PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21357, 27 February 1941, Page 9

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents. whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names a? a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, then letters will not appear. FLOGGING (To the Editor) Sir, —May I be allowed to supplement what has already been said of the subject of flogging by pointing out that, when the present Government came into office, one of the planks in its programme was the abolition of corporal punishment in prisons. The time is overdue for the fulfilment of that pledge. The Criminal Justice Bill (England) has been mentioned and its proposal is as follows:—No person shall be sentenced by a court to corporal punishment, and every enactment conferring a power on a court to pass a sentence of corporal punishment shall cease to have effect. This clause is, however, subject to a later one which allows corporal punishment for males “for mutiny, incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence to an officer of the prison.” Sir Samuel Hoare, then Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, is reported by the Times to have said:— “He was proposing the abolition of corporal punishment for two reasons —it was out of date, and it did not deter the particular individual from offending again, or protect society from similar crimes in the future.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 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.” The limits of a letter preclude a full discussion of the doctrine. It may be pointed out, however, that the sole defence of flogging seems to be “deterrence,” and this seems now to be exploded. The retention of “torture” in the English Bill is so illogical that one can only assume it to be one of the controversial clauses left to the responsibility of the House. At any rate, the words of the Home Secretary indicate that the expressed policy of our own Government is based upon reason, upon common sense, and, above all, upon the evidence.—l am, etc., F. A. DE LA MARE. Hamilton, February 26. WATERSIDE WORKERS (To the Editor) Sir,—l notice that another correspondent calling himself “Observer” wishes to take part in this discussion. He admits that he does not know much about freezing works employees. At the same time he lets the readers know that he knows less about watersiders. He quoted one of my statements, that I had never yet seen the name of a watersider or freezing works employee in the list of deceased persons’ estates. That statement alone should convince 99 per cent of the readers of this paper that the propaganda regarding bulging pay envelopes is simply ridiculous. We have heard of two or three occasions when the watersiders received 10s an hour overtime. They were Santa Claus days. The news was sent from one end of New Zealand to the other, with the idea of creating the impression that the watersiders were getting it every day. “Observer” suggests that watersiders work 20 hours only in a week and then cease and live on the proceeds. The big man’s joke, but isn’t it a feeble one! His next one: Why do watersiders want an estate? The sane answer to that is that they are British and human, with the same ideals that I hope “Observer” and “King Henry V” have—'that they want their dependants to be free from care and want when they pass on. I must not overlook “King Henry V.” There are two or three sentences in his letter of February 20 which indicate that he has left the rails altogether. He writes, “How long will it be before we can educate the common class, etc.” I take it that Mr Moody and I are to take that and share it between us. Thanks very much. That sounds more like Henry VIII than Henry V. Let it pass. My only comment is, If “King Henry V” belongs to the aristocracy they are welcome to him.

His statement that our letters (Mr Moody’s and mine) are full of class glorification is absolutely incorrect. To say that he is not concerned with party politics is also incorrect. He is quite entitled to his own political opinions, and that is his privilege. When he writes that my letters are full of Labour Party politics he forgets what he has written in previous letters. On February 13, for instance, he says: “ ‘Retired Public Servant’ does not wish to deal with the political part of the subject.” In my letter of February 10 I wrote: “I must not go into politics, and ‘King Henry V’ knows that.” I have naturally kept all the letters dealing with the above subject, and if “King Henry V” had done the same he would surely have referred to his previous letters and mine and avoided the blunders he has made in his last letter. —I am, etc., RETIRED PUBLIC SERVANT. Hamilton, February 25.