Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Correspondence

Correspondence AUST. & N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (Dec., 1972): 5, 4 255 Nevertheless, there is some evidence in relation to the youth scheme that some centres - and in particular Parnell in Auckland - receive a high proportion of offenders who have been specifically given another chance and who would otherwise have gone to either borstal or detention centre. (See Sissons, N. E., "Periodic 'Detention in New Zealand: A Comparative Study of the Dunedin Work Centre", Victoria University of Wellington Law SIR, In the last number of the Aus­ tralian and New Zealand Journal of Review (Aug. 1972) Vol. 6, No.3, pp. Criminology (Vol. 5, No.3) you published 266-287 at p. 280). Unfortunately. no a letter from Peter Prisgrove commenting, evidence is' available in relation to the on my note on the 1971 Report of the adult scheme which is perhaps the more New Zealand Department of Justice.. He important one in relation to periodic makes several points in his letter which detention as an actual alternative to will bear closer examination. incarceration. Finally, it is worth noting that much Of course, as Mr. Prisgrove points out, confusion has been caused, particularly there is no hard evidence to show that among overseas observers, by the failure periodic detention is a more effective correctional measure than, say, probation to distinguish adequately between the or borstal training. My note does not adult and youth . periodic detention claim there is and my "uncritical accept­ schemes. It is obvious that the youth ance of this sentence" consists simply of scheme, involving as it does incarceration remarking that New Zealand is "justly for two nights a week for most detainees, proud" of it. Gibson's rather truncated is "semi-custodial" in nature. Even here, research on the youth scheme (Aust. & however, it is perhaps worth noting that most centres in their initial stages are N.Z. Jo. Criminol. (June 1971), Vol. 4, No.2, pp, 86-93) does provide an indication that non-residential and that some do in prac­ periodic detention is not an absolute tice continue with a proportion of their disaster. muster attending on a daily basis. It is an unfortunate fact that we lack On the other hand the adult scheme is hard information on the effectiveness of truly non-custodial. It requires a full 'virtually every sentence available to the day's work on Saturday and generally courts, but surely this should not inhibit attendance on one evening a week. It is experimentation and occasional pride in unfortunate that in discussing periodic this area? The great advantage 'of periodic detention the distinctions between these detention is that it does enable us to two very different types of sentence are divert some offenders from continuous rarely made clear. detention. ,This can only be counted as Mr. Prisgrove is correct when he says beneficial in a system which has long that the Justice Department "refers to recognised the defects inherent in incar­ periodic detention as a non-custodial ceration, yet which is blessed with .a penalty", As regards the youth scheme, judiciary with a natural reluctance to this label is plainly incorrect and it is place serious offenders, and in particular interesting to note that neither the serious juvenile offenders, on probation. A.C.P.S. report on Non-Custodial and This last comment raises Mr. Prisgrove's Semi-Custodial Penalties (H.M.S.O. 1970), second point concerning my supposed nor J.' A. Seymour ("The Penal System: acceptance of the "ubiquitous assumption" A Developing Pattern", Aust. & N.Z. Jo. that periodic detention is only used in Criminol. (Sept. 1970), Vol. 3, No.3, pp. place of continuous detention". This 166-184) falls into the same trap. criticism is particularly unfortunate as it Nevertheless, it is difficult to agree with seems to be ·based on a complete mis­ Mr. Prisgrove when he says that: "The construction of my remarks on this point. increased use of periodic detention will, In fact, I pointed out that "[t]he further -therefore, intensify rather than alleviate development of periodic detention may go the problem of overcrowding in the prison some way towards relieving the pressure system asa whole." Assuming that one on the hopelessly. overcrowded prison can regard this form of treatment as part system. Clearly it will not help very of the prison system - a contention much." I specifically avoided making any which I suspect the" Probation Service men tion of the degree to which periodic would dispute, although I do not care to detention could be expected to do this myself ~ it is still difficult to see how as I .am as sceptical as Mr. Prisgrove of the use of this sentence will contribute the ability of the courts to use .new of itself to overcrowding. sentences in the way in which they were NEIL CAMERON, intended. ' Victoria University, Wellington. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology SAGE

