FIRST OFFENDERS

Taranaki Daily News, 12 August 1921, Page 5

FIRST OFFENDERS

PRINCIPLES OF PROBATION KIR. JUSTICE REED’S VIEWS. His Honor Mr. Justice Reed, who hai conducted the criminal sittings of th< present session of the Supreme Courtl at Wellington, in expressing his opinion, on Saturday morning, on the question of granting probation to first ofs fenders, indicated that he was not in agreement with His Honor Mr. Justice Salmond in his recent pronouncement on the question at the Auckland sittings of the court. “The question as to when probation, should be granted has come prominently before the public in the course of the last week.” said His Honor. 'That is largely due to the fact that it is reported that His Honor Mr Justice Salmond has expressed the opinion that the effect of a recent de, 13 ion ot ihe j Court of Appeal is to establish * Chat I probation is a matter of course and a ' matter of right in cases of orienceu of I dishonesty, unless they are repeated; in I other words, every man in this country is entitled to commit one theft or one forgery with safety and remain at lib* erty.’ “NO NEW PRINCIPLE.” “I cannot agree with .His Honor’s interpretation of the decision in The Court of Appeal laid down no new principle; it dealt solely with th? circumstances of the case under review. A< one of the members of the Court of Appeal, and, speaking entirely for myself, 1 believe the general d’etre of ita .members was to apply to that case the j principles that have guided the courts jin New Zealand since 1886, when the First Offenders’ Probation Act waa, passed, and in which it was recited ‘Whereas it would be conducive to tho 1 public good if first offenders were in certain cases permitted to be at largo, on probation, without suffering impriiionment.’ “The success of the administration ot the statute, in the reformation of offenders, is beyond question, ao much so that, last session,, the legislature widened the scope of the Act, by permitting the courts to extend its benefits to those who were not first offenders. In the ease before the Court of Appeal the prisoner was 22 years of age, ho was a first offender, he bore a good, character, his release on probation was recommended by an experienced, probation officer, his employer was prepared to take nim. back into'his employ, and he had been in gaol waiting sentence and since sentence for some weeks. ‘ “The release of this youth on tion was considered by the Court of Appeal to be in accordance with the principles upon which the court had alwaya acted in the past. It certainly did notf intend to lay down the principle that:, “every man in the country is entitled to, commit one theft or one forgery.’ “I entirely agree with His Honor that such a principle involves ‘a dietrine sound and dangerous, the inevitable re-w suit of which is the degradation of thqj standard of honesty in the country.’ I “It is to be hoped that the time is farj distant when a principle, enunciated byg the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, cABiJ be fittingly so described. THE DETERMINING FACTORS. “My own view is that -certain factory must always be taken into eonsideratioDH in deciding whether the benefits of the' Act should be extended to an offender (I) Age of accused; (2) his previous conduct and reputation; (3) whether he hai added to his offence 'by the crime of perjury in the witness-box; (4) the proha«• tion officer’s and the police reports on the accused, and, particularly where the probation officer is a man of experience, whether he recommepds probation; (s)j nature of the offence, and the circumstances under which it was committed. It may perhaps be necessary also to take into consideration the prevalence of a particular class of crime, and the neecasity of endeavoring to stamp it out, by refusing to admit to probation that cial class of offender. “In my opinion all the above factors must be taken into consideration. If the general result is unfavorable., then I shall have no hesitation in refuting probation, even though the offender has never committed a crime, before feeling sure that, in loing sq, Tam'not acting against any principle laid down or Imhv th* finnrt of Anoeal.” * •