L00383762T 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/reportofdepartme1932grea 
 
REPORT 
 
 of the 
 
 Departmental Committee 
 
 on 
 
 PERSISTENT OFFENDERS 
 
 Presented, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
 to Parliament by Command of His Majesty 
 May, 1932 
 
 LONDON 
 
 PRINTED AND PDBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 
 To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses 
 Adastral House, Kingsway, Loudon, W.C.a; 130, George Street, Edinburgh 
 York Street, Manchester; t, St. Andrew’s Crescent, Cardiff 
 t5, Donegall Square West, Belfast 
 or through any Bookseller 
 
 Cmd. 4090 
 
 1932 
 
 Price is. 6 d. Net 
 
REPORT 
 
 of the 
 
 Departmental Committee 
 
 on 
 
 PERSISTENT OFFENDERS 
 
 Presented by the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
 to Parliament by Command of His Majesty 
 May, 1932 
 
 LONDON 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE 
 To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses 
 Adaetral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.a; 120, George Street, Edinburgh 
 York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff 
 15, Donegall Square West, Belfast 
 or through any Bookseller 
 
 Cmd. 4090 
 
 1932 
 
 Price is. 6d. Net 
 
11 
 
 COPY OF WARRANT OF APPOINTMENT. 
 
 I Hereby Appoint— 
 
 The Honourable Sir John C. Dove-Wilson, K.C., 
 
 Mr. H. du Parcq, K.C.,* 
 
 Mr. David Crombie, I.S.O., 
 
 Mr. W. N. East, M.D., M.R.C.P., 
 
 Mr. Dan Griffiths, 
 
 Mr. A. Maxwell, C.B., 
 
 Mr. J. Wellesley Orr, 
 
 Mrs. M. Stocks, J.P., 
 
 to be a Committee to enquire into the existing methods of dealing 
 with Persistent Offenders, including Habitual Offenders who are 
 liable to sentences of Preventive Detention and other classes of 
 offenders who return to prison repeatedly, and to report what 
 changes, if any, are desirable in the present law and administration. 
 
 And I Further Appoint the Honourable Sir John C. Dove- 
 Wilson to be Chairman and Mr. A. Johnston, of the Home Office, 
 to be Secretary of the Committee. 
 
 Home Office; 
 
 21st April, 1931. 
 
 (Signed) J. E. Clynes. 
 
 * Now the Honourable Mr. Justice du Parcq. 
 
0 
 
 111 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 
 
 Chapter I.—The Ineffectiveness of Present Methods of Dealing 
 
 With Persistent Offenders ... ... ... ... 2 
 
 „ II.—The Initial Stages of Persistent Criminality ... 6 
 
 ,, III.—How the Length of Sentences of Imprisonment 
 
 is Determined ... ... ... ... ... ... 9 
 
 ,, IV.—The Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 ... ... ... 12 
 
 The Borstal Sentence ... ... ... ... ... 12 
 
 The Preventive Detention Sentence ... ... ... 13 
 
 ,, V.—Sentences of Detention for from Two to Four Years 15 
 
 ,, VI.—Sentences of Prolonged Detention ... ... ... 18 
 
 „ VII.—The Treatment of Offenders Sentenced to Detention 22 
 Accommodation for Persons sentenced to Detention... 27 
 
 ,, VIII.—Release on Licence from Detention... ... ... 29 
 
 After Care ... ... ... ... ... ... 31 
 
 „ IX.—Industrial Training ... ... ... ... ... 34 
 
 ,, X.—Special Considerations Affecting Women ... ... 38 
 
 ,, XI.—How Far can Persistent Offenders be Treated as 
 
 Mental Patients? ... ... ... ... ... 40 
 
 Existing Statutory methods of dealing with Prisoners 
 
 of Abnormal or Subnormal Mentality ... ... 40 
 
 Inebriety ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 40 
 
 Mental Deficiency ... ... ... ... ... 41 
 
 Types of Offenders who cannot be dealt with under 
 existing Statutory Provisions but who may be 
 affected with minor mental abnormalities ... ... 43 
 
 Psychological Treatment ... ... ... ... 44 
 
 „ XII.—The Abolition of tile Legal Distinction Between 
 
 Penal Servitude and Imprisonment ... ... 49 
 
 Should the Licensing System be Retained for Penal 
 
 Servitude Convicts? ... ... ... ... ... 51 
 
 ,, XIII.—The Conditions Under Which Sentences of Preven¬ 
 tive Detention are Served ... ... ... ... 55 
 
 After Care ... ... ... ... ... ... 58 
 
 „ XIV.—Reasons for the Repeal of Part II of the Pre¬ 
 vention of Crime Act, 1908 ... ... ... ... 60 
 
 Summary of Conclusions ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 64 
 
 Reservation by Mr. Dan Griffiths ... ... ... ... ... 68 
 
 14421 A 2 
 
1Y 
 
 Page 
 
 Appendix 1. — List of Witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee 73 
 
 ,, 2.—Statistics relating to Persistent Offenders in Scotland 75 
 
 ,, 3.—Number of Persons sentenced to Preventive Detention 
 
 during the years 1909 to 1930 ... ... ... ... 77 
 
 ,, 4.—Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Home 
 
 Department, prefixed to a draft of Rules prescribing 
 conditions in Preventive Detention, laid before Parlia¬ 
 ment on 17th February, 1911 ... ... ... ... 78 
 
 ,, 5.—Copy of Circular Letter, dated 21st June, 1911, issued 
 
 by the Home Office to Police Authorities ... ... 81 
 
 ,, 6.—Certain sexual offences, which are not felonies but which 
 
 in the opinion of the Committee should be included in 
 the definition of “ crimes ” which render persistent 
 offenders liable to prolonged detention... ... ... 82 
 
 Note—The estimated cost of the preparation of this Report 
 (including the expenses of the Committee) is T1141 18s. 10d., of 
 Which T75 is the estimated cost of printing and publishing this 
 Report. 
 
1 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON PERSISTENT 
 
 OFFENDERS. 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 To the Right Honourable Sir Herbert Samuel, Gr.C.B., G.B.E., 
 M.P., His Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 We, the undersigned members of the Committee appointed— 
 to inquire into the existing methods of dealing with per¬ 
 sistent offenders, including habitual offenders who are liable to 
 sentences of preventive detention and other classes of offenders 
 who return to prison repeatedly and to report what changes 
 if any are desirable in the present law and administration,” 
 have the honour to submit our report. 
 
 We desire in the first place to put on record our high appreciation 
 of the services of our Secretary, Mr. Johnston, whose ability, know¬ 
 ledge and industry have been a great assistance throughout the 
 enquiry and in the framing of this report. 
 
 We have held 39 meetings and have examined 66 witnesses. 
 The names of those witnesses, and of the associations and private 
 individuals who submitted written statements but did not give 
 evidence, are set out in Appendix 1 to this report. We desire 
 to express our thanks to all who submitted statements and gave 
 evidence for the assistance they have given in the examination of 
 the problems referred to us for enquiry. 
 
 We visited various convict and local prisons, a Borstal Institution 
 and the preventive detention prison at Camp Hill. 
 
 A 3 
 
 14121 
 
o 
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 The Ineffectiveness of Present Methods of Dealing with 
 Persistent Offenders. 
 
 2. The need for an enquiry into the methods of dealing with 
 persistent offenders arises not because the number of criminals in 
 this country is large, but because a large proportion of the persons 
 convicted of offences have been repeatedly guilty of previous offences 
 and are neither reformed nor deterred by tlie sentences passed upon 
 them. 
 
 3. In the year 1930 out of a population of 40,000,000 in England 
 and Wales* the receptions! into the prisons of persons convicted 
 of indictable offences numbered 15,700, including 9,572 cases of 
 larceny, 2,084 cases of burglary and housebreaking, and 1,307 
 cases of obtaining money or goods by false pretences. In addition 
 there were 17,400 imprisonments for offences which are more in 
 the nature of nuisances than of crimes, such as drunkenness, 
 begging, offences against police regulations and offences against the 
 Poor Law; and 5,900 imprisonments in respect of offences akin 
 to indictable offences, including assaults and loitering with intent 
 to commit a felony. 
 
 In all there were 39,000 imprisonments of persons convicted 
 of offences, but 12,500 resulted from failure to pay fines, leaving 
 only 26,500 cases in which imprisonment was imposed without 
 the option of a fine. 
 
 The receptions for 1930 were slightly higher than for 1929, but 
 not higher than the average for the last five years; and they were 
 only a quarter of the average number of receptions in the five 
 years from 1910 to 1914. 
 
 Of the 39,000 sentences of imprisonment 28,000 were imposed on 
 persons who had been previously found guilty of offences. In many 
 cases these previous offences had been dealt with by methods other 
 than imprisonment, such as the use of probation, binding over, and 
 fines; but in 20,384 cases the offenders had been previously in 
 
 * The figures for Scotland are set out in Appendix 2. 
 
 f The term “ receptions ” is used because many prisoners after finishing one 
 sentence are convicted again and sent to prison again in the course of the same 
 year. Consequently, the number of receptions is always greater than the number 
 of different individuals received into prison. It is estimated that 39,000 receptions 
 represent about 32,000 separate individuals. 
 
3 
 
 prison. Many of them had served repeated sentences of imprison¬ 
 ment as is shown by the following table— 
 
 4,740 had served 1 previous sentence. 
 
 2,952 had served 2 previous sentences. 
 
 1,949 had served 3 previous sentences. 
 
 1,499 had served 4 previous sentences. , 
 
 1,115 had served 5 previous sentences. 
 
 3,382 had served 6-10 previous sentences. 
 
 2,622 had served 11-20 previous sentences. 
 
 2,125 had served over 20 previous sentences. 
 