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/correspondence-5hIMpfyuFv

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © by SAGE Publications
ISSN
0004-8658
eISSN
1837-9273
DOI
10.1177/000486587200500408
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AUST. & N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (Dec., 1972): 5, 4 255 Nevertheless, there is some evidence in relation to the youth scheme that some centres - and in particular Parnell in Auckland - receive a high proportion of offenders who have been specifically given another chance and who would otherwise have gone to either borstal or detention centre. (See Sissons, N. E., "Periodic 'Detention in New Zealand: A Comparative Study of the Dunedin Work Centre", Victoria University of Wellington Law SIR, In the last number of the Aus­ tralian and New Zealand Journal of Review (Aug. 1972) Vol. 6, No.3, pp. Criminology (Vol. 5, No.3) you published 266-287 at p. 280). Unfortunately. no a letter from Peter Prisgrove commenting, evidence is' available in relation to the on my note on the 1971 Report of the adult scheme which is perhaps the more New Zealand Department of Justice.. He important one in relation to periodic makes several points in his letter which detention as an actual alternative to will bear closer examination. incarceration. Finally, it is worth noting that much Of course, as Mr. Prisgrove points out, confusion has been caused, particularly there is no hard evidence to show that among overseas observers, by the failure periodic detention is a more effective correctional measure than, say, probation to distinguish adequately between the or borstal training. My note does not adult and youth . periodic detention claim there is and my "uncritical accept­ schemes. It is obvious that the youth ance of this sentence" consists simply of scheme, involving as it does incarceration remarking that New Zealand is "justly for two nights a week for most detainees, proud" of it. Gibson's rather truncated is "semi-custodial" in nature. Even here, research on the youth scheme (Aust. & however, it is perhaps worth noting that most centres in their initial stages are N.Z. Jo. Criminol. (June 1971), Vol. 4, No.2, pp, 86-93) does provide an indication that non-residential and that some do in prac­ periodic detention is not an absolute tice continue with a proportion of their disaster. muster attending on a daily basis. It is an unfortunate fact that we lack On the other hand the adult scheme is hard information on the effectiveness of truly non-custodial. It requires a full 'virtually every sentence available to the day's work on Saturday and generally courts, but surely this should not inhibit attendance on one evening a week. It is experimentation and occasional pride in unfortunate that in discussing periodic this area? The great advantage 'of periodic detention the distinctions between these detention is that it does enable us to two very different types of sentence are divert some offenders from continuous rarely made clear. detention. ,This can only be counted as Mr. Prisgrove is correct when he says beneficial in a system which has long that the Justice Department "refers to recognised the defects inherent in incar­ periodic detention as a non-custodial ceration, yet which is blessed with .a penalty", As regards the youth scheme, judiciary with a natural reluctance to this label is plainly incorrect and it is place serious offenders, and in particular interesting to note that neither the serious juvenile offenders, on probation. A.C.P.S. report on Non-Custodial and This last comment raises Mr. Prisgrove's Semi-Custodial Penalties (H.M.S.O. 1970), second point concerning my supposed nor J.' A. Seymour ("The Penal System: acceptance of the "ubiquitous assumption" A Developing Pattern", Aust. & N.Z. Jo. that periodic detention is only used in Criminol. (Sept. 1970), Vol. 3, No.3, pp. place of continuous detention". This 166-184) falls into the same trap. criticism is particularly unfortunate as it Nevertheless, it is difficult to agree with seems to be ·based on a complete mis­ Mr. Prisgrove when he says that: "The construction of my remarks on this point. increased use of periodic detention will, In fact, I pointed out that "[t]he further -therefore, intensify rather than alleviate development of periodic detention may go the problem of overcrowding in the prison some way towards relieving the pressure system asa whole." Assuming that one on the hopelessly. overcrowded prison can regard this form of treatment as part system. Clearly it will not help very of the prison system - a contention much." I specifically avoided making any which I suspect the" Probation Service men tion of the degree to which periodic would dispute, although I do not care to detention could be expected to do this myself ~ it is still difficult to see how as I .am as sceptical as Mr. Prisgrove of the use of this sentence will contribute the ability of the courts to use .new of itself to overcrowding. sentences in the way in which they were NEIL CAMERON, intended. ' Victoria University, Wellington.

Journal

Australian & New Zealand Journal of CriminologySAGE

Published: Dec 1, 1972

There are no references for this article.