PRISON REFORM.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1931, Page 6

PRISON REFORM.

Although no one will claim that the penal System of the Dominion is perfect, the Minister of Justice (the Hou. J. G. Cobbe) had good ground for its defence against recent criticism. The allegations made were that the “reformative detention.” penalty was little more than a farce, there being no greater effort at reforming prisoners so sentenced than for those upon whom a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour had been inflicted. It may bo admitted that were unlimited funds available it might bo feasible and desirable more completely to segregate “reformative” cases from a less hopeful class of criminal than is possible under existing conditions. All that is claimed is that the ■system is carried out as far as circumstances will permit, and that it is not unsucCesssl’ul is demonstrated by* the fact that over 75 per cent, of the prisoners so sentenced have never again come into conflict with the law. Such a result, after 20 years’ trial of the system, cannot bo said to have shown it has failed. Reformers are agreed that to bring about the best reformative results* classification and re-classihcation of offenders is essential. This entails buildings and equipment and expenditure in many directions that it would be difficult for any Ministi'j' to justify at present, even though a larger proportion

of offenders was thereby returned to tho ranks of law-abiding, self-respecting citizens. In regard to the Borstal system for the reformation of youthful miscreants the Minister ‘had an even stronger defence. In the eight years that the system has been in operation it has proved successful with 88 per cent, of those who have undergone training in Borstal institutions, and considering the Dominion authorities have had to train tho staffs as well as the delinquents, the record is remarkably good. As Mr. Cobbe said, experts from other countries are satisfied that New Zealand is working upon right lines in its efforts for reformative treatment, and tho rest is chiefly a matter of experience and the necessary finance. Supplementing the efforts of the penal authorities is the work of the Prisons Board, whose operations were also the subject of criticism. It may be that its decisions may appear to be at times almost contradictory and the treatment meted out to lack consistency. But it must be remembered that the board has information available to no one and the very fact that its decisions may appear inconsistent is proof that consideration of the individual circumstances and characteristics of each case brought before it is no matter of form. It was precisely for that purpose that the board was created. It is presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court, that is to say, one who is highly trained in sifting evidence and in the judgment of human nature, and whose impartiality is beyond doubt. His colleagues are also experts in criminology, social work and medicine, and a tribunal so constituted is one in which public confidence is fully justified, though, being human, it is not infallible, and its judgment may occasionally prove at fault. On the whole, the Prisons Board can claim to have given efficient and beneficent service to the State, and the country can congratulate itself upon a penal system that combines justice with mercy and is amenable to tho improvements suggested by experience.