PRISON BOARD'S POLICY.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 4 January 1927, Page 6

PRISON BOARD'S POLICY.

AN INTERESTING STATEMENT,

WHY CRIMINALS WERE RELEASED

It is proposed in this report to deal seriatim with —(a) The constitution and functions of the Prisons Board as defined by statute; (b) the method of precedure adopted by the Board in determining- cases; (c) the results of the Board’s operations; and (d) detailed faqts of the individual cases specially referred to. With regard to this last item, while respectfully submitting that the Board does not admit that it Is constitutional for such a report to be asked for, and while recognizing the grave objections and injustice that might arise from the publication of details of specific cases, it was decided by the unanimous decision of the full Board, that, in order to allay the widespread public disquietude in consequence of certain ill-informed criticism in respect of the particular cases referred to, a detailed report on the facts that influenced the Board in recommending the releases in question should be furnished. Constitution and Functions. The Prisons Board was constituted under the Crimes Amendment Act. 1910, section 9 of which prescribes th;.c the Board shall consist of not less than three nor more than seven members .one of whom shall be a Judge of the Supreme Court, and exofficio President. The purpose for which the Board was constituted is clearly defined by the statutes under which It operates, namely, to consider: (a) The fitness for conditional release or discharge of habitual criminals and habitual offenders (l.e„ persistent offenders who are ordered a modified form of indeterminate sentence under the Habitual Criminals and Offenders Act 1906): and (b) The cases of prisoners under a sentence of reformative detention prescribed by section 3 of of the Crimes Amendment Act. 1910.

The 1910 Amendment Act provides for statutory recognition of a- system of individualisation of punishment. Section 3 provides that the Court shall take into consideration the conduct, character, and medical condition of the offender and the special circumstances of each. The Crimes Amendment Act of 1910 marked the displacement of a system of purely retributive justice and provided for a method under which the reformative element should be more stressed, without losing sight of the deterrent effect, but at the sa.me time providing that due regard should be paid to the interests of society without altogether subordinating those of the individual offender.

That the measure was primarily preventive as distinct from the purely punitive idea is clearly shown by the statutory provisions for the release or discharge of offenders. Section 12 provides that it shall be the duty of the Prisons Board to make inquiry from time to time whether there is reasonable cause for belief that any habitual, or prisoner, undergoing sentence of reformative detention is sufficiently, reformed to b e released on probation, or discharged. orwhether there are any other sufficient grounds for releasing or discharging him; and in making'any recommendation for release or discharge, the Board is to have regard to the safety of the public or of any individual or class of persons, and to the welfare of the person whom it is proposed to release or discharge on probation. There is thus an implied understanding that the term of sentence ordered by the Court is the maximum only. Judges frequently indicate such fact to offenders when passing sentence. and state that the actual term of imprisonment will depend on the prisoner’s behaviour. This principle has been definitely laid down by tre Court of Appeal in the following terms:—

“When a sentence of reformadetention io imposed, it is “not contemplated that the pri“foner will be detained for the “whole term. That term is fixed “merely as a maximum period “for which he may be detained, “it being expected that, before “the expiration of the term, ho “will have been found deserving “of release either qualified or “absolute.” Adequate Safeguards in the event of an offender failing to justify the consideration extended to him are nrovided in section 13, which prescribes for release subject to such conditions as to subsequent goo T conduct, employment, location, ere 1 as may be imposed in a probationary license, which may be cancelled at any time and thereupon the person so released may ho arrested without warrant and returned to prison. lij will thus be observed that release on license is by no moans the granting of unconditional liberty. It is in affect a system of rehabilitation under ’’oH-eirv restrictions and appropriate oversight to meet the individual Defenders’ needs. Under the provisions of th e Statute Law Amendment Act 1917, which' was incorporated in the Crimes Amendment Act 1 920, the scope or ihe Prisons Poard was extended to provide for the eonsideration of the ttness for conditional release or discharge of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment with or without hard abour. thus bringing that class or offender under the purview of the Prisons, Poard. The scope rf the Board’s juris- t diction was further extended by regulations under the Prevention of "’rime fßor-tal restitutions Ust.au H-shment) A~t 1 9 24, which nrm-id -o that the Poard function a a P n role Board for the purpose of 'eeommending the release of Borstal ietainees under section 15 of the Act. This provision for release is contained In section 15 of the Prevention of Crime Act, which

