PROBATION ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 13 May 1921, Page 3

PROBATION ACT

AMENDMENTS REVIEWED. - WELLINGTON, May 9. When charging the grand jury at the criminal sessions to-day, Mr Justice Hosking reviewed the several amendments made to the First offenders Probation Act since it was first applied in 1886.

Tlie object of punishment in criminal law, said his Honour, was threefold —to deprive the culprit of the opportunity of repeating his offence for a given time, to instil into him and others the fear of breaking the law, and to promote a desire not to offend against the law again. It was along the line of trying to promote a desire to live a lawful life that changes in the law had been most frequently made. He reviewed the amendments of the lan, and said that not till the recently concluded session of Parliament was a complete measure of release provided for. The amendments provided that any person might be admitted to probation notwithstanding previous offences, but discretion was left with the Court. Probation might be granted in respect of all offences short of murder and other offences for which the punishment was death. The term of probation was originally three years; that term had now been extended to five years. If the term imposed by the Court or the conditions were too severe, application might he made to the Prisons Board to have such term reduced or the conditions modified.

“Judging by the small number of* relapses that have taken place,” said his Honour, “the First Offenders Act has proved an eminent success. It is to he hoped that under the law ns it stands further success will bo achieved.” Another material alteration made had regard to persons under sentence of imprisonment and their release by direction of tlie Prisons Board. Previously only such persons as had been sentenced as habitual criminals sentences or those who had been committed for reformative detention might be so released, but the law bad been amended, and the Prisons Board had power to release prisoners sentenced by the Court to a definite term of imprisonment before tlie expiration of such terms. Again, a prisoner, without going to the Prisons Board, might appeal against his sentence to the Court. He had several courses open to him if he considered an injustice had been done him. Such amendments ano alterations showed the trend of public opinion in the matter of the punishment of crime. It was also to be remembered that it was always in the power nf the Crown to pardon a person convicted of crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and thus, with so many safeguards, ofie would not apprehend that prisoners would have cause for complaint as to harsh sentences, or that if such sentences were passed, that t here were not opportunities for their being reviewed.