 20,384 
 
 4. No statistics are available showing what proportion of those 
 who come to prison for the first time do not return, but all persons 
 who are experienced in prison administration agree that a very 
 large proportion of these “ first-timers ” are not reconvicted. Of 
 the comparatively small number of persons who return to prison 
 on a second sentence a large proportion, however, come back re¬ 
 peatedly ; the probability of relapse increases with the number of 
 previous sentences, and a substantial part of the prison population 
 consists of a “ stage army ” of individuals who pass through the 
 prisons again and again. 
 
 5. The inference is that the present methods not only fail to 
 check the criminal propensities of such people, but may actually 
 cause progressive deterioration by habituating the offenders to prison 
 conditions, which weaken rather than strengthen their characters. 
 That the present methods of dealing with persistent offenders are 
 unsatisfactory is the general burden of all the evidence we have 
 received, whether from witnesses who have judicial or magisterial 
 experience, or from representatives of the police, or from prison 
 administrators, or from social workers and philanthropists, or from 
 medical experts and psychologists. 
 
 6. In most cases the only practicable course open to a Court 
 when dealing with a persistent offender is to send him to prison for 
 a period proportionate to the gravity of the particular offence of 
 which he stands convicted. During this period society is temporarily 
 protected against injury from this individual, but the (period of 
 protection is limited (neai'ly 80 per cent, of imprisonments are for 
 periods not exceeding three months and less than 4 per cent, are for 
 periods exceeding one year) ; and if on the offender’s release he 
 speedily commits other offences, the expenditure of trouble and 
 money by the Police who have to catch him, by the Judicial Authori¬ 
 ties who try him, by the Prison Authorities who house, feed, clothe, 
 and guard him, and by the Prisoners’ Aid Societies who help him 
 on his discharge, is out of proportion to the result achieved—to say 
 nothing of the harm which may be caused to the public by the 
 offences he commits between his periods of imprisonment. 
 
 A 4 
 
 14421 
 
4 
 
 7. How much harm may be done by certain types of persistent 
 offenders between their periods of imprisonment is shown by the 
 records of criminals who, when caught and convicted of one or two 
 offences, ask that other crimes may be taken into consideration 
 before sentence is passed in order that they may not after serving 
 one sentence be liable ito be convicted and sentenced again in 
 respect of these previous offences. In the introduction to the 
 “ Criminal Statistics ” which was published in 1930,* there are 
 references to the case of a man convicted of housebreaking and 
 sentenced to five years’ penal servitude who, before he was 
 sentenced, asked that no less than 315 offences in addition to those 
 charged in the indictment should be taken into consideration and 
 to the case of a man sentenced to three years’ penal servitude for 
 “ memorial plaque ” frauds on relatives of men killed in the war, 
 who, before being sentenced, asked that no less than 232 similar 
 offences committed throughout the country should be taken into 
 consideration. 
 
 Our attention has also been called to cases of sexual offenders 
 who have numerous convictions of offences—including such offences 
 as indecent assaults on children—spread over long periods of years. 
 It is probable that the many offences of which such men are con¬ 
 victed are by no means all the offences they have committed, and 
 the harm done by such offenders between their periods of im¬ 
 prisonment must be great!. 
 
 8. Moreover, the present system not only fails to provide adequate 
 protection for society : it also fails to provide the treatment of which 
 many persistent offenders stand in need. Amongst the offenders 
 who are at present sentenced again and again to short terms of 
 imprisonment, there are some who, if subjected to a substantial 
 term of training, might respond to such treatment; there are others 
 who require control for their own protection; and there are others 
 who might be deterred from continuing their criminal careers, if 
 the consequence to be apprehended were not a short term of im¬ 
 prisonment for the offence which happens to be detected but a long 
 term of detention for persistence in crime. 
 
 9. The evidence of prison authorities is to the effect that these 
 persistent offenders may be divided into three classes. First there 
 are the offenders of relatively strong character and mentality who 
 deliberately choose a life of crime. Many of them are young and 
 they might be amenable to reformative treatment. Secondly there 
 are the offenders of weaker mentality and weaker moral character 
 who drift into crime because they are unable to face the difficulties 
 of ordinary social life. Thirdly there are the pathological cases to 
 which we refer in Chapter XI and who may be amenable to medical 
 and psychiatric treatment. There is of course no sharp distinction 
 
 * Criminal Statistics (England and Wales), 1928. Cmd. 3581. 
 t One extreme case was brought to our notice in which a man had 16 convictions, 
 extending over 30 years, for indecent assaults on young girls. 
 
5 
 
 between those categories especially as between the first and second, 
 and many cases belong to a border region in which various causes 
 of widely differing character appear to be at work. 
 
 10. A full enquiry into the general causes of crime and the 
 possibility of its (prevention, would raise large problems of sociology, 
 economics, education, psychology and public health which are be¬ 
 yond the scope of our enquiry. Our enquiry is limited to methods 
 of dealing with persons who have become or are becoming per¬ 
 sistent offenders. Within our limited field of reference it is possible 
 to suggest some ways in which improvements can be sought in 
 regard to treatment. It is possible, even, to indicate certain more 
 immediate causes which assist the manufacture of persistent 
 offenders, in so far as these causes can be affected by changes in 
 “ the present law and administration.” But we recognise that 
 recommendations within the scope of our enquiry can at the best 
 provide only partial remedies. 
 
6 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Initial Stages of Persistent Criminality. 
 
 11. Every persistent offender has been at one time a “ first 
 offender ’ ’ and in a review of the methods of dealing with persistent 
 offenders account must be taken of the methods of dealing with 
 these persons before their persistence in crime has been developed 
 or become manifest. 
 
 In some of them the tendencies which lead to persistence in 
 wrong doing may have developed long before the offender is charged 
 in a court of law; and it may at that stage be exceedingly difficult, 
 or perhaps impracticable, to devise corrective measures which will 
 be efficacious : but the way in which an offender is treated on his 
 first appearance in Court on a criminal charge is likely to have a 
 momentous effect for good or for evil on his subsequent career. 
 The action taken by the Court at this critical juncture may greatly 
 diminish or greatly increase the chances of his becoming a persistent 
 offender in the future. 
 
 12. Much progress has been made in recent years in the methods 
 of dealing with young offenders. The whole question of the treat¬ 
 ment of offenders under 21 was reviewed by the Departmental Com¬ 
 mittees appointed in England and Scotland in 1925 on the treatment 
 of young offenders,* and we do not propose to go over the ground 
 covered in so much detail by those Committees. Bearing in mind, 
 however, the supreme importance of these earlier years, there are 
 some salient points which seem to us to require emphasis. For ex¬ 
 ample, it is well known that the offences of children are often attri¬ 
 butable to bad home surroundings, and among the child delinquents 
 there must be large numbers whose homes and associates are such 
 that there is a grave danger of their growing up to be persistent 
 offenders. Yet we find that in 1930, out of 15,932 boys and girls 
 under 16 who were proved guilty in England and Scotland of the 
 type of offences classed in England as indictable offences, only 
 1,384 were sent to Reformatory or Industrial Schools. The train¬ 
 ing in these Schools is successful with 90 per cent, of their pupils, 
 and “ it would seem ” in the words of the Introduction to the 
 Criminal Statistics “ that greater use might well be made of the 
 Home Office Schools.”f 
 
 13. Again, although the number of young persons between 16 
 and 21 years of age sentenced to imprisonment has fallen from 4,300 
 
 * Report of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders, 
 1927 (Cmd. 2831); and “Protection and Training”, the Report of the Scottish 
 Departmental Committee, 1928. 
 f Criminal Statistics (England and Wales), 1929. Cmd. 3853 
 
7 
 
 in the year 1921 to 1,950, in the year 1930, the Annual Reports of 
 the Prison Commissioners show that many youths between 16 and 
 21 whose previous convictions indicate that they have criminal 
 tendencies, are sent to prison for short periods instead of being 
 committed for Borstal sentences. The view of the Prison Autho¬ 
 rities is that for a youth who has already started on a career of crime 
 a short sentence of imprisonment often increases the chances of his 
 becoming a persistent offender, whereas Borstal training greatly 
 diminishes the chances. 
 
 14. The Probation system is the latest and by no means the least 
 valuable method of dealing with offenders of all ages. Properly 
 applied the system cannot fail to be a potent influence in the pre¬ 
 vention of crime. In suitable cases—and these may include cases 
 where the offence is grave—the personal influence and supervision 
 of a good Probation Officer may provide the most effective method 
 of reclamation. On the other hand, if young people who have bad 
 home surroundings or are in need of training are put on probation 
 and left in their old surroundings instead of being sent to Home 
 Office Schools or Borstal Institutions, or if offenders are repeatedly 
 placed on probation despite previous failures, there is every likeli¬ 
 hood that they will soon be among the prison “ ins and outs ”. 
 
 15. The first sentence of imprisonment is a turning point in an 
 offender’s career and his treatment in prison on this first occasion 
 will often have a decisive influence on his future career. 
 
 The question has been raised by one or two witnesses whether 
 more offenders would not be deterred from incurring the risk of a 
 second experience if prison conditions were made somewhat harder. 
 Imprisonment would be more effective if prison industries were 
 improved and harder work were done in prisons ; but a return to the 
 policy of severity for severity’s sake would provide no remedy. As 
 the long history of the penal system shows, severity is a double- 
 edged weapon and if the offender leaves prison a worse man and a 
 more embittered enemy of society than he was when he came in, 
 society is injured equally with the offender. The object of modern 
 changes in prison treatment has been to remove or modify the 
 features which conduced to deterioration of mind or character and 
 to make imprisonment, so far as possible, a period of training. 
 This aim is not inconsistent with the deterrent function of imprison¬ 
 ment. In addition to the deterrence resulting from loss of liberty, 
 training—if the system is efficient—is a deterrent experience. It 
 should demand from the prisoner a higher standard of effort in work 
 and behaviour and self-discipline than is demanded by a purely 
 punitive system. 
 
