Page images
PDF
EPUB

proposal to inflict an indeterminate sentence fell through, the power to incarcerate for a period up to ten years, in addition to the sentence of penal servitude for the specific crime which had brought the culprit within the meshes of the law, was a substantial protection against the misdeeds of this class of offender.

How have the courts availed themselves of this means placed at their discretion by the legislature for dealing with the adult habitual criminal? Here are the figures of sentences to penal servitude of prisoners received into prison in 1902-3 and 1924-5:

[blocks in formation]

From these figures, it may be seen that sentences of over five years' penal servitude have fallen into disuse and that the courts have arrived at the conclusion that a five years' sentence is sufficient for all classes of crime, except in quite a few solitary instances. A male convict sentenced to penal servitude can earn his discharge on licence after serving three-fourths of the sentence, and, as the habitual criminal behaves well in prison, the maximum term of incarceration becomes three years and nine months for offences of a grave nature committed by men who have been previously sentenced on several occasions to penal servitude. Even if a sentence of preventive detention is added, the total time spent in custody would not be much more than the period under the longer sentences of penal servitude formerly imposed. It is, however, a fact that the sentences of preventive detention are few; from a combination of circumstances, this means of protecting the community from the misdeeds of the habitual criminal has proved largely a failure. In 1924-5 there were only 33 sentences of preventive detention imposed; almost all after sentences of only three years' penal servitude.

This is a ridiculously small number when we consider the number of previous convictions of those received under sentence of penal servitude in the same year. Of 478 received into penal servitude, only 90 were not known to have been previously convicted. Of the 388 known to have been previously convicted, 272 had been previously convicted six or more times. Yet only

27 were considered by the courts worthy of a sentence of preventive detention. It is well to point out that, in the 26 cases, the termination of the sentence of penal servitude can be gained in two years and three months, so that, even if the full term of five years' preventive detention is served, the length of time in custody is only seven years and three months; whereas, in former years, there is not the slightest doubt that such a class of offender would have been sentenced to seven years' penal servitude-if not for a longer term. The action of the courts in imposing such short sentences of penal servitude, and in adding the minimum term of preventive detention in only a few solitary cases, has rendered the Act of 1908 practically of no account in so far as the protection of the public is concerned, which was the object in view when this special legislation was proposed.

This extraordinary result may in part be attributed to the action taken in certain cases by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The application of the law by that court has resulted in the quashing of several sentences of preventive detention on technical grounds, with the result that only in the very clear and worst cases can the Director of Public Prosecutions indict prisoners as habitual criminals with the hope of securing a proper sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal has also, in many cases, reduced the length of the sentence of penal servitude which had been imposed by the original sentencing court, and this has, no doubt, had its effect in setting up the present standard of short sentences.

The well-thought-out proposals of the prison administrators of 1908 have, therefore, failed. It is known that some of the judges have an objection to imposing a sentence of preventive detention to follow a sentence of penal servitude, their view being, apparently, that if a man is to be sentenced as an habitual criminal he should be sentenced to preventive detention straight away or, at all events, that he should serve only a short prior sentence. All who have studied the subject will agree that this situation should not be allowed to continue. Either the present Act should be administered according to its intention, or there should be fresh legislation which would result in the habitual criminal being dealt with effectively in the interests of the law-abiding population. Further, release on licence before the termination of the sentence of preventive detention should be sparingly granted, and only in cases where there is a real hope that the

culprit has learned wisdom and has determined to turn over a new leaf. If effective action is taken in this manner, we shall hear less of repeated spectacular crimes by "cat-burglars,” “motor bandits," and others.

From the foregoing it will be seen that legislation has already been passed with the following objects :

(1) Dealing with minor offences by other means than by committal to prison.

(2) Securing an adequate sentence in the cases of offenders under 21 years of age, who have already started on a criminal career, in order that there may be time in which to train them in habits of obedience and industry.

(3) Providing a means for keeping the adult habitual criminal in custody for a lengthened period.

