Six Months Imprisonment.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 12 September 1890, Page 2

Six Months Imprisonment.

On Wednesday afternoon a man was brought before a local Justice of the 'eace charged with using obscene 'angUHge in a public place, and the case was clear')' proved against bim He was also charged by tbe arresting constable witb drunkenrss. For some reason the charge of drunken* n^ss was dismissed If the man j was drunk, though he undoubtedly deserved punishment, still the fact | of his being drunk should have been taken into consideration in punishing him lor the language that be used, and if not drunk, the constable should have had somo explanation !to make for having so charged him. It would appear, from fo experienced an officfir having stated the man was drunk, that be must have been little capable of being answerable for his actions. "We cannot then, under the - *c circumstances, hop feeling extremely surprised at the sentence awarded — six months imprisonment with hard labour — a sentence standing out as the sevorest ever dealt with for this offence, at any rate ,f r the first breach of the Act. The man biras If may be a thorough y bad •-haracter, but tbe on y charge be f re the Court, for which he wai* sentenced to ha f a year's imprison* ment, was for using filth y language, win st under th* «-ffect of liquor, in a oublic place. It may be interesting to quote from Judge Johnston's "Justice of Peace " on discretionary powers of the Justices, he writes : — In awarding pergonal punishments ... .on summary conviction, Justices are in many instances invested, by particular Statutes, with a large discretionary power.... ln tin's res-np-.tit is wel : for Justices to furnish themselves with principles ai:d tests for their guidance, so as to prevent the influence of caprice or even of unconscious prejudice, bias, or feeling from operating upon their minds They must, therefore, remember that in the administration of Criminal Law, the public good is tlie object to be kept in view, and not the redress of private wrongs; that punishment and penalties are awarded not by way of retribution or c >mpo..sation but for the purpose of protecting society, by deterring the particular ottender hims-lf, by personal suffering, by degradation and shame and by pecuniary inconvenience — and others, by the example of his punish ment from committing such offences in future. When a s ii-hter punishment, within the limits, is likely to attain this object as well as :i h avier, tli^ former ought certainly o be preferred." Tbe man was punished to teach him that it was, wrong to use bad anguage in public, and snrel/ a 'icyhter sentence wou'd have had this effect. Howf-ver bad the man might be. six months sojourn in goal will make him no bptter, and he will feel himself the objeot of persecution. Under the Police Offences Act it is stated that any person charged with using obscene langauge shall be c tit'ed to have his case heard by a Magistrate or two Justices, if he sha 1 declare to any Justice before whom he is taken that ha desires to hare tbe case so heard. Of course un ess the prisoner wai defended by counsel he w sun ikelv to know this c ause of the Act, but it is customary for the Justice o in form a prisoner of his rights before acting ou sole power. In this case we understand tbe prisoner was not so informed and therefore it may be assun.ed that he did not know that he was entitled to be brought before a snperior tribuna . In our opinion the Justice who tried the case assumed a serious position in omitting to give tbe man the information, and the prisoner hns fair cause to complain of the omission.