 16. For many an offender it is said that his punishment begins not 
 when he goes into prison, but when he comes out. Imprisonment 
 often causes an almost irreparable break with home, friends, work 
 and character; and unless an ex-prisoner can find employment and 
 
8 
 
 be restored to some social status, the chances of his relapsing into 
 crime are increased. The arrangements made for helping prisoners 
 on discharge-—especially prisoners serving a first sentence—have an 
 important bearing on our problem, and later in our report (see 
 paragraphs 78 and 90) we make some suggestions on this subject. 
 
 17. If we attempted to survey more fully this preliminary problem 
 of the methods of dealing with offenders in the early stages of their 
 criminal career, we should be led too far astray from the specific 
 question which we were appointed to examine, but before proceed¬ 
 ing to consider methods of dealing with persistent offenders we wish 
 to emphasise the importance of the proper treatment of offenders 
 when they first come within the grasp of the law. It is at this 
 stage that wise methods can do most to diminish the probabilities 
 of their becoming habitual prison inmates. 
 
9 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 How the Length of Sentences of Imprisonment is Determined. 
 
 18. For the purpose of our enquiry it has been necessary to con¬ 
 sider what powers a Court has, when dealing with a persistent 
 offender under the criminal law, to relate the sentence (to his per¬ 
 sistence in crime. Certain special powers are conferred on Courts 
 by the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908 (which we shall discuss later) 
 and by other Acts; but apart from these special provisions the 
 powers of a Court to increase a sentence because the offender has 
 a record of previous convictions is limited—if we understand the 
 matter aright—by the following general principles. 
 
 19. The primary consideration in determining the nature of the 
 sentence to be imposed is the intrinsic character of the particular 
 offence committed. In order that there may be a proper grading 
 of sentences to fit the many degrees of gravity presented 'by the 
 various cases which fall within the same legal category, it is 
 necessary that the maximum sentence authorised by law should 
 be reserved for the rare offences which are exceptionally heinous, 
 that sentences approaching the legal maximum should be reserved 
 for offences falling within the next degree of gravity, and so on— 
 with the result that for ordinary offences (such as form the great 
 majority of cases coming before the Courts) the heaviest sentence 
 which the Court feels justified in imposing is usually far below 
 the maximum sentence authorised by law for the category of 
 offence in question. 
 
 In assessing the gravity of the offence numerous factors have 
 to be taken into account. In no two cases are the facts precisely 
 similar, and it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration 
 all the circumstances and consequences of the offence. For example 
 if a persistent office-breaker breaks into a railway booking office 
 with intent to steal large sums of money and for some reason or 
 other only manages to obtain a few trifling articles, the Court will 
 probably consider appropriate a very much lighter sentence than 
 if he had succeeded in his object. 
 
 20. In addition to considering the facts and circumstances of the 
 offence it may be necessary for the Court to have regard to such 
 points as the offender’s age, his health, his circumstances, the pre¬ 
 valence of the offence and other matters. Moreover, views may 
 change from generation to generation as to the sentences appro¬ 
 priate to particular types and classes of offences. The very long 
 sentences which were often passed twenty years ago are now 
 usually regarded as harsh and excessive and are seldom imposed. 
 All these factors prevent any precise standardisation of sentences, 
 but nevertheless there is among judicial authorities a large measure 
 
10 
 
 of agreement on general principles and the practice of the Courts 
 creates certain general standards. Sentences heavier than are 
 warranted by these standards are liable to be reduced on appeal. 
 
 21. As we understand the position, it is only within the limit 
 of (the heaviest sentence warranted by these standards for the 
 particular offence that the offender’s record falls to be considered. 
 For example, the legal maximum sentence for larceny is five years’ 
 penal servitude, but the Recorder of London told us that for larceny 
 of a bicycle he would never feel justified in giving a longer sentence 
 than twelve or fifteen months’ imprisonment, no matter how often 
 the offender had been previously convicted. 
 
 If the record of an offender is good, this may influence the Court 
 towards a lenient sentence; conversely, a bad record will influence 
 the Court towards a heavier sentence; and the difference resulting 
 from an offender’s record may be great. For example a man with 
 a good record may be merely bound over for an offence which if 
 committed by a man with a bad record would entail a substantial 
 term of imprisonment; but however bad the record may be, it is 
 not open to the Court to pass upon him a sentence heavier than is 
 warranted by the standards indicated above for the specific offence 
 on which the Court is adjudicating. Accordingly, when a per¬ 
 sistent offender with numerous previous convictions, which perhaps 
 include convictions of grave offences, is convicted of some less 
 serious crime, his sentence on this occasion must not exceed the 
 term which is appropriate to this less serious crime. 
 
 22. The application of these general principles to the cases of 
 persistent offenders accounts for the fact that their records seldom 
 show (except in the initial stages) a graded series of sentences con¬ 
 sistently increasing in length as they increase in number. In the 
 initial stage of a criminal career a gradual increase in the severity 
 of sentence is common. Frequently a record shows that the 
 offender, after being bound over or fined on one or two occasions, 
 is first sent to prison for a short term, then for a longer term, and 
 then perhaps to penal servitude. But after this initial stage is 
 passed, the records of persistent offenders usually show a medley 
 of shorter and longer sentences intermixed. If the offender con¬ 
 fines himself to small thefts or small frauds, there may be among 
 his numerous sentences none longer than—say—a year, but fre¬ 
 quently a sentence of a year will be followed by a sentence of—say 
 —three months. If the offender’s activities include housebreaking 
 and larceny, his record may show some sentences of penal 
 servitude, but between these sentences or subsequent to one or more 
 of them there will usually be interposed sentences of a few week? 
 or a few months. 
 
 23. Probably these sentences of a few weeks or a few months 
 are the maximum sentences which the Courts, proceeding on the 
 principles outlined above, felt to be warranted for the specific 
 offences in question. But no one can look at the chronological lists 
 
11 
 
 of sentences served by these persistent offenders without recognising 
 that for such persons sentences of a few weeks or a few months 
 can have little significance. The prisoner has long ago lost his 
 character and reputation. He has no regular employment; he has 
 become habituated to prison conditions, and deprivation of liberty 
 for a short period may often seem to such a man a matter of small 
 moment. 
 
 24. It is, of course, necessary to preserve the general legal prin¬ 
 ciple that there should be some grading of sentences according 
 to the gravity of offences. If a man with a bad record were liable 
 to receive the same sentence whether he were convicted of a minor 
 larceny or of robber} with violence, there is a danger that he might 
 more often commit the graver offence on the principle that it is 
 better to be hanged for a sheep than a lamb. We think, however, 
 it is possible, while giving due weight to the importance of the 
 principle behind the present gradation of sentences, to make certain 
 amendments of the law to enable the Courts to deal more effectively 
 with persistent offenders. Already there are certain elements in our 
 penal system which reflect, in more or less degree, the principle 
 of relating the sentence to the offender rather than to the offence. 
 In the use of the Borstal sentence for young people, in the use of 
 Reformatory and Industrial Schools for children and in the use 
 of the Probation Act for numerous classes of offenders, the Courts 
 have increasingly shown that they are anxious to find the treatment 
 appropriate to the offender and not merely to assess the penalty 
 appropriate to the crime. In the case of adult offenders of criminal 
 habits, however, the only piece of machinery which can be said, in 
 a partial degree, to embody the foregoing principle, is the system 
 of preventive detention contained in Part II of the Prevention of 
 Crime Act, 1908. 
 
 25. We believe that the Judicial Authorities would welcome an 
 extension of their powers to enable them in suitable cases, and 
 subject to proper safeguards, not merely to order a term of im¬ 
 prisonment of such length as is warranted by the facts of the 
 particular offence, but instead to order detention of such character 
 and length as seems to be requisite either for the training of the 
 offender or for the protection of society. 
 
12 
 
 CHAPTER IY. 
 
 The Prevention of Crime Act, 1908. 
 
 26. That persistent offenders cannot be effectively dealt with by 
 sentences imposed for their specific offences was recognised by the 
 Gladstone Committee on Prisons as long ago as 1895. “ To punish 
 them for the particular offences in which they are detected is 
 almost useless,” said this Committee, and they recommended that 
 “ a new form of sentence should be placed at the disposal of the 
 judges by which these offenders might be segregated for long 
 periods of detention during which they would not be treated with 
 the severity of first class hard labour or penal servitude, but would 
 be forced to work under less onerous conditions ’ ’. 
 
 27. In the period between this Report and the date when effect 
 was given to this recommendation by Part II of the Prevention 
 of Crime Act, 1908, special attention had also been directed to 
 the need for a better method than imprisonment of dealing with 
 young people starting on careers of crime, and the Act of 1908 
 introduced two new forms of sentence, namely, Borstal Detention 
 for young people and Preventive Detention for habitual offenders. 
 
 The Borstal Sentence. 
 
