REFORMING THE DRUNKARD

Evening Star, Issue 19801, 27 February 1928, Page 13

REFORMING THE DRUNKARD

ROTO DM INSTITUTION INADEQUATE ALTERATIONS RECOMMENDED [Fee United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, February 25. The report to the Minister of Justice of the Advistory Commiteo to Roto Roa inebriates’ island, which in December last inquired into complaints made by the inmates, recommends some sweeping reforms in connection with the island- A large majority of the allegations made against Major Home, the superintendent, were not proved. Referring to the allegation concerning the danger of fire, the report states that the allegation opens up a very serious mater, which calls for urgent attention. The two-storied building in which the inmates live is made of wood and corrugated iron, and a fire would spread with rapidity. There are fire buckets, but these would be useless if a fire got a hold. The inmates, with a few exceptions, sleep upstairs. There is not a single fire escape, nor is any fire drill practised. The committee cannot stress too greatly the urgency of having fire escapes constructed and of a regulation being gazetted making compulsory the holding of fire drill every three months. It was alleged by the complainants that letters sent to inmates were not delivered, and were destroyed without ik 1 ilication, and that letters sent by the inmates were not delivered, and that censored parts of letters were destroyed and not sent to the Minister of Justice.

“ We do not think,” says the report, “ that the superintendent lias carried out his duties under regulations 6 and 7 of the Act as thoroughly as he should have done. There is, however, no foundation for part of the allegation. Wo think that each inmate should he repaired to enter in a book particulars of letters handed by him to the superim tendent. We are not satisfied that the superintendent reports to the Minister his refusal to forward or deliver letters. He has misinterpreted the regulations. If a letter contains matter which, in the superintendent’s opinion, should not be forwarded, he should forward the letter to the Minister, who, if he is of the same opinion as the superintendent, should inform the inmate that the letter will not be sent.

“ A specific allegation that a telegram to an inmate was held up was made to Major Homo in cross-examination. Major Home admitted that the message was received on a Saturday, but was not delivered until the Monday. This was inexcusable. The manager’s action in adding notes to the letters of inmates concerning the particular inmate’s welfare was well meant, but we think that the practice should bo discontinued.

“It is true,” stales the report, “ that a number of consumptive patients have been sent to the island. We cannot condemn too strongly the committal to tho island of persons suffering from any disease. We recommend that no person ho committed, unless_ a medical practitioner certifies in writing that such person is not suffering from any complaint or disease which is likely to require urgent medical attention, or which is likely to be a source of infection to the other inmates.

“It is clear that the present system of dealing with inebriates leaves much to he desired. The essence of tho under which detention at the island is legalised is reformation; hut we find that very little, if anything at all, is done in this direction. If it was realised that committal to the island meant tho proper treatment for persons addicted to drink rather than punitive detention, wo think that many more persons would go to tho island while the disease was still in its incipient stages and with a proper chance of recovery. The present system of committing persons for not loss than a certain period is wrong. It is also wrong to limit thc_ period. If detention is for reformative treatment, then it should not extend beyond the period necessary to effect a cure. ‘‘The evidence shows that the inebriates should be classified into those who are curable and those who are not. Inebriates who have reached the chronic stage should be committed for an indefinite period. Committal should be looked upon in the same light as the committal of a mentally defective person. The inmate should be released only by the Minister on proper rcommendations.”

The report concludes: “We are constrained to emphasise tho necessity of establishing urgent reform in the present system of the treatment of inebriates who have not reached a chronic stage. We consider that a qualified medical man, with special training, should be appointed by the Minister of Justice to take in hand the curative treatment of inmates. The departmental instructions that applications for discharge are not to he considered Tintil after an inmate has completed six mdnths’ detention is, in onr opinion, wrong.”