SEX-CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21414, 5 March 1935, Page 8

SEX-CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

TO TUB EDITOB OF TUB PHES9. Sir,—Since, when writing to you on February 27, I had certainly not seen "Interestcd's" letter published February 28, may I now claim my "right of reply" to the latter? I must specially repel, and that with disgust, the insinuation (made pseudonymously) that such people as Mr R. M. Laing and myself, working for penal reform, feel no sympathy for the victims of crime, and ask no compensation! This is entirely untrue. We feel such sympathy that we want crimes, of all kinds, prevented (as many, with the help of science, and a better system generally, could be) instead of committed again and again; and we never cease to urge the extension of the probation system, under which restitution really can be made. But the lash repairs nothing. It is at best but a sop to vindictiveness, which deserves none. And may I here try mercifully to comfort some of your readers by saying that, mercifully, such child-victims are not usually "ruined," and that some I have known have grown into .sweet and noble women, honoured and beloved? Which is not to say, of course, that I do not loathe the crimes against them, for I do.

England, as Mr Laing points out, does not flng for these offences. And if the lash is so needed to protect her l'rom gangsterdom, what keeps free from that curse such counitrics as Scandinavia and Scotland? "Interested" does not answer Mr Laing's challenge as to what countries, having given up the lash, have found crime leap ahead. So will he let me answer? None! As to "reformation," that has proved again and again the very best "deterrent" for individuals, and I regret deeply that I cannot ask space to give "Interested" particulars of men so "deterred," after repeated imprisonments had failed. As regards the judiciary, etc., your correspondent has again stated more than he knows; but, even so, as Lord Sankey has lately reminded us, the judiciary and paid functionaries of any penal system are apt to lag behind public opinion so far as reforms are concerned; the" judiciary of the day was, in fact, against the abolition of hanging for stealing, and therefore wrong—as even "Interested" will admit. In conclusion, let me say once more that these horrible sexcrimes against children could, and should, largely be prevented, and add

that "Interested's" strong feeling could if directed to that purpose, be most'useful.—Yours, etc., B. E. BAUGHAN. Akaroa, March 2, 1935. [Miss Baughan establishes her right to a further letter. The correspondence is now closed.—Ed., "The Press."]