 28. Part I of the Act (as amended by the Criminal Justice 
 Administration Act, 1914) empowers Courts of Assize and Quarter 
 Sessions (in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary and Sheriff 
 Courts) when dealing with an offender between the ages of 16 and 
 21, in lieu of sentencing him to imprisonment or penal servitude, 
 to sentence him to Borstal detention, and empowers Courts of 
 Summary Jurisdiction in England on the conviction of such an 
 offender to commit him to the higher Court with a view to such a 
 sentence being passed. In pursuance of these powers a young 
 offender may be subjected to detention for two or three years if 
 “ by reason of his criminal habits or tendencies or association with 
 persons of bad character it is expedient that he should be subject 
 to detention for such term and under such instruction and discipline 
 as appears most conducive to his reformation and the repression 
 of crime 
 
 29. In virtue of this statutory provision a Borstal sentence, 
 though it has a punitive character, is regarded not as a mere measure 
 of retribution but as a method of training and reformation, and the 
 main consideration which guides a Court when deciding whether 
 to pass such a sentence, is not the nature of the offence, but the 
 character of the offender. There must be proof of an offence 
 punishable by imprisonment before a Borstal sentence can be 
 
13 
 
 passed, but otherwise the nature of the offence is only important 
 as one of the items of information which enable the Court to 
 appraise the character of the offender. No question arises of 
 adjusting the length of the sentence to the gravity of the offence. 
 If an offender by reason of his criminal habits or tendencies appears 
 to a Court to need a period of training and discipline, he may be 
 sentenced to Borstal detention for a period of two or three years, 
 although the particular offence of which he is convicted may be 
 such as would not warrant imprisonment for more than a few 
 months. 
 
 30. Increasing use has been made of the Borstal sentence. In 
 1925 over 528 youths and girls in England and Wales were com¬ 
 mitted for Borstal training; in 1930 the number was 774. In Scot¬ 
 land the figures were 118 and 156 respectively. 
 
 31. Those sentenced to Borstal detention are some of the worst 
 characters among the offenders between the ages of 16 and 21 who 
 come before the Courts. An offender is only sentenced to Borstal 
 detention if, in addition to being convicted of a specific offence, he is 
 shown to be of criminal habits and tendencies. Despite the difficult 
 character of the material, the training is, we understand, successful 
 in a large proportion of these cases. The Borstal Association in 
 England and the Central After-Care Council in Scotland keep 
 after-care records of each inmate for three years after his 
 release, and those records show that between 60 and 70 
 per cent, have not been re-convicted within that period. Of the 
 remainder a substantial number are re-convicted once but do not 
 become habitual offenders. Others revert to careers of crime. 
 These failures of the Borstal system appear again and again in the 
 Courts and come under public notice, but their number is small 
 compared with thousands of ex-Borstallers who are living quiet and 
 honest lives which never attract attention. If increasing use con¬ 
 tinues to be made of the Borstal system, the result in the future 
 should be that while the total number of adult criminals is smaller, 
 a very large proportion of these criminals will have passed through 
 the Borstal Institutions. 
 
 The Preventive Detention Sentence. 
 
 32. Of Part II of the Act of 1908 which deals with the detention 
 of “ habitual criminals ” little use has been made. During recent 
 years less than forty persons have been dealt with each year under 
 its provisions (see Appendix 3), while in Scotland it is now prac¬ 
 tically a dead letter. In Scotland no sentence of preventive deten¬ 
 tion was imposed during the year 1930. 
 
 33. This part of the Act provides that if a person with three 
 pi’evious convictions of crime is again convicted of crime and sen¬ 
 tenced to Penal Servitude, and is found by a jury to be a “ habitual 
 criminal ” the Court may for the protection of society pass a further 
 
14 
 
 sentence of Preventive Detention for not less than five and not 
 more than ten years. This sentence is to be served under less 
 rigorous conditions than the conditions of Penal Servitude. (We 
 give in Chapter XIII an account of present day conditions.) A 
 person serving a Preventive Detention sentence is eligible for re¬ 
 lease on licence before the expiration of the term of detention; and 
 if that term is five years he is usually licensed after about three and 
 a half years. If, therefore, he gets the minimum sentence of three 
 years’ Penal Servitude—which can be reduced by good conduct and 
 industry to two and a quarter years—and the minimum sentence 
 of five years’ Preventive Detention, his total term will probably be 
 about five and three-quarter years. 
 
 34. As was explained in the Home Office memorandum laid before 
 Parliament in 1911 (reprinted in Appendix 4), Preventive Deten¬ 
 tion is a sentence intended for “ professional ” criminals or 
 criminals who definitely give themselves up to a career of serious 
 crime. The sentence can only be imposed if the offender in addition 
 to being convicted of habitual criminality is convicted of a 
 specific offence sufficiently grave to warrant a sentence of 
 penal servitude : and in England an offender cannot be in¬ 
 dicted as an “ habitual criminal ” with a view to a sentence 
 of preventive detention except with the consent of the Director 
 of Public Prosecutions. For the purpose of guiding Police 
 Authorities as to the cases which might properly be submitted to the 
 Director, the Home Office issued a circular in 1911 (see Appen¬ 
 dix 5) which advises that proceedings under Part II of the Act 
 should not foe taken “ save in exceptional cases unless the 
 offender (a) be over the age of 30, and (6) has already undergone 
 at least one sentence of Penal Servitude and (c) is charged with a 
 substantial and serious crime ”. The practice in Scotland has 
 been similar. 
 
 35. Although we think that for the protection of the public, 
 comparatively long sentences of detention are required for certain 
 classes of offenders, detention for a period of five years or more 
 is only justifiable in cases where nothing less is adequate, and 
 there are many persistent offenders for whom such a sentence 
 would be excessive. For offenders who are still in the early 
 stages of a criminal career—including the large number of such 
 offenders who are between the ages of 21 and 30—a shorter period 
 of detention might often be effective. In any case Courts would 
 rightly hesitate to impose so long a sentence on such offenders 
 until some lesser sentence had been tried. 
 
 Accordingly, before examining the question of prolonged periods 
 of detention we think it is our preliminary dluty to consider what 
 should be the method of dealing with those persistent offenders 
 for whom such long sentences are inappropriate. 
 
15 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Sentences of Detention for from Two to Four Years. 
 
 36. Our proposals are based on the following general principles. 
 First, that sentences passed on persistent offenders should be 
 related not merely to the facts of the specific offence, but to the 
 character of the offender and to the necessity of subjecting him 
 to such period of detention as is requisite either for his training or 
 discipline or for the protection of the public ; secondly, that such 
 sentences should be served under conditions designed, so far as 
 practicable, to fit the offender to take up life on release under 
 normal conditions; and thirdly, that the sentence should entail a 
 prospect of release on licence as soon as there is a reasonable 
 probability that detention has effected its object and that the 
 offender will abstain from crime. These general principles are 
 not new. They form the basis of the Prevention of Crime Act, 
 1908, but the Act is so framed that it has only been possible 
 to give full effect to them as regards offenders under the age of 21. 
 
 37. Consideration of the whole range of a persistent offender’s 
 career and of the various types of persistent offenders shows that 
 there is an illogical gap between Part I of the Act of 1908 which 
 provides for Borstal detention and Part II which provides for pre¬ 
 ventive detention. If an offender is under 21 and appears to a Court 
 to be of criminal habits or tendencies he can be given Borstal 
 training; if he is a habitual criminal ” he can be sent to preven¬ 
 tive detention; but the great majority of persistent offenders do not 
 fall into either of these groups. As stated above, it is not the practice 
 (save in exceptional circumstances) to indict an offender as a 
 “ habitual criminal ” unless he is over 30 and has already served 
 at least one sentence of penal servitude. For the many persistent 
 offenders who are between the ages of 21 and 30 and for the many 
 persistent offenders over the age of 30 whom it would be undesirable 
 or impracticable to indict as “ habitual criminals ”, no special pro¬ 
 vision is available, and they can only be dealt with by sentences of 
 imprisonment or penal servitude for the particular offences of which 
 they happen to be convicted. 
 
 38. It is particularly important to make proper provision for per¬ 
 sistent offenders between the ages of 21 and 30. Statistics show 
 that a large amount of crime is committed by persons between 
 those ages. The total number of persons convicted of indictable 
 offences in 1930 is divisible into the following age groups : — 
 
 Under 16 years 11,995 or 21 per cent. 
 
 Between 16 and 21 years 11,929 or 21 per cent. 
 
 Between 21 and 30 years 13,989 or 25 per cent. 
 
 30 years and over 18,853 or 33 per cent. 
 
 Tbtal 
 
 56,766 100 per cent. 
 
16 
 
 The Prison Statistics also show that out of 15,712 receptions 
 in prisons in 1930 for indictable offences, 5,724 (or 30 per cent.) 
 were receptions of persons between 21 and 30. The figures for 
 Scotland are similar. 
 
 39. Measures for preventing persistence in crime are obviously 
 more likely to be effective in the early than in the later stages of 
 an offender’s career, and it appears to us that there ought 
 to be provisions enabling a Court on the conviction of an offender 
 who is over 21, but still in the early stages of a criminal career, 
 to deal with him not merely by inflicting such penalty as is com¬ 
 mensurate with his last offence, but by subjecting him to such 
 treatment as is appropriate to his character. 
 
 40. For the purpose of enabling the Courts to deal more effec¬ 
 tively (a) with those persistent offenders who are likely to profit 
 by a period of training, and (b) with others whose detention is 
 necessary for the protection of the public, we recommend that a new 
 form of sentence should be introduced and that Courts should be 
 given power, as an alternative to their present powers of ordering 
 imprisonment or penal servitude, to order, in suitable cases and 
 subject to proper safeguards, detention for any period being not less 
 than two nor more than four years with the object, not of imposing a 
 specific penalty for a specific offence, but of subjecting the offender 
 to such training, discipline, treatment or control as will be 
 calculated to check his criminal propensities. Such a sentence inas¬ 
 much as it involves loss of liberty will have a punitive character 
 and a deterrent effect, but the primary objects of the sentence will 
 not be punishment or deterrence. For some types of offenders— 
 particularly those between 21 and 30—the object of detention will 
 be reformative training : for others—particularly those whose 
 criminality appears to be mainly determined by mental inertia 
 and other innate negative qualities—little in the way of positive 
 training may be practicable, and the main object may be to provide 
 for the control of the offender and for the protection of the public ; 
 but in all cases the objects of detention should be remedial and 
 custodial rather than penal, and it should be made the duty of 
 the Court in deciding on such a sentence to pay regard, not merely 
 to the facts of the specific offence, but to the history, character, 
 and circumstances of the offender. 
 
