Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6572, 9 December 1882, Page 4

There has been a good deal said in regard to the return recently issued of prison punishments in Dunedin gaol, j This return showed that prisoners in Dunedin had been sentenced to periods far exceeding the original term for " prison ofi'ences " such as " idleness." One man vras committed for a month, but underwent seven months' imprisonment in all, his offence being "idleness," which proved to be incurable, for the unfortunate fellow died in prison, and so saved the gaoler and the visiting justices any further trouble. Another was committed for fourteen days, and was not released till eight months and thirteen days after the expiration of tho original sentence of a fortnight. Another, sentenced to six months for larceny, was detained two years all but five days. The Dunedin gaol stands alone, the punishment for prison offences in other gaols being quite trifling in comparison. The criminals in Dunedin are surely no worse than elsewhere, and this terrible disparity in the punishments must arise from the fact that the system pursued there is quite different from that of other prisons in the colony. It may be that in every case the prisoner deserved his punishment—in which case we should have to come to the conclusion that in other prisoas persons who ought to have been punished were let off—but then perhaps he did not. There is no security whatever that a prisoner may not be treated unjustly or with too great severity, or that a man may be convicted of laziness, who is in reality untit to work. The visiting justices and the gaoler have it all among them, like a happy family. The prisoner has no appeal, no public trial, no jury. The gaoler makes his complaint against a prisoner, and the visiting justices pass sentence according to the gaoler's suggestion. The colony has often been called upon to look at Dunedia as a model gaol, but the publication of this return will raise the idea that there is something wrong in it, or else

that discipline could have been maintained without these excessive punishments. The system of dealing with prison offences by visiting justices is perhaps the best that could be devised, but we think that in cases where the punishment involves detention beyond the period of the sentence of the Court, the gaoler and visiting justices should be required to make a statement on the subject to the Judge of the Supreme Court of the district, and an annual return should be laid before Parliament. jS t o doubt this matter will be investigated by the Government for the satisfaction of the public.