THE PRISONS BOARD REPORT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19278, 16 September 1924, Page 6

THE PRISONS BOARD REPORT.

The annual report of tho Prisons Board, signed by Sir Robert Stout as president, is not couched in enthusiastically optimistic terms, though it does not contain a note of definite pessimism. There is every reason to believe that the large powers granted to the Board, in regard to the discharge of prisoners,

are exercised with vigilant discretion, — the personnel or the Board might bo taken as a sufficient guarantee on that point,—and it is certain that much valuable work, at once humane and shrewdly discriminating, has been done since the inception of a project which, we think, has no exact counterpart in other countries. But it is noticeable that the Board seeks to disarm criticism in relation to the fact that of the total number of habitual criminals feleased from prison on probation a shade over 50 per cent, were brought back, owing either to non-compliance with the probation conditions or to the commission of further offences. In addition, 20 per cent, of prisoners released unconditionally or on probation have left the dominion or absconded. “Critics of the system”—we quote from the report — “have commented adversely upon the fact that our figures regarding habitual criminals show an average of only 25 per cent, of successes. They apparently add the percentage of those who have left the dominion to return to their country of origin to the percentage of those reconvicted, and assert that the failures amount to 75 per cent, of the total. There is no justification for such an assertion. It is probable, of course, that a proportion of the 20 per cent, referred to may offend again in other countries, but we know that many of them do not so offend, and that their change of environment has brought about their rehabilitation.” Even so, the results might on first thought appear to be rather disappointing, and some people are sceptical concerning the value of the system; but the weight of evidence does not support an attitude of disapproval or doubt. It has to be borne in mind, on the one hand, that men who come within the category of habitual criminals do not usually abandon their undesirable propensities, and on the other hand that indefinitely prolonged imprisonment is not likely to improve their moral outlook and disposition in any appreciable degree. If expert observers are of opinion that, after a substantial term of detention, these prisoners do not obviously constitute a menace to the community, it is probably best to give them a fresh chance in unrestrained (though not quite unsupervised) conditions. A considerable number of released prisoners “make good,” though the satisfactory percentage remains much the same from year to year. “The Board endeavours,” to quote again from the report, “to give individual habituals a chance to continue in outside life the records they have made for industry, good conduct, intelligent and valuable work while in prison- . . . No man has been released unless it is known by his record in prison that he is capable of sustained and arduous work.” Those who abuse their opportunities, and are reconvicted or break their terms of probation, have to remain in prison indefinitely. It should be noted that the Board expresses regret at the lack of an organised system of “after-care” of discharged prisoners, especially as regards the provision of suitable employment. Iri Dunedin we have a Prisoners’ Aid Society, which has done valuable, or perhaps we should say invaluable, work for very many years; but its activity is confined to the helping of short-sentence cases, for the simple reason that offenders sentenced to long terms of detention serve their time and obtain their discharge in other centres. The desire of the Prisons Board is to enlist sympathy and assistance for those who are released, either unconditionally or on probation, after many years of imprisonment. “A helping hand would do much,” it is suggested in the report, “to prevent the return to evil ways of many of the men liberated. Were they assured on release of suitable employment under kindly supervision, possibly their greatest obstacle to final rehabilitation would be removed. . . . The want of voluntary ‘after-care’ organisations on the lines of those established in connection with the prisons of Great Britain is badly felt.” It may be a surprise to some people to learn that New Zealand is behind the Home Country in a matter of this kind.