 41. The provisions governing the operation of the proposed 
 sentence might be modelled generally on the provisions relating 
 to a Borstal sentence, and we make the following recom¬ 
 mendations : — 
 
 (a) Power to pass a sentence of detention should be given in 
 England only to Courts of Assize and Courts of Quarter Sessions 
 and in Scotland to the High Court of Justiciary and Sheriff Courts. 
 In England there should be provisions similar to those in Section 10 
 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, enabling a Court 
 of Summary Jurisdiction after convicting an offender to commit him 
 
17 
 
 to Assizes or Quarter Sessions for a sentence of detention. There 
 should also be a provision, which might be extended to Borstal 
 cases, that when a person after summary conviction is committed 
 to Assizes or Quarter Sessions for a sentence of detention he may 
 be admitted to bail, and that while on bail he should submit him¬ 
 self to medical examination for the purpose of enabling a report to 
 be made to the Court as to his fitness for detention. 
 
 (b) The sentence of detention should be for a period of not less 
 than two nor more than four years, and should only be applicable 
 to a person convicted of an offence which is punishable on indict¬ 
 ment with imprisonment for at least two years or with penal 
 servitude. When a person is convicted of such an offence, it should 
 be open to the Court in lieu of sentencing him to imprisonment or 
 penal servitude to sentence him to detention if it appears to the 
 Court that by reason of his criminal habits or tendencies his de¬ 
 tention is expedient for the prevention of crime. 
 
 (c) Before a sentence of detention is passed, full information 
 should be before the Court not only as to an offender’s criminal 
 record, but as to his general history, character, and manner of life. 
 
 The Prison Authorities should be required by statute to submit to 
 the Court a statement containing a report from the Prison Medical 
 Officer as to the physical and mental condition of the offender, 
 such information as ithe Prison Authorities can collect as to his 
 history and circumstances, their general observations as to the 
 suitability of the offender for a sentence of detention, the type of 
 establishment which may be available for him and any view they 
 may wish to express as to the length of time which in their opinion 
 is required for his training. The Court should, of course, have 
 entire discretion to decide whether any sentence of detention shall 
 be passed and, if so, whether it shall be for two years or for four 
 years or for some intermediate period; but the Court ought to know 
 of any view the Prison Authorities have formed as a result of 
 observation of the offender while in prison and of their experience 
 in dealing with other cases. 
 
 The Home Office, and in Scotland the Scottish Office, should, by 
 means of circulars and memoranda, keep the Judicial Authorities 
 informed of the types of Detention Establishments available and of 
 the classes of offenders received in such establishments, etc. 
 
 (d) There should be special provision for the release on licence 
 of persons sentenced to detention. We deal with this matter in 
 Chapter VIII. 
 
18 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Sentences of Prolonged Detention. 
 
 42. The proposed new sentence of detention for periods of from 
 two to four years will not remove the need for a sentence involving 
 longer terms of detention. There is a class of habitual criminal for 
 whom detention for such periods is inadequate either because of the 
 serious nature of their crimes or because sentences for such periods 
 have already proved ineffective. 
 
 We have in mind particularly the “ professional ” criminals who 
 deliberately make a living by preying on the public. Danger from 
 this class of criminals lies not merely in the offences which they 
 commit, but also in the contamination of other—particularly 
 younger—men. Sir Archibald Bodkin, who was Director of Public 
 Prosecutions from 1920 to 1930, said “ How often one finds two or 
 more men charged together one of whom is an old persistent 
 offender and the others more or less novices.” 
 
 Among the criminals against whom the community ought to' be 
 adequately protected are those who practise thefts or frauds on a 
 comparatively small scale,—the victims being usually poor people 
 on whom the loss of a small sum may inflict a more serious injury 
 than the loss of valuable property on persons of means. 
 
 There are also certain sexual offenders for whom a long term 
 of detention is necessary, particularly those who commit repeated 
 offences against children or young people and those who corrupt 
 boys. 
 
 43. These classes of offenders include, no doubt, some who are 
 suitable subjects—in the first instance at any rate—for detention 
 for two to four years; no fixed and fast line can be drawn between 
 the types of offenders for whom the shorter sentences are appro¬ 
 priate and the types for whom longer sentences are necessary. We 
 hope (that if the methods of dealing with offenders in the early stages 
 of criminality are improved, there will be fewer for whom prolonged 
 terms of detention will be needed. 
 
 44. We think that some further reduction in the number of 
 offenders for whom prolonged detention is required might be effected 
 by a system of warning. Judges would warn offenders who are be¬ 
 coming eligible for a sentence of prolonged detention that on the 
 occasion of their next appearance before the Courts they may find 
 themselves being sentenced to detention for a lengthened period of 
 years. Offenders so warned might be served on discharge with a 
 suitable notice reminding them of the warning and the warning 
 could be brought to the attention of the prosecution and of the 
 Court on the occasion of a subsequent charge. Some offenders might 
 
19 
 
 be induced by some such stern warning to pause before continuing 
 further in their criminal career. 
 
 45. It is, however, clearly desirable that Courts should have the 
 power of imposing prolonged sentences of detention for the pro¬ 
 tection of the public on certain types of persistent offenders for 
 whom a shorter sentence is inadequate. Experience has shown 
 that Part II of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, has failed to 
 provide the necessary machinery for this purpose, and we recom¬ 
 mend that Part II of the Act should be repealed and in its (place 
 there should be provisions empowering a Court of Trial (in England 
 Assizes or Quarter Sessions, in Scotland the High Court of 
 Justiciary) when dealing with a persistent offender, to impose, in 
 lieu of a sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude, a sentence 
 of detention for such period as the Court may determine, being not 
 less than five and not more than ten years, if the Court is of opinion 
 that the offender is of such criminal habits and mode of life that 
 his detention for a lengthened period of years is expedient for the 
 protection of the public. This power should only be exercisable 
 when the offender is convicted of a serious crime and has been at 
 least thrice previously convicted of crime, and “ crime ” should be 
 defined for the purpose of these provisions in the manner indicated 
 in paragraph 49 below. Under such a scheme it will be open to the 
 Court, when dealing with an offender on his fourth or later convic¬ 
 tion of crime, either to sentence him to imprisonment or penal 
 servitude for his specific offence, or to sentence him to a prolonged 
 period of detention because of his criminal habits and mode of life. 
 
 46. The objects of such prolonged detention—like the objects of 
 the proposed sentence of from itwo to four years’ detention — should 
 be custodial or remedial. We discuss in later chapters the con¬ 
 ditions under which sentences of detention should be served and 
 the circumstances in which it should be possible for a person 
 sentenced to detention to secure release on licence before the ex¬ 
 piration of his sentence. 
 
 47. The question whether, when an offender is convicted of a 
 fourth crime, the sentence shall be one of imprisonment or penal 
 servitude, or shall be one of detention for five or more years, will 
 be a question for the discretion of the Court, but the Courts will 
 no doubt in many cases prefer a sentence of prolonged detention 
 for several reasons : — 
 
 (1) The length of the sentence of detention will not be 
 limited by the nature and facts of the specific offence. If the 
 specific offence is such as to warrant only a comparatively 
 short sentence of imprisonment or of penal servitude, but the 
 habits of the offender are such that his prolonged detention 
 is necessary for the protection of the public, it will be open 
 to the Court to order such detention up to a limit of ten 
 years. 
 
20 
 
 (2) In some cases the Court, having regard to the fact that 
 the offender is still comparatively young, or that he has in¬ 
 telligence, strength of character and potentialities for good, 
 may feel that, though a long sentence is necessary, he is 
 capable of profiting from a system of detention which involves 
 training and which may result in his being licensed before the 
 end of his sentence if a change in his character is effected. 
 
 (3) In other cases the Court may prefer a sentence of pro¬ 
 longed detention to a sentence of penal servitude because the 
 offender is elderly, or is physically infirm, or is of feeble 
 character or mentality. There are many such offenders who 
 cannot be influenced either by reformative training or by de¬ 
 terrent punishment, and, though their prolonged detention is 
 necessary both for the protection of the public and for their 
 own care and control, the objects of such detention should be 
 purely custodial. 
 
 48. It will follow from our proposals that there will be two distinct 
 types of establishments for persons sentenced to detention. In one 
 type of establishment will be those offenders whose age and char¬ 
 acter indicate that they are still susceptible of reformative treat¬ 
 ment : in the other will be those who are less hopeful subjects for 
 training but must be subjected to control in the public interest. 
 
 49. The provisions with regard to a sentence of five to ten years’ 
 detention might, we suggest, be to the effect that where a person 
 is convicted on indictment of a crime and since attaining the age of 
 sixteen years he has at least three times previously been convicted 
 of a crime, the Court, if of opinion that the offender is of such 
 criminal habits or mode of life that it is expedient for the protection 
 of the public that he should be kept in detention for a lengthened 
 period of years, may, in lieu of any other sentence, pass a sentence of 
 detention for a term of not less than five years and not more than 
 ten years. 
 
 The term “ crime ” should include the offences covered by the 
 definition of “ crime ” in the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, and 
 the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, namely : — 
 
 “ Any felony or the offence of uttering false or counterfeit 
 coin, or of possessing counterfeit gold or silver coin, or the 
 offence of obtaining goods or money by false pretences, or the 
 offence of conspiracy to defraud, or any misdemeanour under 
 the fifty-eighth section of the Larceny Act, 1861.” 
 
