Periodic Detention Work Centres
| Author | Michael Stace |
| Published date | 01 June 1979 |
| Date | 01 June 1979 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000486587901200202 |
AUST
&NZ
J()URNAL
OF
CRIMIN()L()CY
(June 1979) 12(3-18)
PERIODIC
DETENTION
WORK
CENTRES
Michael Stace"
.'3
It is
the
intention in this
paper
to present adescriptive account of the
development
of
periodic
detention
in
New
Zealand
from
1002 to 1977. Such
issues as legislation, philosophy
and
practice
are
considered. Most of the sources
used are official ones.
The
achievements of periodic
detention
are considered in
the terms of
the
penal
policy of the
Department
of Justice. It is
not
the intention
in this
paper
to discuss the assumptions underlying
the
Department's
penal
policy,
nor
the
merits or otherwise
of
that policy.
AResidential
Periodic
Detention
Work
Centres
Introduction
On
21 April 1962 a
new
type
of
sentence
was
announced
to
the
New
Zealand
public
by
the
then
Minister of Justice, Mr J R Hanan.
The
sentence, to
be
available for
young
offenders
and
designed
to arouse a
regard
for the feeling
of
others
and
to
apply
firm measures
upon
minor
offenders,
was
in
due
course to
become
known
as
periodic
detention.
The
sentence fell within the principles guiding the
Department
of Justice's
penal policy
which
had
been
announced
in
1954,1
and
which
had
been
expressed
in legislation in
the
Criminal Justice Act
of
that
year.
Included
in the principles
were
the points
that
imprisonment should
be
considered only as a last resort for
young
and
inexperienced offenders
and
that
where
some
fonn
of
detention
was
necessary,
every
possible reformative influence must
be
brought
to
bear
upon
the offender.
The
main sentences available to
young
offenders
in 1962
were
fines, probation,
detention
centre training (a three
month
disciplinary sentence
commonly
known
as a short, sharp, shock),
and
borstal
training (an
indeterminate sentence of up to
two
years).
The
sentence
was
devised
with
aspecific
type
of
offender
in mind. As
stated
in
the
Annual
Report
for the
Department
of Justice for the
year
ending
31 March
1962;
(P)art-time
imprisonment
could
be
very
helpful
in
dealing
with
the
young
larrikin or
vandal
whose
offences
would
at
present
be
punished
only
by
fines. It
would
restrict his
movements
and
liberty
during
weekends
or in
the
evenings
when
he is liable to misuse his
time
...
The
notion
that
certain
types
of
offenders,
whose
misconduct
does
not
call for lengthy
imprisonment,
should
'work
off'
their
offence
by
being
required
to
work
during
their leisure time has
received
widespread
public
approval.
It has an
element
of
reparation
in
kind,
but
what
is
more
important
it
can
lead
the
offender
towards
arealization of his obligations to
others
and
thus
prevent
further offences."
Legislation
Acriminal Justice
Amendment
Bill
was
introduced
into Parliament in
October
1962
and
became
effective as
from
28
November
1962, establishing the sentence
of periodic detention.
°Institute
of
Criminology,
Victoria University of Wellington NZ
4
MICHAEL
ST
ACE
ANZJ
Crim
(1979) 12
The
1962 legislation
provided
for a scheme applicable to persons
not
less than
15
and
under
21 years of age convicted of any offence punishable
by
imprisonment. The maximum sentence was to be 12 months
and
could be
combined
with a fine.
The
court
also
had
the
power
to place the
offender
on
probation for a
period
of up to 12 months from the
end
of
the
sentence of
periodic detention. In 1966 this provision was altered to allow for
probation
and
periodic detention to
run
concurrently although
the
time limit of
up
to 12 months
after
the completion of periodic detention
remained
unchanged.
The
1962 Act
also provided that a sentence of periodic detention could be
imposed
for
non-payment of a fine.
Restrictions were
placed
upon offenders eligible for the sentence; he must
not
have previously served asentence of detention
centre
training, borstal training or
imprisonment of one
month
or more. The scheme was thus
aimed
at
offenders
relatively inexperienced in offending, although no
comment
was
made
as to
previous contact
with
the Child Welfare Division of the
Department
of
Education. The Child Welfare Division was responsible, inter alia, for offenders
up to the age of 17, although there was
some
overlap with the
Department
of
Justice which also
dealt
with offenders in
the
15-17
age
group. In 1972 the Child
Welfare Division was
absorbed
into the
new
Department
of Social Welfare
but
the overlap continues. In practice, it gives the Bench the opportunity to
deal
with
offenders aged 15
and
16 either as young persons or as adults
depending
upon
their offence, their previous offending, such matters as home
and
educational
situations, and the Social Welfare Department's facilities.
It is considered that the omission of any reference to previous
Child
Welfare
experience was deliberate policy. As a general rule the attitude of the
Department
of Justice,
and
the probation service in particular,
IS
to allow
offenders a"fresh start" as far as possible
upon
"graduating" from the Children
and
Young Persons
Court
to the Magistrates Court.
The
comment sometimes
made
by residential
work
centre wardens however, is that detainees
who
have
previous institutional experience seem to
derive
less benefit from the sentence
than detainees unversed in the ways of institutions.
The
1962 Act
provided
that prior to imposing the sentence the
court
had
to
consider aprobation officer's report,
and
amedical
report
as to the person's
medical suitability for undergoing the
programme.
The
obligatory requirement
for a medical report was
removed
in the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1976
and
replaced
by
adiscretionary provision
whereby
the court, the
offender
or
the work centre
warden
may
request amedical examination to determine the
offender's medical suitability for the sentence. When sentencing the
offender
the
court must specify the first
day
and
time on which he was to report, the
number
of occasions in each
week
he was required to report,
and
the duration of each
period of custody.
During the
debate
on the legislation Mr
Hanan
commented
that
offenders
were
to be deprived of their
weekend
liberty
but
would
be
able to continue with
their
work
during the week, thus being able to continue to assist with the family's
finances, able to continue in trade training,
develop
a sense of citizenship,
possibly prevent further offending,
and
that it was cheaper
and
more
humanitarian than
any
type
of incarceration.
To continue reading
Request your trial