PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 133, 14 September 1910, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. CRIMES ACT AMENDMENT DISCUSSED. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Gaming Amendment Bill was read a first time. In moving the second reading of the Crimes Act Amendment Bill which passed the Legislative Council, Mr. Fowlds explained the purport and provisions of the measure as already published. He was glad to be associated with a Bill which was one of the most important introduced this session. He emphasised the necessity for improveQ methods in the treatment of criminals, and said it was only when attempts at reforming them failed that purely repressive measures, hitherto in use, should be applied. Under the Elmira system, only 4 per cent of criminals had returned to crime, as against 53 per cent, under the New Zealand system, and if the new scheme approached such a result it would be very satisfactory. He believed the Bill would not only lessen crime and danger to society, but would reclaim mainy lives and save a great deal of expense. Mr. Allen approved the principle of the Bill. It was, however, only an extension of the present system of indeterminate sentences, and not a new system. While h.e favoured giving the criminal a chance, it would be wrong to abolish the punishment of those who were not amenable to reformative treatment. Regarding Elimira, it was evident that some process of selection oi inmates for that reformatory existed. He wanted to know on what ground a man was to be given a sentence of ten years' reformative sentence, and what evidence was to be relied on for giving effect to it. He considesed the powei under clause 4, by which, magistrates could impose a three years' reformative imprisonment, was very great to place in the hands of some magistrates. He criticised the proposals to utilise prison labour in orchards, and to teach trades which might unfairly compete with others. However, the purpose of tile Bill was a worthy one, and the defects he pointed out anight be removed in committee.

Mr. E. H. Taylor (Thames) considered the main proposals of the Bill did not reach the root of the evil. A better reason should be shown for including a judge on the Prison Board. Judges' close contact with the criminal classes rendered them unsvni,pathetic. Mr. Ha,nan combatted Mr. Taylor's views regarding judges, who with lawyers, have, always been in the forefront of the humanitarian and democratic movements. It was now being recognised thai society owed a duty to the criminal, and much could be done to help the criminal to work out his own salvation.

Mr. Hogg considered that fruitgrowing is not the most suitable occupation for the criminal. Providence seemed to have specialised the criminal for the legal profession. It was impossible to reform hereditary degenerates. He would like to see the House enquire into what crime was. The solution'of the labour problem would do much to l'easen the ranks of criminals. He approved the principle of the Bill. The House rose at 5.30.

Mr. Poole resumed the debate in the evening on the Crimes Act Amendment. Bill. There was 310 doubt effective means of reformatio* could be applied to those having criminal tendencies, it they were caught young. He failed to understand why objection was taken to the prbposal to use prison labour in cultivating lands for fruit-growing purposes. At the same time, he was against employing prisoners in occupations that would compete with ordinary labour. Mr. Thomson (Wallace) congratulated the Government on the introduction of a humanitarian measure. The reformatory prison at Invercargill had proved that work of the proper kind was the best means of restoring the self respect and character of those convicted of crime. In order, however, to eradicate crime it was necessary to deal primarily with the young. Much could be done by means of moral instruction in schools to counteract .predisposition to crime.

Mr. Laurenson said that every step taken to reform the criminal tended to lessen crime. He generally approved of the Bill.

Mr. Taylor (Christchurch) believed that all classes appreciated the work of the Attorney-General in his endeavours to reform the prison system. No factor made more for the production of criminals than the liquor traffic, and the abolition of this trade would do more than any law to root out crime. He condemned the provision giving magistrates power to extend the ordinary sentence for three years for reformative purposes as inimical to the liberty of the individual , There was something savage about it. The same objection did not apply to a judge, as. behind him, was a jury. He objected to constables (many of whom were raw youths) liaving the power to arrest persons released on iprobation, on committing a breach of their license. The spirit of vengeance was embodied in these provisions. He also protested against the clause which made it an indictable offence for a probationer to attempt to leave the Dominion.

Mr. Stallwovthy disagreed with Mr. Taylor regarding the po>ver of magistrates to add three years to ail ordinary sentence of three months. The hill was sound in principle, hcing based on reformative and not primitive treatment. TTo considered no better occupation could he found for prisoners than work upon the land.

Mr. Brown, as showing that prisoners might not fare any better at the hands of judges than magistrates, referred to the conditions the Chief Justice had recently imposed upon a probationer, namely, lie was not li<? out after 8 p.m. and not to smoke. The probationer might have work which would occupy him after 8 p.m., or might want to go to church.

Mr. Russell said he would move in committee that judges should have final decision in sentencing prisoners to reformatory detention. Even then there was a danger that judges might exercise that powers with severity. It wns the duty of the House to Inv down lines upon which these, sentences phonld be passed, so that, as far as possible, the personal equation of the judge should not enter into his decision. Mr. Massey strongly objected to power iheine given to magistrates under clause 4. He said there wns plenty of scope for tree planting for prisoners, but did not think planting fruit trees auitable work to nut them to. The Hon. T. MncKenzie pointed out that the proposal was to employ prisoners on land north of Auckland, which would not repay the cost of ordinary labor. The question the Government had to consider waa how to best utiliae the lamjs referred to.