Fiat Justitia
The Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill found the House as a whole in agreement on all essentials—a welcome change from the acrimonious controversies which some recent measures have occasioned. To the principle underlying the whole Bill, that the aim throughout the penal system should be reformation, not punish- ment, general assent was, as it inevitably must be, accorded. Dis- cussion in Committee is likely to concentrate mainly on four points— whether capital punishment should be abolished, permanently or for an experimental period ; whether corporal punishment should be abolished completely or retained in prisons ; whether persons in custody but not convicted should be compelled, if required, to have their finger-prints taken ; and whether when a person is placed on probation a conviction should be formally registered. On the last point logic is in favour of the provision in the Bill, for unless an offence has actually been committed there can be no warrant for imposing probation ; but there is considerable dislike to the clause. The finger-print provision is obviously bad ; there may be something to be said for all the population being finger-printed for purposes of identification, but none for requiring this of a certain class of unconvicted persons. The case for retaining corporal punishment for brutal attacks on warders—and it is a strong case—is that no other effective sanction seems available. As to capital punishment, the Government has very wisely and fairly decided to leave this to a free vote of the House. All the indications are that the decision will be for abolition or suspension of the death penalty. Though the Home Secretary adduced some not unimpressive arguments against that course, the fact that Lord Templewood, who was against abolition when he introduced a Bill similar to this in 1938, is now in favour of it will have some influence. Altogether, a new chapter in our criminal administration is being written.
Previous page
