Book Review: The Ethics of Punishment
| DOI | 10.1177/000486586900200210 |
| Author | David Biles |
| Date | 01 June 1969 |
| Published date | 01 June 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
124 AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (1969): 2, 2
tured than it is. Although the report is
written largely to help the magistrate de-
cide between probation and detention, the
officer is told
not
to make a direct recom-
mendation: if he thinks the child should
be taken from home, he is to bias
the
body of
the
report accordingly. Unfor-
tunately, therefore, officers' and magis-
trates' views on selection criteria
are
not
aired and tested, as a
matter
of course,
in the standard forum of the court. The
booklet similarly gives no advice on deter-
mining the period of probation within
the
statutory limits (up to three years in a
children's court, from one to five years
for an adult, and anything up to five
years for a child dealt with in an adult
court).
Those
matters
cannot
just
be left to
the bench. Pre-sentence reports, probation
techniques, and breach proceedings,
are
all
based on the officers' views of the respec-
tive and complementary merits of treat-
ment on probation and treatment in de-
tention. Probation will not find its place
in welfare law until officers manifest a
co-operative understanding
of
the
objec-
tives of institutional management.
Three points of administration: Honorary
officers
are
asked to send a copy of
their
pre-court report to head office,
but
appar-
ently head office assigns some cases with-
out sending
the
operating officer its own
existing report, requiring him to prepare
his own. If so, such uncoordination of
efforts seems inconsiderate and inefficient.
Secondly, the 1951 booklet urged the
officer to
study
the
Acts and Regulations
he was administering. This booklet does
not
but
instead paraphrases
the
legislation
- often inaccurately, e.g., on ages and on
fines. As
part
of the tools for
the
~ob,
it would be simpler, more authoritative,
and no more costly, to give each officer
a copy of the legislation. Thirdly, officers
newly appointed outside Melbourne
are
asked to tell the local police and clerk
of court of
their
appointment. But
what
of movements over the years? An annually
gazetted list of these law officers,
their
current address, religion and qualifica-
tions, might generally assist probation
planning.
STANLEY W.
JOHNSTON,
Reader in Criminology,
University of Melbourne.
The Ethics of Punishment, W. Moberly,
Faber and Faber, London, 84/- st.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW more
than
once expressed
the
view
that
any
attempt
to reform acriminal offender·by punish-
ing him was absurd. He wrote, "If you
are to punish a
man
retributively, you
must injure him. If you are to reform
him you must improve him. And men
are
not improved by injuries."
Echoes of this indictment against
the
apparently dual philosophy underlying
penal practices
are
still heard today. Can
we reform as well as punish, or should
we try to reform
by
punishing? It is
the
former which is absurd; the
latter
may
not be. Sir
Walter
Moberly' cites a case
with which he was clearly familiar to
illustrate the possible reformative effects
of punishment.
Ayoung bugler in the first World
War
had gained himself areputation as a
slovenly and self-indulgent soldier. He had
been charged with many minor breaches
of discipline and eventually committed the
serious military offence of striking a non-
commissioned officer. For this he was sen-
tenced to twelve months detention. Trans-
ferred to the front before the expiration
of his sentence,
the
bugler showed him-
self to be among his unit's keenest
and
bravest men. He volunteered for every
dangerous assignment and, inevitably, was
soon wounded and returned home. The re-
mainder of his sentence was then remitted.
He was apparently areformed man.
With. this illustration, and much elabo-
ration of principle, Sir Walter Moberly
argues
that
punishment can be reformatory
if certain conditions
are
observed. Among
these it is suggested
that
the offender
must
recognize the punishment as
"the
just
and
m0
raIl
yinevitable retribution of his
offence", his conscience must be awakened,
and he must hold the punishing authority
(in this case
the
court martial) in some
respect.
But this book is not an apologia for
punishment. The
writer
acknowledges
that
punishment is always an evil, a second-
best for both
the
punisher and
the
punished.
The arguments for and against deter-
rence, retribution
and
reformation as pur-
poses for punishment, and
the
ways in
which these arguments have changed over
the
past
century or more, form the sub-
stance of this work. It is a scholarly
yet
lucid discussion in a difficult area of ethics
and moral philosophy.
It
represents
the
culmination of
the
life-long study by an
old man whose assiduity cannot be
doubted. As such it could well be regarded
as essential reading for judges, magistrates
and legislators, and also highly recom-
mended for lawyers, theologians, psy-
chologists and educators. Policemen and
prison officers should also not be adverse
to some consideration of the importance
of penal philosophy.
And an important topic it is. None can
To continue reading
Request your trial