SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21411, 1 March 1935, Page 10

SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

TO THE EDITOR 07 THE PRESS. Sir,—Do let us hope that your correspondent "Interested" will continue to reflect! He seems at present a little confused, and a good deal too "slap-dash." But his "interest" is all to the good. How are we to pick out the mentally subnormal? This could be done in school days, if the teachers received a very little instruction, and much crime of various kinds would be then prevented—by due guardianship for life, such as the subnormal always needs, from his friends or the State, if he, and the public, are to be properly protected from crime on his part. Should there not in the case of all sex crime be the most careful mental examination after conviction, in the interests of justice? Such offenders "know perfectly well what they are about." "Interested" asserts. He cannot ever have known any such, if he really thinks so! The childish brain in the strongly-sexed adult body "knows" of "right" or "wrong" very little, when sex-impulse speaks. What should happen to such offenders? They should be segregated under proper conditions; but then they should never, in my view, have been given the chance so to offend. Had we the homes for the feeble-minded that England has, they would long since have been studied, trained, and kept under supervision, and little girls would have been safe. England has had this scheme since 1913; and it has certainly played its part in diminishing her sex crimes. When will our parents see this? We have the necessary legislation, but as yet not one single home for the adult feeble-minded! They continue to offend, in many ways, poor wretches!

One such woman did not even know how many illegitimate children she had had. Another has enriched New Zealand with nine—"legitimate," but all subnormal As regards Hogging. Mr R. M.I Laing's letter was very welcome. And, if you have space, here are two quotations that may convince "Interested" that flogging Is perhaps not all that he thinks. The first is from the "Weekly Manchester Guardian" of December 7, 1934. "Are there, indeed, any grounds that can justify making one man torture another, in our modern civilisation? The only arguments that can be urged in support are tnose which state that a punishment so fearful must be a most powerful deterrent . . . but only a careful enquiry into individual cases over a long period could show whether there was any evidence for that view; and such an enquiry has never been held. It is. however, known that there have been cases of men being condemned to the 'cat' twice and even thrice in Thenlives. ... It is impossible that there are not many people to-day who feel that at the very least there is a strong case for such an enquiry." (Even "ninety-nine out of every hundred," perhaps; that is. of thoughtful people.) And the London "Spectator" of December 14 also wants an enquiry into the real efficacy of flogging as a deterrant, observing that, "In view of the strong opinions held by many medical officers against Hogging with the 'cat,' the question should be raised again in the House of Commons on the Home Office vote." Will it be raised again in our New Zealand House during the debate on supply? I seem to remember that a flogging was ordered in New Zealand last December, in punishment for rape. Did it "deter" from this recent offence? Does "tit for tat" really pay?— Yours, etc B. E. BAUGHAN. Akaroa, February 27, 1935.

[This correspondence is now closed. — Ed., "The Press."]