Plague of Dishonesty

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 47, 18 May 1927, Page 8

Plague of Dishonesty

Dominion’s Astounding Record

Commissioner Takes a One-Sided View

Within the past few days the extent of detected crime against property—including a variety of defalcations ranging from petty theft and pilfering to forgery, false pretences and betrayal of trust—as revealed in the law courts of the Dominion, has involved the sum of £50,000.

HpHIS staggering total for such, a very short period shows that Auckland is not the only centre in which there is an urgent necessity for a clearing up of crime and criminal tendencies.

Mention of this fact is in no way a reflection on the police force and the detectives of the Dominion. It is not a question for them. The guardians

of the law can only detect and punish crime after it has been committed. They cannot anticipate. It is the prevention of criminal acts of this nature that is of vital importance, and it is this aspect of the matter that leads to the conclusion that it is a problem more for the preacher, the social worker, and the individual conscience, rather than for the policeman. Facts and Figures In New Zealand every year there are just on 4,000 offences against property. To quote the latest available figures, those for 1925: Two-thirds (2,432) of the 3,870 punishments meted out under this heading during the year were for straightout theft, 592 for mischief and wilful damage, 473 for fraud and false pretences, 243 for unlawful conversion, and, in addition, 34 for embezzlement and 30 for housebreaking. During the last six months or so in Auckland there have been four cases, two of young solicitors, and the,others of Customs agents, in which there has been betrayal of trust involving several hundreds of pounds in each instance, but these pale into comparative insignificance before those which have come to light elsewhere. In Other Centres At the recent session of the Supreme Court in Christchurch the amount involved in cases of stealing money from employers was said by the presiding judge to be approximately £13,300. One defaulter who was responsible for the loss of £5,000 belonging to a number of investors was sent to gaol for four years. In sentencing two other men to similar terms, for what he described as “a concerted and somewhat ingenious fraud,” involving £IO,OOO of Railway

Department funds, Mr. Justice Adams said:

“The court cannot listen to a suggestion that the more a man is trusted the more he is entitled to steal. When a man is put in a position of trust his employers trust him, and in such cases it is impossible to devise a means of

checking him.” From Wellington comes the complaint that there is an epidemic of systematic petty thieving from boarding houses and hotels, and on top of that the news that a £SOO fine has been inflicted for an evasion of the payment of income-tax amounting to £2,722, and of thefts by a woman of jewellery and valuables worth nearly £I,OOO.

Shoplifting, a form of crime common to all towns, and particularly those with big department stores, is flourishing, and only last week an Auckland magistrate sent one woman to gaol for a month, and fined another £2O for this form of stealing. There is perhaps some consolation in the fact that the Dominion is free from sandbaggers and garrotters who, in ipany of the big cities of other countries, crack a skull or strangle an unsuspecting victim for half-a-crown. New Zealanders feel proud that such is the case, but against this comparatively pleasing state of affairs we have the fact that money, and big sums of it, is being taken in other ways, although, happily, it is very seldom accompanied by violence. “Clearing” Auckland of Crime Police Commissioner W. B. Mcllveney’s commendable resolution “to clear Auckland, if it is humanly possible,” of crime sounds very comforting. All the police south of the line, however—with the assistance of those north of it —will not “clear” any city of the type of criminal who causes the biggest losses—the man in a big position, whose defalcations so often run well into four figures. He is never suspected until some slip brings the evil to light, and the amount then involved leaves everybody gasping. “I will clear Auckland of the criminal element, which has caused me some concern for some time past,” says Mr. Mcllveney, with the air of one who only has to press a button and the thing is done. Reinforcements of “experienced detectives” for the Auckland branch will no doubt help add to the valuable work that has already been done by Chief-Detective Cummings and his staff, and do something to ease the strain under which the local men have been working for some considerable time. But all that the police can do is to track down defaulters, after the crime has been committed. The problem of prevention, which is infinitely better than the punishment “cure,” must be left to other hands, and, as has been said before, to the consciences of those whom circumstances and their own ability place in positions of trust. C.W.V.