PREVENTION OF CRIME.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 135, 8 May 1928, Page 2

PREVENTION OF CRIME.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Dr. William Healy, whose book on the “Individual Delinquent” is such an invaluable help 1o serious students of anti-social behaviour, has recently published, some results of further intensive studies of “about 800 repeated male juvenile delinquents,” which are of such vital interest to all in this country who want to see its crime reduced (and who does not P) that I beg you to find space for his findings, as reported in the Probation Bulletin last month. Four hundred of bis subjects belonged to Chicago, four hundred to Boston, and these two groups were approximately equal in the seriousness of their members’ offences. He studied them first during the period 1909-14; and then, ten years later, re-studied the same cases “to determine outcomes after that period of time. In Chicago a.larger proportion had been punished by commitment to reformatories;, in Boston, a larger proportion had been assisted by constructive policies, rather than punished. In Chicago, where the punishment had thus been more severe, 39 of the original group had become professional criminals, making a living by their crime; in Boston, where they had not been punished as frequently or severely, but had been helped constructively, only one of the group had become a professional criminal; 14 known homicides (sic) had been committed by the Chicago group, none by the Boston group; 50 per cent of the Chicago group had adult criminal court records, 21 of the Boston group; 37 per cent of the Chicago group had served, or were serving, criminal sentences as adults, only 6 per cent of the Boston group.” Dr. Healy sums up as follows: “While it cannot, be shown that the larger outcome of criminality was duo to the more severe punishment, it is evident that it was either duo to, or in spite of the greater severity of punishment.” These very interesting findings will not surprise that growing number of good citizens in this Dominion who take an interest in its present methods of dealing with had ones. We arc discovering that to punish without investigating the cause of the offence really does not pay. us, while even our first attempts at “constructive help” are being attended by most encouraging results. We have begun to use probation at last, and last year our failures under that system we find were onlv some seven-and-a-half per cent., while over £4',000 was paid back by" the offenders (as restitution and costs) who, in prison,, would have cost us some £6O each 'a year to keep, and would of course have “restored nothing. Yet we still starve our probation department and so starve ourselves of its profits, human and financial. “Probation is a serious matter, no good unless strictly enforced,” one of our magistrates said lately, and ho is quite right; but its “strict enforcement” involves adequate study of, and constructive help for, its charges, which means we must have properlypaid (and properly-trained) probation officers; this lack of funds makes it impossible for the department to appoint such—except in the four centres—and so the community cannot, get the lull good of the system. We still lack, too, all pronerly-organised and subsidised after-care for discharged prisoners, women police, thoso true crime-preven-ters, and all the scientific examination, and classification, and treatment, of offenders. We still fondly flunk that punishment (and that by imprisonment mainly) is the one. cure for moral lulliealtli; and; under this aged delusion, gravely send to prison for “reformative detention” ■ persons who have offended through feeble-mnuledness, nerve-troubles, _ epilepsy, senility, chronic alcoholism; pay at the rate ol £6O a year for every one of them; receive them back into the community without making the least protection for, or against, them; and then, when they offend again, a® of course they naturally ‘always do (I know plenty 01 so-called' “habitual criminals’ of just these types) commit again on our part this--our same offence against them! To put it gently, could anything be sillier sir? Of course, we pay through the nose for it, too. The Old Country is wiser. She has begun to discriminate and to investigate the history and mentality of her offenders; and liad we her methods (by no means perfect yet, either) we too could reduce our prison population as she has done. Our daily average of prisoners last year was 1,336; that of England 10,509. Had we only the same ratio of prisoners to population as she, no should have in our prisons each day only some 353 persons,: and we should save some £56.000 per annum, which could then be spent on - “constructive policies,” such as Dr. Healy means instead ; and so we could hope to reduce not only imprisonment but crime, the most expensive luxury any nation can retain. We are not, in spite of our prison figures, a criminal people in reality; for some seven years now i have been much in touch with those who break our laws and have seen for myself how poor mentality and lack of social understanding account for much that could be prevented had we better methods. We could soon beat England’s penal reform records hollow it we could only give up being, as a community, vindictive, and only look into the tiling and see that our present antiquated penal system really does not pay. Nor need we blame the departments involved; for would mostly bo only too pleased to initiate reforms if onlv public opinion would demand them. Will it not?—l am, GtC ” B. E. BAUGH AN, Hon. Sec.- N.Z. Howard League fag; Penal Reform. ' _ OQ Clifton,. Sumner, May 4,192 b.