FLOGGING

Southland Times, Issue 23736, 7 February 1939, Page 9

FLOGGING

A Motorist—Your letter is not signee

To The Editor

Sir,— Corporal punishment is commonly justified on the ground that it deters the individual from offending again. It is also supposed to deter others. May we draw attention to this Quotation from The Times, London, of November 30, 1938, which supplies an effective answer to such contentions: Moving the second reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, Sir Samuel Hoare, Home Secretary, said, inter alia, he was proposing the abolition of corporal punishment for two reasons —it was out of date, and it did not deter the particular individual from offending again, or protect society from similar crimes in the future. These were not groundless sentiments. They were founded on the great body of evidence collected by the committee (on corporal punishment). That impartial committee came unanimously to the conclusion that the time had arrived for abolition. The evidence did not prove that it did any good to the convict, or that it lessened the number of similar offences in the future. The claim that the infliction of corporal punishment had diminished or brought to an end certain types of crime, was not borne out by the evidence.” And he went on to say that it was found that after the passing of the Garrotters’ Act authorizing flogging, robbery with violence actually increased; and so it did after floggings were inflicted on the “High. Rip gang in Liverpool. Flogging, in short, is not necessary, nor the effective deterrent that some suppose it. Why do we retain it in New Zealand?—Yours, etc., NEW ZEALAND HOWARD LEAGUE FOR PENAL REFORM. February 2, 1939.