THE PROTECTION OF CHILDHOOD

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10288, 24 May 1919, Page 6

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDHOOD

One of the main objects of punishment by the law is to warn tho evil disposed off the track of evil doing. The element of justice is also strongly present, because the essence of justice is. the squaring of accounts. Special pleaders are apt by reason of confusion of thought to mistake this proper squaring for the impropriety of revenge. Whereas the. squaring Is justice, while revenge generally is injustice, at all events in the matter of degree, which matter counts always heavily.

With these, principles,in. proach. Mr > T J tionihat flogging shall be inflicted on offenders of a certain degraded class. The objection to flogging is that it is brutalising, and the evidence of history supports the objection with appalling confirmation. Vast numbers of persons who deserved better treatment have been brutalised by this treatment. The objection is strong. But there is one class of offenders to whom, it cannot simple reason that they are brutalised already. The offender who degrades innocent childhood is just in that position. No conceivable punishment can brutaliso him, for he has reached the lowest depth of brutality. In his cjaso another argument becomes immediately applicable. Experience has proved that flogging is .with natures bo degraded the only valid deterrent. In their caso the claim of justice and the crying need for deterrent effect join in weighty demand for this special punishment. -Mr Justice Stringer, at Auckland the othtr day, had such a case beforo him. After pointing out that the power of inflicting flogging in such cases is given by the law, he suggested that, the judiciary might well consider its infliction, but for himself in this case jat least—a very bad one which he said, addressing the convicted wretch beforo him, required most drastic deterrent—he would refain from inflicting a brutalising punishment. He stressed the point, for the conviction had proved that the'offender had fallen to the lowest depth of brutality, and if be produced the impression that he was suggesting that the other judges might, in the interests of childhood, do the brutalising, he cannot very iwell avoid the implication. The occasion is one justifying the declaration that courage of moral opinion'is one of the high qualities expected on the Bench of Justice. A certain class of offence is horrifying tho public by its increasing frequency. The law provides a punishment both just and deterrent. The infliction of this punishment requires courage. It is useless to deplore to Grand Juries, or to anybody else, that a certain awful thing is rife. Grand Juries are not their brothers' keepers, but the judges are, in a sense, and tho manner in which they perform this part of their great function has swelled the respect the commonwealth has for them. With a high courage as high as their habitual sense of justice, it is in their power to greatly diminish, if not altogether stop, the class of crime which horrifies them as much as it does the general public. Therefore, we say, "Be brave. This crime against childhood is eo great that many regard its commission as conclusive evidence of mental derangement. The abomination is so awful, and the possibility of consequent desolation so tremendous, that it is difficult to conceive its deliberate accomplishment by any reasoning being. But this, after all, is only another way of saying that it is difficult to draw tho line between sanity and insanity. But tho line can be drawn by tho courts, and is drawn whenever occasion requires. Now, human experience has in its great reservoir of things oases which reach tho extreme of- perversity without leaving the region of sanity. Hence the necessity for drawing tho line is apparent, is acknowledged, and is acted upon. In these eases it must be drawn, and if the line is found running within the bounds of sanity, let the lash fall. Tho cause of childhood is sacred, acknowledged as such by Heathendom and Religion alike.' Why hesitate in its defence through fear of brutalising -brutality ?.