SUPREME COURT JUDGES AND THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19551, 6 August 1925, Page 15

SUPREME COURT JUDGES AND THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL

TO TUB EDITOE. Sie, —Every now and again the judges of tha Supreme Court express surprise that the Prisofts Board liberates habitual criminals, with unfortunately the too frequent result that the “habitual returns to his criminal practices. It is somewhat surprising that the judges seem to lose sight of the fact that the “habitual is serving an indeterminate sentence, and that when the Prisons Board is informed by the gaol authorities that the unfortunate’s conduct in prison is exemplary and his industry good, it is its duty to give the man a chance to redeem himself. If the prisoner does not behave himself while undergoing sentence he has no chance of liberation. Do those of the judges who indulge in this criticism of the board advocate that no difference should be made in the treatment meted out to the “habitual”?—that the man who regularly receives a good report, both for obedience to the prison regulations and for steady application to the work allotted to him, should be treated in exactly the same way as the prisoner who is a slacker and who will not conform to the prison regulations? If they agree that to adopt such a course would be illogical and unfair —and they must do so —then do they claim that they are in a better position than the Prisons Board to decide as to whether an “habitual should be liberated on probation or not? It is not a congenial task to criticise exCr ossions of opinion from the judiciary, ut when those opinions are unsound and undeserved, as in this particular matter I know them to be, then it is right the public should have the other side of the matter placed before it. For thirteen years the Prisons Board has carried out its functions carefully and honestly, ut great inconvenience and sacrifice of time by its members. lake the judges themselves, the members of the board were appointed to their positions by the Government because they were considered men well qualified to serve the public interests. They occupy a judicial position similar to that of the judges, and it may possibly occur to the latter on reflection that the criticism of their brethren of the board is not only invidious, but may not unreasonably be described as unbecoming. The members of the Prisons Board are not infallible—neither are the judges—but I feel sure they carefully abstain from publicly criticising sentences occasion ally given by the Bench that seem, perhaps more, difficult to understand than any remissions of sentences given by the Prisons Board. Tn each case the ■ Bench or the board has had before it information that has not been available to the other administrator of justice, and it seems to_ me that there lies the sufficient answer to views expressed without sufficient evidence on which to found them. —I am, etc., A Member or the Boabd.