THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1949. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27165, 22 August 1949, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 1949. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Between the primitive conception of justice represented by the dictum “ an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ” and the modern idea that crime is a matter of psychological maladjustment and requires treatment rather than punishment there is represented a very great difference in the attitudes of mind towards the problem of crime and punishment. Even less than a century ago the penal laws were harsh and were administered with severity. To-day there is a greater actual tolerance for the criminal which is reflected in the punishment which society approves of being meted out to an offender. It is notorious, for example, that it is difficult to persuade a jury that it is its duty by the law tc convict those guilty of certain offences. In everyday life it is the fact rather than the theory of crime which is of practical importance and the attention of the public should be directed to the facts in New Zealand by the issue of the reports of the Controller-general of prisons, the Prisons Board and the Chief Probation Officer. These documents contain much more than statistical information, they include surveys of tendencies in crime which may intimately affect the welfare of the nation.

Of the 2181 offences which led last year to the imprisonment of the offenders, 984 were under the heading of offences against property. The Chief Probation Officer reports that approximately 74 per cent', of the total persons admitted to Drobation were for the same class of offence, 52 per cent, being for theft. These figures are of interest because of the direct comment, both by the Prisons Board and the Controller-general of Prisons (Mr B. L. Dallard) on the short sentences which are usually imposed in the courts for such crimes. Mr Dallard states: It will be observed that no less

than 55 per cent, of the total numoer of distinct persons sentenced to imprisonment were given terms of three months or less, and that 67 per cent, received terms of less than six months. Although it would not be practicable to eliminate entirely short sentences as a summary penalty in the lower Courts, it is plainly evident that with regard to persons of criminal inclination they serve little purpose from a deterrent point of view. . . . They are also futile in so far as affording any opportunity to exercise a reformation influence by way of training or habit adjustment, for which time is an essential element. Confirmation of this is given by the Prisons Board which comments that it is persons guilty of petty dishonesty who are recidivists, that is. who return to prey upon the community. They make the suggestion that greater recourse be had to the section of the Crimes Act, 1908, which provides that persons repeatedly guilty of certain offences may be dealt with as habitual offend•ers. As such they may be given indeterminate sentences which would permit of greater opportunity for reformative treatment.—lncidentally, what is termed the “ abuse of the short sentence ” has also been the subject of a bulletin issued by the' United Nations Economic and Social Council which stated that shori sentences failed to protect society or to check the development of criminal careers. —There is, in general, an understandable antipathy to the emplojnnent of the powers cited by the Prisons Board and its suggestion should only be approved of after careful examination not only of the individual case but also of the prisons and of what the “ reformative treatment ” is to be Obviously, there is a problem here which is deserving of deep consideration.

THE HAND OF FRIENDSHIP The question which is suggested because of the trends revealed during the German elections —whether or not the growing nationalistic spirit could be better controlled by giving Germany greater responsibility for her own affairs —has been presented in a direct and important mannei / by Mr Churchill’s proposal thai Germany should be admitted to the Council of Europe. The proposal is still being dealt with by the Consultative Assembly of the Council, now in session in Strasbourg, and if is possible that no further progress may be made with the matter at present than to decide to hold a special session at a later date Already the press comment in Great Britain and France indicates that the issue is one on which there is a deep division of opinion, between nation and nation, between parties and among individuals. Not only are the pros and cons to be weighed but there are also incidental problems of procedure. For example. The Times has raised a point of propriety on whether Germany could be admitted while it is still under occupation by two other member States of the Council, Great Britain and France. Mr Churchill has urged the admission of Germany on the ground that the Council provides possibly the only means of associating “ democratic and free Germany ” with the Western democracies, but while the Occupation Statute contains so many reservations from the authority of the Bonn Constitution, it is questionable if those epithets can rightly be applied to Germany to-day. There is broad agreement with Mr Churchill in his. opinion that “ a united Europe cannot live without the help and strength of Germany.” The difficulty is to enable Germany to develop freely and yet ensure that her reconstructed strength will be used in the common cause. France, which has on three occasions in the last eighty years been the victim of German aggression, is particularly interested in guarantees of future security. It may be recalled that Germany was admitted to the League of Nations after a somewhat longer period of hopeful tutelage than is proposed on this occasion, and the opportunities of international co-operation then afforded were exploited for the ends of the Third Reich. A Danish delegate at Strasbourg has warned that it will be a victory for German nationalism if Germany is not admitted to the Council of Europe. On the Other hand it will pander to her national self-complacency if she is admitted, and particularly if she is admitted without having signified a desire to become a member A compromise that Germany might

become an associate member at first would almost certainly be a mistake. Of course, it may be pointed out that the Council is an untested organisation with some deliberative freedom ■ but without authority or even prestige, and perhaps no harm would be done by accepting Germany as a member of an organisation for furthering the common interests of the European nations. The question of admission, fundamentally, is important not in itself, but as an indication that the Great Powers are still a lamentably long way from having achieved agreement on a policy for the moral and material rehabilitation of a defeated nation of which a great German, Dr Thomas Mann, has remarked that it does not understand and does not wish to realise the causes.of its actual condition.