RUFFIANISM VERSUS THE POLICE FORCE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 6696, 3 October 1882, Page 3

RUFFIANISM VERSUS THE POLICE FORCE.

TO THE EDITOR-OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIME*,

Sib,—rlu a recent iasue'oE your paper appears the, statement that “ assaults on the police are becoming quite a matter of every-day occurrence.” That such is the case must be apparent to those who take any interest in the reports of the police cases as published ; and no less patent i than the fact is the source to which it is clearly traceable—that is, the miserably incommensurate punishment that is administered from the Wellington Bench. Resistance to arrest, resistance with assault, attempted rescue with'assault, or a series of attempted rescues with the moat brutal violence are all'treated as of the, same degree of heinousnesa, .with little or no variation of puoishment beyond a few days’incarceration Who that has read in your issue of the TIMES of September 16 of the series of “brutal and violent assaults, lasting for over an hour,’.’ that were made upon Constables O’Donovan and Collerton—the former being alone at the . outset—by a ruffianly inch on ' the Sabbath night previous, land which “ narrowly terminated in a fatality” to one of the constables,' resulting, however, in “severe injuries to their faces,” considerable damage to their uniforms, &o.— and has not felt shocked, as well as indignant, at the leniency of the sentence inflicted upon the chief offender, Hogan—that, of seven days' imprisonment, with a fine, of one shilling. I make no account .of the fine of twenty-seven shillings fori damages to uniforms; as it is : not in the nature of punishment, nor would it probably purchase a new tunic, much leas: two. The pecuniary feature of the question is not likely to weigh very heavily, however, on the minds of officers suffering from severe injuries to their faces ; .but it is significant, as showing in connection with the, other portion of the sentence, I and Other, sentences. of a similar character, the amount of sympathy that exists on , the part of the Bench for the position of the officers': of the force. What the. shilling fine implied it is difficult to perceive, unless it was intended to impress upon the Offender that he had cause for being doubly grateful for double mercies. So far from being a deterrent, such a sentence is a palliation of crime—a caricature upon the “strong arm. of ; the -law.” Such lax and effeminate administration of the law can only be compared to the imbecile folly and weakness of the parent who feels constrained- to ■hake the rod', at his truant son on witnessing some exceedingly vicious outbreak of his, whilst secretly be takes some pride in his conduct as exhibiting superabundant atimal spirits. An unfortunate hungry man who “lifts ” a loaf from a baker’s shop, and walks meekly to the lock-up with the policeman on being discovered, gets a month’s imprisonment with bard labor, probably ; whilst ruffians of the Hogan type get seven days to rest themselves in.' I make no demur in regard to the sentence of the other, o His case presents but one of the sad phases'inseparable from civilisation and the maintenance of law and order. Were so many months substituted for days in Hogan's case, with hard labor added thereto, it could not be regarded as too severe a sentence.

The general idea on the part of the majority of the public who are ignorant of the rigid discipline under which the police work in the City of Wellington is, no doubt, that the policeman, possessing as he does more than ordinary physical strength and activity, should be able to take care of himself, generally speaking, in such assaults, and even ■ give more than what begets from his assailants. ' Supposing that were so—which is by no means the case—it might still be asked, why should be be under the necessity of fighting with roughs and rowdies in absolute .self-defence when engaged in the performance of hit unavoidable duty'? ,\Vby should he not be afforded such protection, against that necessity as the law may afford him in the adequate punishment of those offenders who are guilty of reducing him to that position ? The lesson conveyed to offenders should be that a constable should never- be under the necessity of lifting his hand, much less to strike back in self-defence, because that is in reality what the discipline implies. It is a mistake to assume that be is a free agent in the use of bis physical powers for offensive and defensive pmrpoees in case of assault by superior numbers upon l him. His duty is to [arrest —net fight—and holdj on to

his prisoner at all hazards if he can. There is no more defenceless individual than a policeman acting under this discipline as against any assailants. He is not allowed to strike back, except in case of absolute neces-ity, which means, of course, after he has been pummelled right and left for some time. He is required to carry a baton at night, but I am aware that the members generally regard it a* a useless encumbrance, as a rule, in cases of assault, for the simple reason that they are not permitted to use it except in case of extreme peril. Opinions, I should say, would differ as to whether this almost cruel discipline would not be more respected in the breach than in the observance ; but I am inclined to believe that the members go a long way towards observing it. In adhering to it the constable must in every case of assault be the sufferer—the victim, in a greater or leas degree. If the Magistrates are ignorant of these restrictions, they should not be. If they are cognisant of them, their leniency towards persons who are guilty of assaults upon constables constitutes gross inhumanity towards the members of the force. Under such disheartening circumstances, What can be the tendency on the morale of the force as conservators of law and order I The characteristics of the members should be those of manly, independent, fearless, respectable,' and orderly men, but I cannot see how it is possible for them to retain these trails where, on the one hand, they are so heavily handicapped, by discipline as against assailants —and, on the other hand, where the roughs have so little to fear from the authority of the Bench when they are captured. When demoralisation of the force has set in, it will not be easily stemmed. It is the same in regard to ruffianism when allowed to drift to a certain stage. Everybody is aware of the proportions to which " larrikinism ’ has grown in Melbourne, Recentinquiriesshowthat its growthis not attributable to laxity orwant of vigilance on the part of the police, but to the incomprehensible weakness of the Bench in dealing with cases brought before them. The police, under such weak co-operation, have relaxed their efforts to put down larrikinism, regarding the case as absolutely hopeless. If the Wellington Bench fail in their duty to the public, as well as to the police force, in the energetic putting down of ruffianism, there is but the alternative for the Police Department to adopt the discipline of the City of New York police. There the roughs are kept in thorough subjection by terror of the policeman's truncheon, the police having discretion for the free use of it upon rowdy and intractable persons ; and it certainly appears to me that there, here, and everywhere, the constable should be at liberty to strike down, and very forcibly too, with his baton the band that is raised to assault him. In the sense that only when a bishop gets killed may active public measures bo expected to prevent accidents, so a reform need only be expected in the Bench when seme member thereof has a personal grievance with ruffianism. And it would be an interesting study to note in what ratio of value a policeman’s damaged face, represented by the terms three and a half days* imprisonment, plus Is, stood relatively with the damaged face of a Wellington ResidentMagistrate or Justice of the Peace—that is according to Wellington Resident Magistrate valuation.—l am, &c., Ok Dit. i Stratford, Taranaki, September 26, 1882.