THE PRISON SYSTEM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21784, 25 October 1932, Page 6

THE PRISON SYSTEM.

It was a matter of common observation that crime in New Zealand increased last year. The increase is described by the Controller-general of Prisons in his annual report as "symptomatic of the times." The total number of individuals imprisoned in the year was 3203, —a number considerably greater than for some years. It almost follows, as a matter of course, that the number of persons over whom supervision was exercised by the probation officers was larger than usual, the total being 2045, of!

whom 896 were admitted to probation during the year, compared with 812 admissions in 1930, and 708 in the preceding year. Offences against property accounted for a large proportion of the increased crime, most of which was of a character that did not demand heavy punishment. Of the 3203 individuals who were taken into custody, only 659, or 20 per cent., received sentences of a year or more, and about a third of the sentences was for terms of less than a month. Nevertheless, those who are constantly in trouble for minor offences constitute a very considerable problem, for which the Controller-general suggests a salutary solution. Short terms of imprisonment, he considers, are quite ineffectual as a means of deterring the young offender from crime. The " short, snappy term of hard labour," which is frequently requested by offenders in the courts, is said to do no more than accustom Ihem to imprisonment, while it does not allow the authorities the opportunity to put into operation any system of practical training and discipline. The Controller-general advocates a longer sentence as the best means of discouraging the young offenders, and suggests further that an even more effective means of protecting society from the menace of those who are repeatedly coming into conflict with the law would be to utilise the existing statutory provisions for declaring such persons " habitual offenders," in which case indeterminate sentences would be passed and the offender could be sent to a farm camp or other training institution. The Controller-general is also Chief Probation Officer, and in the latter capacity expresses the opinion that the probationary system has in many cases distinct advantages over imprisonment as a corrective, but he qualifies this view with the statement that "before granting probation the courts should be satisfied that the ends of justice and the interests of the public, as well as of the offender, will be served." He adds that "it will be obvious that probation would not be appropriate to offences involving deliberation and brutality, or to habitual offenders, or to those whose crime is associated with mental deficiency, aberrational conduct, or perversion." Our prisons system, however, does not exclude even habitual criminals from the benefits of probation, and last year over 17 per cent, of the habitual criminals who were released by the Prisons Board on parole refrained from further offending—at least during the course of the year. The habitual criminal is a difficult person to deal with, and the Prisons Board seems to have taken some risks with him. During the twenty-year period ended in December last, 498 persons were declared habitual criminals, and of these as many as 456 were released on probation by direction of the Prisons Board, but 57.45 per cent, of them were returned to prison for non-compliance with the' conditions of probation or for the commission of further offences. It is somewhat doubtful whether it is desirable that the odium of the term habitual criminal should be extended to include minor offenders so that they would be placed in the same category as the hardened offender. On the other hand, the conclusion, of the prison authorities, which receives support in the statistics, that Sentences of reformative detention are more effective than short terms of hard labour, deserves respect.