PENAL CODES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 199, 26 August 1935, Page 7

PENAL CODES

CONFLICT IN CONGRESS HUMANITARIANISM WINS. LONDON, Aug. 23. The Berlin correspondent of the Tinies states that amid great confusion and excitement, the conflict between the Nazi school favouring severe penal sentences and the advocates of humanisation came to a head when the Penal Congress voted on the issue. The supporters of humanitarianism demanded voting by nations, in view of the large numerical superiority of the German delegation. An amendment favouring continuations of efforts to educate and reform prisoners was carried by 10 votes to 9, England and America voting with the majority and Italy and Germany favouring the minority. The Germans challenged the result, which is to be referred to the bureau of Congress. A similar clash on “monster trials” was avoided by a compromi|j amendment declaring that rights of defence should be safeguarded. Dr. Goebbels, addressing the delegates, defended the concentration camps, declaring that they were most human institutions for educating hos’.ile elements to become useful members of the community. Germany found it necessary to limit the freedom of the individual to the extent to which it conflicted with the freedom of the nation. What did it matter if a few thousand were kept in custody if a nation of 60,000 was enabled to live? STERILISATION FAVOURED VICTORY FOR GERMANY Received Aug. 25, 7.15 p.m. BERLIN, Aug. 24. The Penal Congress closed without reaching a decision regarding the treatment of prisoners. It passed a recommendation in favour of tho sterilisation of certain classes of criminals. This is considered a convincing victory for Germany.