 It should also include (i) attempts to commit “ crimes ” and (ii) 
 certain sexual offences which do not fall within the present de¬ 
 finition. If a persistent house-breaker is caught before accomplish¬ 
 ing his object and is convicted of attempted house-breaking, his 
 offence is a misdemeanour and not a felony, and it seems clear that 
 the definition should be enlarged to cover such cases. Again, certain 
 
21 
 
 serious sexual offences which may be committed against girls and 
 boys are misdemeanours and not felonies. We give in Appendix 6 a 
 list of sexual offences which should, we think, be brought within 
 the definition of “ crime.” 
 
 The expression ‘ ‘ crime ’ ’ in Scots Law appears already to cover 
 those various offences. 
 
 50. We have considered the general question of the indeterminate 
 sentence, but we do not think it necessary k> enter into a dis¬ 
 cussion of the general considerations for and against a sentence 
 wholly indeterminate in length, because we feel that the scheme 
 we have suggested will give powers as extensive as any Court would 
 in practice wish to use. The sentences of detention which we pro¬ 
 pose are indeterminate in the sense that they will involve special 
 provision for the release on licence of a person serving such a 
 sentence if there is a reasonable probability that he will abstain from 
 crime and lead a useful and industrious life. We discuss the 
 questions relating to licensing in Chapter VIII. 
 
22 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Treatment of Offenders Sentenced to Detention. 
 
 51. How will the conditions of a sentence of detention differ from 
 the conditions of a sentence of imprisonment? Will the lot of an 
 offender serving a period of detention be distinguishable from the 
 lot of a prisoner? 
 
 We contemplate that different classes of offenders will be allocated 
 to different Detention Establishments; that in some of these estab¬ 
 lishments, particularly in those in which the younger men or women 
 are confined, more will be done in the way of training than is 
 practicable in ordinary prisons; that in other establishments where 
 there are persons unsuited for positive training, such modifications 
 of the prison routine will be made as are now made for prisoners 
 serving sentences of preventive detention ; and that, if offenders of 
 the dangerous or quite intractable type are sentenced to detention, 
 they will either have to be transferred to a prison or be confined 
 in some establishment where the conditions are very similar to 
 those of prison. The Prison Commissioners should be free to 
 allocate offenders sentenced to detention to such Detention Estab¬ 
 lishments as may be most suitable and to transfer offenders from 
 one Detention Establishment to another. There should be powers 
 similar to those relating to Borstal detention enabling the Secretary 
 of State (a) to transfer to Detention Establishments persons sen¬ 
 tenced to imprisonment or penal servitude and (5) in special cases 
 to transfer to a prison an offender who may be found to be intract¬ 
 able in a Detention Establishment. 
 
 52. The main principles distinguishing Detention Establishments 
 from prisons should- be that the conditions in Detention Establish¬ 
 ments will be less repressive than prison conditions, that for all such 
 inmates as are mentally and physically vigorous the conditions will 
 be more strenuous and that attempts will be made wherever 
 practicable to approximate the conditions to those of normal life 
 for which it is hoped to fit the offender. 
 
 53. In order to explain more fully what we regard as the advan¬ 
 tages of the proposed scheme of Detention Establishments, it is 
 necessary to refer to the main developments of prison administration 
 during the present century. 
 
 54. For many years it has been the aim of the prison administra¬ 
 tion to emphasise in prisons, as well as in Borstal Institutions, the 
 importance of methods of reformative treatment. In pursuance of 
 this policy, many of the more humiliating features of imprisonment 
 which contributed to the crushing of self-respect have been 
 eliminated or modified, and prison conditions have been altered in 
 
23 
 
 various ways with the object of giving the prisoner some social life 
 and some opportunities for the exercise of responsibility. “ Hard 
 labour ”, in the sense of the exaction of tasks which were designedly 
 toilsome and imposed with punitive intent, ceased to exist thirty 
 years ago. “ Separate confinement ”, which means the system of 
 making the prisoner work in solitude in his cell for part of his 
 sentence, has been abolished. All prisoners are employed on pro¬ 
 ductive work in associated working parties. Selected prisoners are 
 put into “ honour ” parties and trusted to work without constant 
 supervision. “ Star ” prisoners, that is those who have not pre¬ 
 viously been convicted of serious crime and are not habitually 
 criminal, are allowed to take their meals together. Educational 
 classes are conducted by voluntary teachers in the evenings, and 
 in certain Scottish prisons continuation classes are conducted by 
 certified teachers under the Education Authorities. Physical train¬ 
 ing is given to those prisoners who are fit. Voluntary Visitors 
 are appointed to come to the prisons and talk with the prisoners in 
 their cells. The general object of these and other changes has been 
 to stimulate the prisoner’s better instincts and to induce such a 
 frame of mind that he will be less likely on release to revert to 
 anti-social activities. 
 
 55. The obvious evils of imprisonment are that it dulls the 
 mind, deadens the sense of responsibility and power of initiative, 
 and starves the social instincts; and, if these evils are to be 
 diminished, it is necessary to create conditions in which the prisoner 
 has some liberty of action and some kind of communal life. In 
 most local prisons such conditions cannot be created except within 
 narrow limits, because of the mixed and. floating character of the 
 population. The ordinary “ local prison ” receives all prisoners 
 committed from the Courts in the district which the prison serves, 
 including those on remand or awaiting trial, those committed by 
 civil process for failure to pay sums of money, those committed in 
 default of payment of fines and those sentenced for periods varying 
 from a week to two years. In this mixed population are persons of 
 all types and varying ages and of all degrees of criminality. To 
 reduce the risks of contamination, arrangements are made to 
 separate the young from the old and the better from the worse, but 
 throughout such on establishment there must be a regime of restric¬ 
 tions and prohibitions designed to keep under proper control a 
 population which includes many constantly changing elements, 
 many unknown characters and some specially bad characters. In 
 the administration of such an establishment the Prison Authorities 
 are always faced with the dilemma that precautions which are 
 needed to prevent opportunities for harm are liable to curtail oppor¬ 
 tunities for good. Moreover, in a prison containing persons of 
 many grades of physical and mental capacity the pace of work is 
 slowed down by ihe inferior workers, and it is impossible to main¬ 
 tain a high standard of effort and activity. The prisoner’s life is 
 
24 
 
 monotonous and irksome but is not strenuous. (The need for im¬ 
 proving prison industries is a matter specially dealt with in 
 Chapter IX.) 
 
 56. Because of these difficulties the Prison Commissioners have 
 in recent years adopted the policy of setting aside special estab¬ 
 lishments for special classes of prisoners. Wormwood Scrubs 
 Prison has been set aside for men convicted in London and sur¬ 
 rounding districts who have not been in prison before. Wakefield 
 Prison has been set aside as a training centre to which are sent 
 prisoners selected from various local prisons in the Northern and 
 Midland areas. The men selected for Wakefield are those who 
 have sentences of nine months and over, are physically and mentally 
 fit for training, and seem likely from their records and from their 
 general character and mentality to respond to reformative 
 treatment. 
 
 57. In these prisons where there are selected populations, a 
 better pace can be set in the working parties and a better standard 
 of work maintained, more prisoners can be allowed to work without 
 continuous supervision, more association can be permitted at 
 meals and for recreation, educational schemes can foe more fully 
 developed, voluntary helpers can be used more freely, and more 
 use can be made of methods of discipline which invite the co¬ 
 operation of the prisoners and create in the prison community 
 a feeling that the privileges of all depend on the good behaviour 
 of each. 
 
 58. At Wakefield most of the prisoners are not persistent 
 offenders. There are some young men under 26 who have started 
 on careers of crime, but the older prisoners are either serving a 
 first sentence, or, if they are serving a subsequent sentence, have 
 been selected for Wakefield because they are not of criminal habits. 
 Although, therefore, the Wakefield scheme provides an illustration 
 of the ways in which prison methods may be modified for a 
 selected population, we do not suggest that the Wakefield methods 
 would be generally applicable to all Detention Establishments. 
 
 59. Within the last few months a scheme has been started for 
 setting aside a special prison for persistent offenders who are serving 
 substantial sentences. Chelmsford Prison has been opened as a 
 Training Centre for young men between the ages of 21 and 30 who 
 have started on a criminal career, have previous convictions, and 
 are sentenced either to imprisonment for a year or more, or to a first 
 term of penal servitude. At a prison with such a population it 
 will be necessary to have a regime of strict discipline and firm 
 control, but we understand it is the intention of the Prison Com¬ 
 missioners that the Chelmsford regime shall differ from the 
 ordinary prison regime in that the prisoners will have a longer and 
 more active working day, plenty of physical training, systematic 
 
25 
 
 evening education, and opportunities for recreation, including out¬ 
 door games—the general object being that life in this establishment 
 shall be more strenuous and less monotonous than life in an 
 ordinary prison. 
 
 60. The policy of setting aside certain establishments such as 
 Wakefield and Chelmsford as Training Centres for special classes of 
 offenders seems to us to be on right lines, but the policy is ham¬ 
 pered by the fact that many offenders who would be suitable for 
 training in such establishments cannot receive it because their 
 sentences are too short. In law such Training Centres are merely 
 prisons, and if the offender’s specific offence does not warrant—say 
 —more than six months’ imprisonment, it is not open to a Court 
 to impose a longer sentence for the purpose of giving him such a 
 term of training as the Court may consider he needs.* 
 
 Our proposals for sentences of detention will facilitate the policy 
 of setting aside special establishments for selected classes of 
 offenders and will enable the Prison Authorities to develop the 
 policy that so far as practicable the period for which the offender 
 is committed to their custody should be utilised for his training. 
 
 61. In the development of this policy especial importance attaches 
 to the methods of industrial employment and to the use of edu¬ 
 cational classes. 
 