prescribes that release on license may be granted at any time if there is reasonable probability that the offender will abstain from crime snd lead a useful and industrious life. Under such license the person so released may at any time be arrested without warrant and returned to a Borstal institution. , Methods of the Board. The procedure of the Board is necessarily elastic, as in any attempt at individualisation of punishment, the widest powers must be conferred to enable the Board to make any inquiry it may deem necessary. Subsection 3 of section 10 provides that, subject to regulations, the Board may determine its own procedure. The regulations under the Crimes Amendment Act prescribe that the recommendation of the Board shall be made to the Governor-General over the signature of the President. (Under the Prevention of Crime Act, the release on license of Borstal in.mates may be granted by the Minister of Justice, but in actual practice, ever since the coming into operation of that Act, all recommendations of the Board have been made to His Excellency the Governor-General.) The regulations also require that the Board shall, as far as possible, give every prisoner eligible for consideration an opportunity of appearing before it and stating his case personally when the Board visits each of the penal institutions once in each year. Persons undergoing sentence may make application to the Board in writing, and the Board may consider any case at any time it deems fit. The Secretary of the Board is required to prepare and place before ■the Board a full statement of the circumstances connected with each case that is brought up for consideration. in actual practice it is customary for departmental files to be produced, from which are summar,ised extracts from the depositions, th e evidence, and the prisoner’s history and record which contain the family history showing- mental and criminal tendencies, career of crime, mode of life, conduct and industry whilst in detention, response to previous treatment if any, Magistrate'; report, medical reports, Police reports and reports and recommendations of Prison Superintendents. The petitions of the prisoner ~nd reports by relatives, friends, and interested social workers are also placed before the Board. \ ' Results of Board’s Operations. (1) Reformative Detention: During the period from January 1911, to December 1925, 2780 prisoners were sentenced to Reformative Detention under the provisione of the Crimes Amendment Act ,1910. During the .same period, these cases were reviewed by the Prisons Board no less than 6421 times, and the number of cases that were ultimately recom mended for release or discharge was 2001. In 382 cases prisoners were required to serv e the full sentence imposed by the Court. Of the total number released, 23 per cent were returned to prison, either for no»compliance with the conditions of release or for committing further sunsequent offences, 3 per cent left the Dominion or absconded. 0.7 per cent have died or been transferred to mental hospitals, etc., leaving 72 7 per cent who did not further offend, and who may therefore reasonably be presumed to have become useful and law-abiding members of the com munity. Details of these cases are given in the Annual Report of th Board for the year ending 31st De cember, 1929,

- (2) Hard Labour: Since the passing , of the Statute Law Amendment Act r. 1917, which extended the scope of ■> the Board to the consideration of the ■. cases of prisoners sentenced to terms r of imprisonment involving hard laoour, 1635 cases were considered by the Board up to December. 1925, In 355 cases, prisoners were released on probation prior to expiry of the full term on the recommendation of the Board. Of this number 251 completed probation satisfactorily, while 35 were still reporting on probation on the 31st December, 1925. (3) Habitual Criminals: In the period from January 1911 to Decem- ■ ber 1925, the' Board depit with 405 cases of habitual criminals, of whom 344 were released on probation on tn<recommendation of the Board. Of those so released, 52.6 per cent, were returned to prison either for noncompliance with the conditions of probation or for committing furthex offences. No offences are recorded against the, remaining 47.4 per cent but the records show that 3.8 per cent died or were transferred to mental hospitals, while 19.2 per cent left I the Dominion or absconded. This leaves a percentage of 24.4 per cu lt who have remained in the Dominion and have not further offended.*. Considering the intractable ’material dealt with, the resultant saving to the State, both in citizenship ami expense, is not negligible. (4) Since the coming into open lion of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1924, 41 3 persons have bem ordered to be detained under this Act .which first became operative in J- unary. 1 925. either by transferenerof youthful offenders from penal In stitutions or by original commitment \ by the Courts. Ninety detainees bn vo been released on the reconi incndctioii o ? the Board, a* follows: 59 on probation, 12 on remission, and 19 on expirv of sentence; 7 R p. 'cent nf those released were required to servo less than half the term, 71,1 ner cent served over half hut leas than the full term prescribed, and ?1.1 per cent 'served the maximum term. Of the total number of 90 released since the coming into force of the prevention of Crime Act. only 4 have sphaequentlv offended a.nd appeared before the Courts again, mak-

ing a percentage of failures to date of only 3.8 per cent. , Specific Cases.

