PRISON TREATMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1932, Page 6

PRISON TREATMENT

PROBLEM FOR SOCIETY

HABIT IJA L OFFENDERS. \ EFFECTS OF THE DEPRESSION. - WELLINGTON, Jan o. Forms of punishment for criminal offenders is engaging the attention of social reformers to a far greater extent than in the past, for the reason that it is becoming more widely acknowledged that a lapse into lawlessness by a member of a community constitutes not only a breach against the person immediately wronged but also an offence against the whole fabric of 'modern society. Mention was Made recently in the “Dominion” of the work being carried out under the probation system in New Zealand. This treatment is designed to deal more particluarly with first offenders and those deserving of more than ordinary consideration, but the problem of the seasoned criminal is more complicated. Attention to the question of punishment for old offenders is given in the report of the Prisons Department for 1930-31, and it is made plain that the considerations surrounding tne form of punishment to be prescribed are more serious than those to which heed must be paid in dealing with first offenders. Although not mentioned specifically in the report, it is clear that, although past convictions cannot be taken as a complete guide for the punishment to be given for a fresh offence, a criminal’s mental state, his tendencies and, if possible, liis family history must be given due weight when a court is coming to a decision. As is inevitable, the economic depression has had an effect upon criminal statistics, but the underlying problem of the treatment of the more or less habitual offender remains constant. The total number of prisoners dealt with last year showed a marked increase, the total new admissions being 4909 (representing 2864 distinct .persons), as compared with 43/5 (2596 distinct persons) for the previous year. It is interesting to note that during the depression of 1921 there was an almost identical increase in the number of persons received into cutsody.

PRISON POPULATION INCREASES.

The prisons population was higher last year than for some years, hut the general tendency is toward a decline. In 1929 the number of persons sentenced to imprisonment was 50 per cent, less per 10,000 of population .than it was 25 years ago. The drop since the immediate pre-war years has been from 31 per 10,000 of population to 19 per 10,000. The increase in the number of offences has been mostly against .property, and this would appear to be consistent with the incidence of crime during a- depression. “As mentioned in previous reports, in view of* the authoritative opinion as to the futility for reformative purposes of short sentences, the desirability of applying some alternative method of treatment, such as probation or the imposition of a fine might, with advantage, be considered,” says A?r B. L. Daliard,. Controller-Generai of Prisons. “When the ends of justice cannot be adequately met by such means, a more .salutary term of reformative detention should be inflicted in preference to imposing sentences which are too short for the application of any practical scheme of training or discipline; but which, nevertheless, habituate offenders to the 'conditions and atmosphere of a prison and lessen its deterrent influence.

“The petty recidivists (or those who relapse into crime) who constitute the larger proportion of the total receptions, always present a problem both to the court and to the penal authorities. The unlikelihood of prison either deterring or reforming a person who lias a record of a score or more previous convictions is fairly obvious, and for the protection of society the only effective remedy appears to be for magistrates to have recourse to the statutory provisions for declaring recurring petty offenders ‘habitual offenders,’ and thus place them indefinitely out of mischief. Where a man nepeatedly relapses into crime there can be no logical reason for releasing him from safe keeping until society can be assured of its security from Ins menace. PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS’ EFFECT. “It is interesting to observe a recent pronouncement of the Court of Appeal on a point of almost international interest judically and criminological ly, namely, the question of the propriety of taking previous convictions into account when the court is passing sentence. It was laid down ns ~ principle that for the substantive offence with which a person is charged the sentence, ought to hear some relation to tlm intrinsic gravity of the crime, notwithstanding the inct that the offender may previously have. committed oilier and more serious crimes; hut where u prisoner’s previous conviction indicate a, predilection to commit the particular type of offence ol which he is convicted it is him duty ol he court, for I lie protection of the P"bhe to take them into consideration and lengthen tlm period of coiil'mcmeiil accordingly. , “The previous convictions may he looked a I for Hie purposes oi esla c lishing Lite prisoner's character ami a.ssjsl iug to determine the pun'd'iimnl that is appropriate to Ibe case of ■' of Hull Character lor the pai'lmuh,,. offence for which he is lo be contented. The Omul, of Appeal is »!

opinion that. where by reason of a man’s character as evidenced wholly or partly by bis previous convictions, it is thought the punishment should be increased, the hotter course is to add a tor in of reformative detention rather than lengthen the term of hard labour imposed for the substantive offence. “A prisoner undergoing a. sentence or reformative detention may have his c;ise reviewed hv the Prisons Board at any time, ajict bis release is contingent largely on bis own conduct and whether the circumstances warrant Mich course, whereas hard-labour cases arc reviewed only .after the exniry of hall the total term imposed. ‘Such sentences are regarded as more punitive and definite in character.”