 As all the inmates in detention establishments will be detained 
 for substantial periods, it should be possible to make better arrange¬ 
 ments for employment and for industrial training than are prac¬ 
 ticable in prisons where large numbers of inmates are confined for 
 short periods only. In so far as these establishments are training 
 institutions, their success will in large measure depend on the 
 arrangements that can be made for rendering the inmates indus¬ 
 trially efficient. We deal with the important subject of employ¬ 
 ment in Chapter IX. We also hope that it may be possible to 
 arrange for offenders to earn by industry some monetary rewards. 
 If offenders have at their disposal some earnings which could be 
 either remitted to relatives or spent on extra comforts such as 
 tobacco, papers, etc., such a scheme would provide an incentive 
 for good work and bring the conditions of life under detention 
 rather nearer to the conditions for which it is hoped to fit the 
 offender on his release. 
 
 62. As regards education, we are favourably impressed by 
 the results which have been achieved under the existing voluntary 
 system. There is attached to each prison an Educational Adviser 
 who is sometimes the local Director of Education. His function 
 is to advise the Governor as to a suitable syllabus and to assist the 
 Governor to obtain the services of volunteers who are willing to take 
 
 * The legal principle is clearly explained in the judgment of the Court of 
 Criminal Appeal in the case of Stanley Oxlade (13 Cr. App. R. 65). 
 
26 
 
 evening classes. We feel, however, that in the proposed Deten¬ 
 tion Establishments it would be desirable to make the educational 
 ax-rangements a more integral part of the general regime than they 
 have hitherto been of the prison regime. In the Borstal 
 Institutions education work is as much a part of the general 
 routine as industrial work and we think it should be possible in 
 some at least of the proposed Detention Establishments, especially 
 those where the inmates are between 21 and 30, to introduce 
 methods similar to the Borstal methods. We suggest for the con¬ 
 sideration of the authorities that in such establishments the effort 
 which an offender makes in educational work should, like the 
 effort he makes in the workshop, be one of the considerations 
 on which the earning of remission is dependent. We discuss 
 in a later chapter the principles by which remission should be 
 determined for persons sentenced to detention. 
 
 In connection with the development of educational methods, we 
 would stress the desirability of correlating as far as possible the work 
 done in the educational classes with the industrial occupations pro¬ 
 vided in prisons or Detention Establishments. Industrial training 
 would be more effective and the interest of the prisoner would be 
 stimulated if he were given the opportunity of acquiring in the 
 educational class knowledge bearing on the theory and practice of 
 the trade he is following in the workshop. 
 
 63. We also recommend that there should be in Detention 
 Establishments officers having duties similar to those performed 
 by Housemasters aixd Assistant Housemasters in the Borstal In¬ 
 stitutions. In a Borstal Institution a Housemaster or Assistant 
 Housemaster is responsible for a comparatively small group of 
 inmates, each of whom he is expected ito know individually, so 
 that he will be able to superintend his training generally and to 
 judge for what working party or educational class he is best fitted, 
 and will be in a position to give advice as to his suitability for 
 release on licence. In Detention Establishments where training 
 schemes are developed there will be need for officers charged with 
 similar functions. If such establishments are to be effective for the 
 reformation of character, it will be essential that there should be 
 l’esponsible men superintending the training of comparatively small 
 groups of inmates and capable of maintaining personal touch with 
 the offenders under their charge. 
 
 64. It has been suggested to us also that the fact that there are 
 no women on the staff of the male prisons, and that many men in 
 male prisons seldom see a woman during the term of their 
 imprisonment may be one of the factors which conti'ibute to make 
 their life so different from the realities of the outer world as to 
 render them less fit to take up a social existence on release. We 
 were impressed at our visit to the Boys’ Prison at Wormwood 
 Scrubs by the freedom with which the voluntary women workers 
 interviewed the lads (see paragraph 121), and we understand that 
 
27 
 
 in the Borstal Institutions the appointment of women as house- 
 matrons to superintend some of the domestic arrangements in the 
 Institution has proved valuable. Their influence with the boys has 
 been good. Whether it would be possible to appoint a woman to 
 the staff of some of the proposed Detention Establishments in a 
 whole or part-time capacity is a matter we recommend to the 
 attention of the authorities. We are aware of the difficulties. Many 
 of the inmates will be persons of specially bad character and 
 difficult to control. At the same time we recognise that a proportion 
 of the inmates of Borstal Institutions are 22 and 23 years of age, 
 and if our recommendations are acted upon, some of the Detention 
 Establishments will be occupied by young men of a similar age 
 and character, and the presence of a woman on the staff might 
 exercise a beneficial influence here as in the Borstal Institutions. 
 Much depends on what arrangements can be made as time goes 
 on for the classification of these new establishments, and the nature 
 of the duties assigned to the woman ; still more will depend upon 
 her personality. But if our suggestion is found practicable we 
 believe the experiment should be made. It seems to us that such 
 a woman might be employed with advantage on various duties such 
 as library work, educational work, some domestic duties and also 
 on work connected with the collection of information about the 
 history and home circumstances of offenders, ft is the practice when 
 a prisoner is received to get particulars about his employment and 
 his family, so that arrangements can if necessary be made for com¬ 
 municating with or helping the family and that steps can be taken 
 on the prisoner’s release for giving him appropriate assistance. This 
 " case ” work will be of much importance in Detention Establish¬ 
 ments and might well be done by women. 
 
 65. Part II of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, provides “ that 
 prisoners undergoing Preventive Detention shall be subjected to 
 such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed 
 on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing 
 to earn an honest livelihood on discharge.” The application of 
 these principles to criminals of the type sentenced to preventive 
 detention, viz., men who are past middle life and habituated to 
 crime, has presented great difficulties (see Chapter XIII), but it 
 should be less difficult to apply these provisions to persistent 
 offenders who are in the early stages of a criminal career, and it 
 should be the general policy of the administration to apply these 
 principles as far as practicable to all Detention Establishments. 
 
 Accommodation for Persons sentenced to Detention. 
 
 66. As regards the accommodation to be provided for persons 
 sentenced to detention, it would be an advantage that Detention 
 Establishments should have land attached to them, so that the in¬ 
 mates could be employed on outdoor work, and we hope that in the 
 future it may be possible to provide Detention Establishments where 
 there will be better facilities for employment than exist in most 
 
prisons. We have not, however, attempted to consider in detail 
 what kind of accommodation would be most suitable for persons 
 sentenced to detention because we recognise that, for some time at 
 any rate, it will be impossible to embark on any schemes involving 
 large expenditure, and it will be necessary to utilise existing build¬ 
 ings as detention establishments. In England we contemplate that 
 some of the closed prisons will be used. In Scotland, where 
 numbers will be relatively small, we consider that various forms 
 of detention (except in the case of the untrai'nable prisoners) should 
 if possible be carried on in one institution, rather than in wings of 
 various ordinary prisons. 
 
 67. It should, however, be borne in mind that not all offenders 
 are persons whom it is necessary for purposes of safe custody to 
 confine in strongly built cells and within high boundary walls. 
 Some Prison Authorities in the United States of America now take 
 the view that, while for some prisoners “ maximum security ” 
 structures are needed, there are others for whom “ minimum 
 security ” conditions are sufficient, and that it is not necessary to 
 incur the expense of providing fortress-like buildings for all 
 prisoners. Accordingly, less expensive types of buildings are being 
 used for selected classes of prisoners. The Scottish Prison 
 authorities in the construction of the new prison at Edinburgh have 
 shown that a prison need not be of the ponderous and expensive 
 build characteristic of prisons constructed in the last century. In 
 America many prisoners are employed on lumbering work or road- 
 making and live in temporary camps, and we are informed that 
 these prisoners seldom try to escape because they know that if they 
 behave well in such camps they will earn early release, and that if 
 they attempt to escape they are liable to be confined in a walled 
 prison and to be there detained much longer than they would be 
 detained in a camp. In this country it would no doubt be more 
 difficult to find suitable places for such camps, but we should be 
 glad to see an experiment of this kind tried. We were favourably 
 impressed by the arrangements at Lowdham where Borstal boys 
 have been living in huts while building the new Institution. The 
 use of huts saves capital expenditure and also makes it possible 
 to move prisoners from time to time to places where their labour 
 is needed. Such a system would provide a method of finding suit¬ 
 able employment for offenders and of utilising their labour for 
 work of national importance. 
 
 Under the scheme we have prqposed it ought to be possible to 
 select from the offenders sentenced to detention those who are 
 most amenable to control, and to transfer them to a public works 
 camp on the understanding that good behaviour and good work in 
 such a camp w ? ould mean release on licence at a comparatively early 
 date, and that anybody escaping from such a camp would on re¬ 
 capture be required to serve the whole or practically the whole 
 of his sentence in some walled establishment. 
 
29 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Release on Licence from Detention. 
 
 68. Under the existing law relating to Borstal detention and to 
 preventive detention, the sentence is of indefinite duration subject 
 to a fixed maximum. The Prison Commissioners can, after the 
 expiration of six months (three months in the case of a girl), re¬ 
 lease the inmate of a Borstal Institution on licence under the 
 supervision of the Borstal Association, if satisfied that there is a 
 reasonable probability that he will abstain from crime and lead a 
 useful and industrious life. The Home Secretary is empowered to 
 release on licence at any time a prisoner undergoing preventive 
 detention “ if satisfied that there is a reasonable probability that 
 he will abstain from crime and lead a useful and industrious life 
 or that he is no longer capable of engaging in crime, or that for 
 any other reason it is desirable to release him from confinement 
 in prison ”. The Borstal licensing system has worked well; but 
 experience has shown that it is in most cases impossible to estimate 
 with any accuracy whether an offender serving a sentence of pre¬ 
 ventive detention is or is not likely to abstain from crime if released. 
 We have also had much evidence that this discretionary system of 
 licensing is disliked and distrusted by the preventive detention 
 prisoners and constitutes a major grievance. They often cannot 
 understand why one is licensed early and another not so early; 
 the decisions seem to them to be arbitrary, and they suspect 
 favouritism. 
 