Sidney Erne Baurae: In Februarylast the accused, who was then 30 years ,of ag e and a law clerk, in the employ of Messrs Chapman, Skerret, Tripp and ‘Blair, was convicted .of having, in conjunction with a man named William Smith, obtained from the Post Office savings Bank three sums of money totalling £lllO (the portion of which was subsequently recovered), by means of false pretences. He was sentenced to be detained in a Borstal Institution for a period not exceeding three years. It is not necessary to recapitulate the facts, but it is appropriate to state that the jury by their verdict, expressly found that Baumo had “engineered” the scheme by which the money was obtained, and that the learned Judge who tried the case approved that finding. The jury also recommended Baume to mercy on account of his youth. In passing sentence the Judge (artiongst other things) said that his opinion *he fraudulent scheme initiated by Bame was due to the latter’s “vanity” rather than his “cupidity.” in closing his address to th® accused, the Judge said: — “I sentence you to be detained “in a Borstal Institution for reformative purposes for a period

“not exceeding three years, which “means that upon your conduct *Vill depend the duration of your “sentence. You will be under the “jurisdiction of the body known “as the Prisons Board, who have the “power, and I have no doubt will “exercise it humanely and leniently “so that if your conduct there "shows, as I feel certain it will “signs of a desire to reestablish • “yourself, your sentence I have no “doubt will be shortened.” Baume petitioned the Board for his release, amongst other considerations urging that employment of a literary character had been obtained for him in Australia through the instrumentality of his brother, wlio occuoied a responsible position there. Consideration of this petition was deferred from time to time until the 20th day of August, when the Board a? then constituted, being satisfied that the offender would abstain from further crime and would lead a useful and industrious life, unanimously--the only member -absent being Sir George Fenwick—-recommended that the accused be released upon probationary license, with permission for him to leave New Zealand in order to accept the employment offered, the Boar't considering that it would be in his own interests that he should accept such employment and commence his life afresh in a new environment and under the supervision of his cider brother. This recommendation was given effect to In the due course. The reasons for the Board’s recommendation were:—

I. Tha (he fullest effect should be givep to the recommendation of the jury, and tp the Judge’s sug-

gestion that he should be treated

• humanely and leniently; 2. That his conduct during his detention in the Borstal Institution was highly satisfactory, as evidenced by reports of the Superlnten-

dent and the School-master, the * former of which wrote as follows — “Conduct and industry in Institution good. The inmate is amen“able to discipline, is manly in “character ,and has been a good “Influence among his fellow in"mates. He has assisted the “School-master, and has been a in every way. In “my opinion the inmate is not

“likely to offend again, and -with “his attainments, further deten“tion can scarcely improve his posi*

“tion." He is employed as a -laanoi

“in the store rooms.” 3. That his punishment was severe in that, apart from the degradation of the conviction and sentence, h" was barred from entering his pro fesslon. for which he had had oua.Mfied himself by years of arduous study, and in the practise of which he had, owing to his intellects ability, every prospect of a successful and probably brilliant career; 4. That to a youth of his educational attainments, the training available at the Waikeria Borstal Institution was comparatively negligible.

