Review: The Howard Journal of Penology, Vol. Xiii, No. 4
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837303700313 |
| Date | 01 July 1973 |
| Published date | 01 July 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
227
amisreading in
that
it is
the
judgment
which shall only be enforceable
to
the
extent of
the
difference.
The
note omits to say
that
the
leave of
the
Court
may be given for
further
enforcement.
In
paragraph
11-18
there is
nothing
in the
text
of
the
Act to indicate
that
the
certificate
of
the
Justice of the Peace is conclusive evidence
under
s.17.
The
appendices
form
amost interesting
and
valuable
part
of
the
book.
There
is
an
unfortuate
and
developing practice of introducing
legislation piecemeal.
The
commencement table in Appendix I shows
which provisions
came
into
force on
the
1st
January,
1973,
and
is
therefore, awelcome innovation.
Further
provisions were
brought
into
force by the commencement
order
No.2
(S.1. 1973 No.
272).
There
are
most useful tables in
Appendix
II
dealing with sen-
tencing powers.
To
these powers may be
added
binding over orders
and
detention for
up
to
four
days.
It
is
not
essential to offer legal aid
or
to consider a social inquiry
report
in every case before sentencing
to imprisonment.
Appendix
III
supplies
draft
announcements for the deferring of
sentence, for a
probation
order
with
a
day
training centre condition,
acommunity service
order
and
asuspended sentence supervision order.
These
will be of considerable
help
to
Judges, Magistrates
and
Court
Clerks.
Under
a
Community
Service
Order
aperson is
brought
back
before
the
specified
Court
in
the
first instance
and
not
necessarily
"this
court".
The
book is addressed to all those involved in the work of
the
Courts
and
to those responsible for implementing the Courts' decisions.
The
complications of new legislation
are
such
that
assistance is desirable
and
often indispensible.
This
book fulfils
that
role
and
is to be warmly
recommended.
THE
HOWARD
JOURNAL
OF
PENOLOGY,
VOL.
xnr,
No.4
Butterworths. London. £ 1.60
This
Journal
is published on behalf of the
Howard
League for
Penal
Reform.
Its
contents are therefore to be expected to
be-and
are-highly
critical of the present institutions.
In
the last essay
Mr.
Klare
divides the world
into
those who look to
the
law to
uphold
society
and
those who criticise the existing
order
and
sympathise with
those who transgress the law.
There
is no
doubt
of the category to
which
the
writers of this
Journal
belong.
The
first page publicises
the
demands
of
P.R.O.P.'s
Prisoners'
Charter
and
the
Editor
comments
that
"many"
(though
he does
not
say how
many)
were 'impressed'
by
the
moderation of those demands.
One
contributor,
who
frankly
relates his failure to
communicate
his ideas to his colleagues, blames
the
system
without
apparently
considering
the
possibility of
that
reject-
ion being
due
to the defects in those ideas.
Another
complains
that
in a
penal
establishment "everyone's behaviour is artificial
and
con-
strained"
without
explaining the sense in which the
inmate
of such an
establishment could ever be said to be unconstrained.
For
those professionally concerned with problems of penology, this
Journal
is,
and
always has been, amust.
To
convert others, it might
be
worth
considering whether the developing
jargon
of the psychologist
To continue reading
Request your trial