REFORMATIVE DETENTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22326, 28 July 1934, Page 12

REFORMATIVE DETENTION

It was, to judge from telegraphed reports, an unusual scene which the Blenheim Magistrate’s Court witnessed when a thief and his judge discovered themselves in agreement upon what they considered the unsatisfactory nature of a form of punishment that is prescribed by law. The thief, who had had considerable experience of prison life, declared that sentences of reformative detention are an “ utter farce,” since prisoners thus sentenced are, he alleged, treated no differently from those who are committed to gaol in the ordinary way. The magistrate, conceding “ a good deal of force ” in the thief’s criticism, sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour, adding the general observation that “it is really farcical to impose reformative detention.” This view is not really startling. It has received expression previously among those who are interested, in one capacity or another, in the administration of justice. It is somewhat remarkable, however, that a criticism of this nature should be made ex cathedra, as it were, by a magistrate in the course of his administration of justice according to the law. Mr Maunsell’s description of reformative detention as “ farcical ” seems extreme, particularly since there is no indication that his view is shared in official quarters. The Prisons Board, which might be expected to have had opportunities of passing judgment on the question, certainly does not give support to this magisterial dictum. In the board’s latest report statistics are provided showing that 4269 persons have been committed to reformative detention since 1910, when the Crimes Act was amended to provide for this form of treatment. Of the total number of offenders who have undergone reformative detention 26.10 per cent, have been returned to confinement either for breaches of the conditions on which they were released or for the commission of further offences, while 70.66 per cent, have not further offended. The Board makes the comment that these latter persons may reasonably be assumed to have become law-abiding citizens, and expresses the opinion that the figures reflect creditably on the present system, particularly at the prison farms which have been established for the reformation of offenders. It is not uninteresting to observe that the number of inmates of Borstal institutions who have, after their release, been sentenced for further offences is approximately 15 per cent. This provides a comparison between the number of younger delinquents and of persons sentenced to reformative detention who may be presumed to have mended their ways, and it does not reflect discreditably upon the reformative detention system. Of habitual criminals less than 17 per cent, do not offend again. While the evidence as to the system of reformative detention is not, on this showing, unsatisfactory, the question may still be asked whether there is any marked differentiation between the prison treatment, of persons undergoing periods of reformative detention and those serving sentences of simple hard labour. It is a question that has often been asked and it is one to which an authoritative answer should now be given.