5. That he had .occupied positions of trust,' both in societies connected with Victoria College and in the legal office in which he was employed. and had always discharged the duties of such trusts with honesty and uprightness. Testimonials in these respects and to his general good character from several representative citizens are on Baume’s file. „ G. That it was in the. best interests of accused him.self, and also of thft community, that ho should be allowed the anrllest opportunity of making a fresh start in life. Wanganui Shooting Case. Charles Evan Mackay.—On the 28th May 1920 this, man pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to murder one Welter TV A toy Cresswoll by shooting him. and was sentenced by the Pmht Hon. F ! - rtobert Stout, then Chief Justice, to .irteen years’ rmnnsonment. A* the time of tne offence Mackav was 4r. years of age, -i ud was a lend< r ie- anil solicimr promising in Wanganui, of which Town i-.e was then M’>vor and had peer, so eo- ten eonseeutiv.' peared at the hearing toat Cresswoll had” discovered that Mackay had boon guilty of indecen* praens.-fl with yonna men that ho had interviewed Mao knv on the subject oh several occasions. and that ho had insisted upon Ma<!kay resigning from his position ns Mavor or otherwise Tie would expose him. Tn a written statement, made by Cresswoll some two years after ho was wounded, he sa.vs that at his final interview with ’ Mackay. when the shooting took place, the latter was

in a state of “anguish and hysteria,” and that “his mind was unbalanced.’ 1 It. seems clear, from a perusal of the evidence, that the crime was not pre-» meditated, but was as stated by the Chi-'f justice in passing sentence, “an impulsive act. - ’

That Mackay, notwithstanding his high intelligence and great abilities, was sexually perverted there can be no doubt. It was so stated by his counsel when pleading for mitigation of sentence, and it is clear that Mackay recognihed this perversion and had consulted both .doctors and metaphysicians for treatment and advice. • For some years past, petitions for Mackay’s release have been made from time to time to the Prisons Board by his relatives and friends. These petitions, however, did not receive favourable consideration until until June Ist, 1926, when the Prisons Board recommended His Excellency the Governor-General to release Mackay on probationary license for the uncxpiroc l period of his sentence, with permission to leave the Dominion in charge of his sister, and to remain out of Now Zealand during the currency of his license. He was released accordingly on the 6th August, 1926, and immediately lett New Zealand in charge of his sister, la accordance with the terms of his license.

The decision of the Board, which Included the Judge who had sentenced Mackay, was based upon the following considerations; —

I. Mackay had already suffered extremely severe punishment in that ■he had fa) undergone* six and ahalf years’ imprisonment, whicn, to a. man of his attainments, ‘was not only degrading, but must have produced intense suffering: (b) had been struck off the Rolls, and was

permanently barred from practising his profession; (c) had been made bankrupt, and his business an£ estate wound up; (d) had been divorced by his wife, and permanently separated from his children. 2. His conduct and industry in prison

has been satisfactory. The Controlling Officers of the three prisons— New Plymouth," Hautu, and Auckland —where he was for various periods detained each reported favourably, and stated that his conduct in prison was exemplary.

3. Signs of degeneration, both in mind and body, were becoming and more apparent, the Superintendent of one Institution specially referring to his failing memory and health, and it was considered that, unless he were granted an early release, he would become Incapable of earning a living and -would become a permanent charge upon the State. 4, That his sister, an intelligent and responsible wpipan of mature years, was prepared to take charge of him and accompany, him to England. where she undertook to set him up, in some occupation, in which he would ea.vn an honest living in a new environment. Conclusion.

In concluding this report it will perhaps not be out of place to quote from an address given by the late Mr. C. E. Matthews when ControllerGeneral of Prisons ,to the Wellington Justices* Association in July 1923, showing that the procedure and policy outlined above are in accordance with definitely established practice of the Board:—

“ The Board’s powers in regard to “ its recommendations for remts- “ sion of sentence .either by re- •' lease or probation or complete “ discharge, are very large. In, It “ the Government has vested Its " authority to review all direct “ sentences Usually the

“ Board’s powers of recommenda- “ tion are exercised only on a de- “ finite system as to the proportion *’ of hi s . sentence a prisoner must “ serve before be is eligible for con- ■' sideration, but in cases that ap- “ . pear to merit earlier attention “ owing to special circumstances. “ Board is always prepared to review a sentence, and if it deems “ it wise to do so, to recommend immediate release on probation *’ or discharge—even if a long sen- • tence has only run for a few “ months. There are occasions * when such a course is necessary “ in the interests of justice ana “ humanity, and the Board never - hesitates to exercise the discrc- “ tion given it in dealing with such ** cases.” 1 have the honour to be ( Sir.’ Your Obedient servant, T. W. STRINGER President, Prisons Board.