CRIME AND THE CRIMINAL.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 November 1918, Page 1

CRIME AND THE CRIMINAL.

- PUNISHMENT, HEREDITY, AND ENVIRONMENT. ADDRESS BY SIR JOHN DENNTSTON. Half a century of experience at the Bar and on the Bench in the administration of' criminal law, has led Sir John Donnistoii to come to the conclusion that a very large proportion of those whom crime brings within its meshes are not criminals by instinct or by deliberate choice, aiid that in any case all of them are what heredity and the conditions into which they were horn, and in which they have lived have made them, and, therefore, that while | it is not only the right, but the duty of j society to enforce by every legitimate s deterrent and preventive means within its power, the laws on which its existence depends, and while the natural detestation of crime warrants and confirms the exercise of these methods, the ■riniinal himself should be considered noiv as a subject for pity tlian of aatred and revenge. Expression Of this opinion was made by Sir John in an interesting address on the punishment of criminals, which j lie delivered to members of the Workers’ Educational Association on Saturday week at Christchurch. Mr. J. Bt. ■Jtrutliers presided over a large attendance, METHODS OF PUNISHMENT. Sir John said there was a general agreement that . the main object and nd of punishment was deterrent. Preventive punishment, put shortly, meant disabling punishment, that which presented a convicted criminal from repeating the same, or it might he committing, any other offence. Reformative punishment spoke for itself. They ,tore admittedly only accessories to purely deterrent punishment, and when speaking of deterrent punishment generally, he wished ro be understood as speaking pf all three. The remaining eiul or object of punishment' was described as retributive. Retributive, n this connection, seemed to him to be, md he used as, equivalent to vindictive. Retribution was, in effect; vengeance. Revenge was a primitive instinct. ■ The crucial question on this matter of | vindictive punishment he conceived to 'be this: Should we in administering ■ivic justice oti Criminals base our punishment on hatred of the criminal, and on a duty to avenge an outraged so•ietv, or only oil the right "of society :o enforce obedience to its laws? He ventured to claim that the question of i mail’s being wicked in the sense of being immoral, that was in being a sinner in addition to being a criminal, was not relevant to the question of his punishment by man, and that the only object of such punishment was the protection of the State, and that vengeance was outside this object. Indeed, outside this legal and in a sense artificial responsibility, (essential-fo the existence of society), how far could any man he properly held responsible to his fellow-man ?How far, in this uspect, had be a choice of action? Assuming that everyone was born to a greater or lesser extent witli an innate knowledge of what was right and wrong, it was undeniable that, like any other mental oi moral function, this also was inherited, and was capable of being strengthened •>r weakened, even if not absolutely destroyed by the surroundings of its possessor.

HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT It was commonly said, Sir John went m. that n man exercised his will in deciding and that his will was free. In this the will was something independent of circumstances. Rut surely the correct assumption was that tho power to will at any given moment depended on what a man at that moment was. A man was subjected to tomptnfion. Did not his decision depend first upon what tho man was when he came into the world, and secondly, upon his mental, moral, and physical condition at the date of his temptation? On what, then did these depend? Sir John could conceive of nothing hut two elements, the man’s birth, and his subsequent surroundings, which were nowadays generally described as heredity and environment. For. his birth, could it he said that any was responsible—at least to liis fellow-man? That there wore congenital criminals was recognised. There wore families in whom a criminal tendency would be traced for generations. Apart from metaphysical and theological terminology, could a child starting in life with tho handicap of such inherited predispositions and tendencies he held to have the same power of choice between good and evil to resist tho temptation, to follow and to gratify his perverted natural instincts as would a child of normal inheritances?? In addition, physical weakness, pathological abnormalities, and such-like reacted on the mental and moral elements of the infant constitution. It had been authoritatively said that tho iniquity of the fathers would he visited on the children. The truth ow this was becoming more and more recognised. Nature, a convenient generalisation, as a rule punished breaches of this was becoming more and more only as a natural sequence of events. The other factor in the determination of the power of choice was environment, that was, the conditions in which the individual who had to make the choice had lived up to the moment of his decision. It was to his mind (impossible bo overrate this element. It was, he was inclined to think, of much more importance than even (heredity. He doubted excluding extreme abnormal cases on either mar. gin there was relatively as great a space between the extremes of Die mental, moral, and physical standard? of infants as there was between the extremes of the positions, advantages, and opportunities after birth. It was, of qjourse impossible to obtain any definite data on which to decide the point. He thought we were apt to underrate the effect on character of nutrition, training, education, example, association, opportunity.

If, then, a man’s ancestry, for which he was certainly not responsible, and his subsequent environment, for which he (Sir John) submitted the man was not appreciably responsible, really determined his choice between good and evil, who was responsible for the consequences of a choice which brought the chooser within the purview of civic criminal law? was it not largely those responsible for tho environment in other words society—which made and oil forced the law for the breach of which the punishment was inflicted?

SEXUAL OFFENCES. Did it not come to this? Sir John continued. Should we hate the criminal? It was very difficult in many cases not to hale the criminal. And naturally this difficulty was greatest in particular classes of cases, such as assaults on, and ill-treatment of, women and dhildjren. All the chivalry and sympathy of our nature revolted against the perpetrators of such acts. Yet is was by this class of offence that the coercive effects of heredity and environment were most clearly illustrated. il> took this opportunity of saying, after long experience and consideration, that in his opinion flogging was a punishment which' should find no place in any civilised penal code. The judges in this Dominion were not, lie thought, less awake to the horrors of the sexual class of cases than were others, but in very few oases bad the lash been irivok. ed. Tie had himself never imposed it. Grand juries had only too frequently before them a number of cases of this kind all at once; they saw and hoard the victims of them, and naturally they were boiling with a righteous indignation, and brought in a presentment that every offence against women and children should be punished by Hogging. They did not realise that they wore ritieising the action of judges, already entrusted with the power to indict this punishment at their discretion. Judges know that if such a mnishment were made compulsory in 11 cases of this class which varied so nucli in degre oof gravity, there would be few cases in which juries would convict. This would have disastrous consequences. It was a much greater deterrent to crime to know that punishment. would he certain than that it would he severe. He, however, dis"daimecl any desire to interfere with the = most drastic legitimate methods of punishment for deterrent and preventive purposes of the class of crimes which he had been dealing with, RECENT LEGISLATION. The recent provision in our Crimes Act giving the Courts power to inflict indeterminate sentences, by declaring an offender an “habitual criminal” in certain cases, supplied, if vigorously administered, a useful means of applying preventive punishment. Nothing to his mind, however, was so characteristic of the admitted change in our modern treatment of criminals, as the value and weight given to reformative treatment. Sir John’s concluding words were interesting:— “The most effective method of diminishing crime is to strike at its sources. No particular class lias a monopoly of any kind of crime. There are crimes which are more frequently associated with; the well-to-do and educated classes, hut the majority, apart- from heredity—and changed conditions may in time amend the race —are largely the offspring of ignorance, dissipation, and want. When it can he said that we individually and collectively have done all that is possible in the way of improving and perfecting our social conditions — have done our best to secure for every child a fair introduction into life, a reasonable education, decent surroundings, and, as far as possible, equality of opportunity in the struggle for existence—wo shall he at least in a bettoi position to discuss the rights of society to punish revengefully. Until that millennial period shall arrive, I cannot but think our proper attitude to the criminal t is that laid down by Him whom all of us, whatever our creed look upon as a great Teacher: ‘He that is without sin let him first east n stone.’ ” Sir John Denniston was accorded a hearty vote of thanks for his address.