For the remaining mass of offenders there are the ordinary sentences of imprisonment and penal servitude, which, as shown above, have grown shorter and shorter by the action of the courts. These repeated short sentences are of little use, as the figures of the previous convictions of those thus sentenced show. Of prisoners sent to prison on conviction in 1923 and sentenced to other than penal servitude, 16,040 were not known to have been previously convicted, but 30,289 had been previously convicted. Of these latter, 2,452 had been convicted three times, 2,029 four times, 1,419 five times, 4,464 six to ten times, 3,596 eleven to twenty times and 5,074 over twenty times. Many of these persons might well have been sentenced to penal servitude.

What can be the use of sending these offenders again and again to prison for short terms? Every effort is now being made by those charged with the administration of our prisons to train prisoners in habits of industry and to cultivate in them a sense of good citizenship; but all such efforts are in vain in the cases of short sentences. Among those prisoners sentenced to short terms are a certain proportion who might have been dealt with in other ways without committal to prison, particularly where their offence was the first lapse. Imprisonment is not necessary for some foolish isolated act of no gravity, for which the shame of having to appear in court, with a solemn warning, is probably sufficient punishment. Happily our magistrates are recognising this, but there are still some who think that the only way of dealing with an offence, although of a trivial character, is by the time-honoured seven or fourteen days.

In the case of those whose previous convictions give evidence that they are real wrongdoers, and that they will not mend, it would be far better to sentence them to longer terms, in order that there may be time in which to try to mould them into better ways with the greater benefit to themselves and to the State. There would probably be difficulty, however, in persuading the courts to depart from the standard of sentences to which they have become accustomed. The best plan would, no doubt, be to obtain power by fresh legislation to deal with the petty recidivist by some further penalty, as is done in the case of the more serious habitual criminal. Such further penalty to take effect at the end of the sentence of imprisonment might, in the first place, consist of some form of probation placing the prisoner under supervision for a fixed term, which should not be too short. While under such supervision he should be required to lead an honest life. If he failed to comply, he should at once be brought up for a further sentence of imprisonment for a lengthened term. It is only by taking such measures as these that we can make any real progress in dealing with the petty offender, who comes before the courts again and again for pilfering, etc., sometimes with over twenty previous convictions against him.

With such reforms as have been indicated, and with a commonsense method of awarding sentences, we should be able to deal effectively with those who offend against the criminal law. In any case, let us not allow the fall in the prison population to deceive us into thinking that any corresponding diminution has taken place in certain of the more serious forms of crime committed by crafty and desperate criminals, from whom the general community has a right to receive adequate protection.

A. J. WALL

THE WORLD'S WHEAT

"Give us this day our daily bread."

IN every house throughout the civilised world, every day, that most necessary article of food, wheaten bread, is placed before the householder in a pleasant and appetising form, at a price which is lower than that of any other equivalent food in daily consumption. To-day 4-lbs. correct nett weight of the most nourishing food, ready cooked, can be procured anywhere in Western Europe for about tenpence. For the past six months the principal sources of supply for the wheat used in this country have been Canada and the United States, and yet the price of bread in these two countries greatly exceeds the price anywhere in Western Europe. In the great cities of the United States and in Canada bread costs about Is. 6d. for 4-lbs.

Every day throughout the twelve months of the year in some field in some part of the world, wheat is being sown. On that same day in some other part of the world wheat is being reaped. On every day in some part of the world wheat is growing in the field. From these facts it follows that the quantity of wheat actually in the world is always fluctuating. Further, since the weather in various parts of the world is for ever changing, the prospects for future supplies are also for ever changing. These perpetual fluctuations in the supply of wheat necessarily involve corresponding fluctuations in the relation of demand to supply, and for these reasons the price of wheat never ceases to fluctuate.

It is impossible within any reasonable space to set out, even in an abridged form, the mass of statistics which deal with the supply of and demand for wheat throughout the world. Europe is the chief importer of wheat; the continents of North and South America are the chief exporters. Harvests in Europe and in North America almost coincide in point of time, with the result that the quantity of wheat in the world is at its maximum about the end of August. The quantity declines until about the end of the year and then rapidly increases owing to the advent of harvest-time in Australia and Argentina. Throughout Europe, excluding Russia, native wheat is usually consumed near to where it is grown. Generally speaking the wheat farmer in Europe

« PreviousContinue »