s ami tr S nCd the ta s the department entrusted P ? ? + l. VO* chirdre o n.” feeble " minded and "deficient