 69. On the other hand there are objections to a system of enabling 
 offenders to earn automatically “ by good conduct and industry ” 
 release on licence after a fixed proportion of the sentence has been 
 served. In practice such a system means that an offender gets 
 early release by avoiding overt misconduct or demonstrable idle¬ 
 ness. Many criminals are well behaved in prison because it is 
 more profitable to keep prison rules than to break them, and they 
 are law-breakers outside because they find it easier to live dis¬ 
 honestly than honestly. Such people naturally prefer a system 
 which enables them to earn release by consistent compliance with 
 the prison routine and are dissatisfied if remission is made to 
 depend upon other considerations. Their dissatisfaction, however, 
 is not necessarily an argument against such a system. 
 
 70. It seems to us that the question how the date of release on 
 licence should be determined — whether, that is, it should be deter¬ 
 mined by some automatic mark system or by some other method 
 of judging conduct — must depend on the arrangements the Prison 
 Authorities are able to make in the future for developing methods of 
 
 14421 
 
 B 
 
30 
 
 training and treatment which will test the offender’s character and 
 iiis capacity to make a right use of freedom. If in some Detention 
 Establishments, where training schemes are developed, offenders 
 can be given gradually increasing freedom from supervision and 
 increasing opportunities to show trustworthiness—as is done in 
 Borstal establishments—it should be practicable in such establish¬ 
 ments to make release dependent not on an automatic system of 
 marks, but on promotion through grades and on the judgment 
 which is formed by experienced observers of an offender’s character. 
 On the other hand, in establishments where the conditions are 
 similar to those which obtain in the present preventive detention 
 establishment, we think an automatic system of earning release 
 by marks for industry and good conduct would be preferable. 
 
 71. We recommend that, in connection with the proposed sen¬ 
 tences of Detention for from two to four years or for from five to 
 ten years power should be given to the Secretary of State :— 
 
 (a) to license offenders after they have served not less than 
 three-quarters of their sentences if they have rendered them¬ 
 selves eligible for release by their conduct and behaviour while 
 under detention, and 
 
 ( b ) to license an offender at any time after he has completed 
 one-third of his sentence if satisfied that there is a reasonable 
 probability that he will abstain from crime, that he is no 
 longer capable of engaging in crime, or that for any other 
 reason it is desirable to release him. 
 
 . Our reason for suggesting that the power of licensing should not 
 be exercisable until at least one-third of the sentence has been 
 served, is that Courts might otherwise hesitate to sentence certain 
 offenders to detention from a fear on the part of the Court that its 
 estimate of the appropriate period of detention might be too easily 
 interfered with. 
 
 The effect of our proposal will be that sentences of detention will 
 differ from sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude in that 
 detention sentences will entail the prospect of release on licence 
 at any time after a third of the sentence has been completed if 
 there is ground for thinking that detention has served its purpose 
 and that there is a reasonable probability of the offender giving 
 up his criminal habits. 
 
 72. We contemplate that just as there is at each local prison or 
 Borstal establishment or convict prison a Visiting Committee or 
 Board of Visitors, so there will be at each Detention Establishment 
 a Board of Visitors consisting of unofficial persons appointed by the 
 Secretary of State; and in all cases where the granting of a licence 
 is determined by considerations involving the exercise of discretion, 
 the advice of this Board should be invoked in the same way as the 
 advice of Visiting Committees of Borstal Institutions is invoked 
 as regards the licensing of Borstal inmates. 
 
31 
 
 73. In addition to the power of discharging an offender on licence 
 there should be a power to grant temporary release on parole, so 
 as to enable the authorities in appropriate cases to allow an inmate 
 in a Detention Establishment to go out temporarily. For example, 
 if arrangements can be made for a man to be allowed towards the 
 close of his sentence to go out to work while returning to the Deten¬ 
 tion Establishment each night, this might be a useful method of 
 accustoming him to liberty and of testing his trustworthiness. 
 
 74. The main object of the licensing system should be to secure 
 supervision and assistance for the purpose of enabling the offender 
 to make a fresh start, and there should be provisions similar to 
 those in Section 14 (3) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, 
 enabling a condition to be inserted in the licence that the offender 
 shall be under the supervision of some approved Society or guardian 
 who may be willing to look after him. 
 
 75. A Borstal inmate is subject to such supervision not only 
 during the currency of his sentence but for a year after the expira¬ 
 tion of his sentence. We think a similar provision would be valu¬ 
 able as regards persons sentenced to detention and we recommend 
 that a licence should be operative during the currency of an 
 offender’s sentence and during twelve months subsequent to the 
 expiration of the sentence. 
 
 During this period the offender should be liable if he fails to 
 observe the conditions of his licence, to be recalled and detained 
 for the unexpired period of his sentence or for a period of six 
 months, whichever period is the longer. 
 
 76. Under the preventive detention system (as distinct from the 
 penal servitude system) the time during which a prisoner has been 
 absent from a prison under licence counts as though it had been 
 served, and we propose that this system should be retained for 
 sentences of Detention, but that if at the date when the licensee 
 breaks the conditions of his licence there is less than six months 
 of the sentence to run or if at that date the sentence, but not the 
 supplementary period of supervision has expired, the licensee shall 
 on recall be liable to detention for not more than six months. 
 
 After Care. 
 
 77. The arrangements for the re-in statement in industry of per¬ 
 sons discharged from detention will obviously be of great import¬ 
 ance to the success of the scheme. At present the work of assisting 
 prisoners on discharge rests as regards persons discharged from the 
 local prisons on a number of local aid societies which are voluntary 
 bodies receiving a small Government grant, but dependent for 
 most of their funds on charitable subscriptions. Arrangements for 
 the after-care of persons discharged from Borstal detention and from 
 
 B 2 
 
 14121 
 
32 
 
 penal servitude and preventive detention rest on the Borstal Asso¬ 
 ciation and the Central Association for the Aid of Discharged Con¬ 
 victs respectively; and in Scotland on the Central After-Care 
 Council. The administrative expenses of these associations 
 are covered by Government Grant, but the Borstal Associa¬ 
 tion depends to a considerable extent on voluntary subscriptions 
 for the money required to help Borstal inmates between the date 
 of their discharge and the date on which they begin to earn. 
 
 78. It will obviously be impossible to place on local Aid Societies 
 the responsibility for persons discharged from Detention Establish¬ 
 ments. Already the work of these Aid Societies has been rendered 
 very difficult by the fact that prisons no longer serve a limited local 
 area and that the specifically local character of each prison is 
 therefore tending to disappear. In a Detention Establishment there 
 will be offenders drawn from all parts of the country and returning 
 to all parts of the country ; and the arrangements for the after-care 
 of such persons must be made by some central body utilising the 
 services of numerous local agents. 
 
 The administrative expenses of such a body will inevitably be 
 substantial and it would be impossible to rely on charitable sub¬ 
 scriptions for this purpose. In England and Wales the necessary 
 arrangements could no doubt be made by some reconstitution and 
 enlargement of the two bodies—namely the Borstal Association 
 and the Central Association for the Aid of Discharged Convicts, 
 which are both under the directorship of Sir Wemyss Grant- 
 Wilson. In Scotland the work could no doubt be undertaken by 
 the recently constituted Scottish Central After-Care Council. 
 
 79. In connection with the subject of After-Care, it is djesirable 
 to draw attention to two points which have been brought to our 
 notice in the course of our examination of the arrangements made 
 for the after-care of men released from preventive detention. 
 Some of the men, on release from preventive detention, have 
 at their credit substantial sums of money which they have 
 amassed by saving the money they can earn during a pre¬ 
 ventive detention sentence. In England the prisoner is given 
 the money on discharge and the Central Association find that 
 it is frequently impossible to help such men until they have 
 spent this money. As is not surprising, when it is remembered 
 that the man has been under strict restraint for many years, the 
 money is frequently ill spent. This point should be borne in mind 
 in connection with the consideration of any scheme for the pay¬ 
 ment of prisoners. Up to 1913 it was the practice to enable the 
 prisoners serving sentences of over one month to' earn gratuities 
 by industry and good conduct, and the money was so frequently ill- 
 used by prisoners on their discharge that the gratuity system was 
 abolished and the money was used instead for grants to Aid 
 Societies. In Scotland a preventive detention prisoner’s earnings are 
 
33 
 
 placed to his credit in the hands of the Central After-Care Council. 
 There is much to be said for this system, but it has the disadvantage 
 that the licence-holder is apt to suffer from a sense of grievance 
 because he has not been given his earnings in cash on discharge and 
 he may question the manner in which the Council disburses the 
 money on his behalf. Experience in dealing with preventive deten¬ 
 tion prisoners therefore shows that a serious drawback still attaches 
 to any gratuity system which enables a prisoner to amass sub¬ 
 stantial sums of money. 
 
 Secondly, it has been pointed out to us that much good could be 
 done by arranging for some suitable person to give individual atten¬ 
 tion and friendship to a man discharged from preventive detention. 
 The difficulty of finding a large number of individuals who would 
 take on such tasks is obvious ; but in dealing with these men, many 
 of whom feel themselves to be social outcasts and easily take the 
 view that it is useless for them to try to renounce their past, the 
 personal touch is of great value. If it were possible to find 
 suitable people each of whom would befriend and help one or two 
 ex-prisoners, we believe that such personal relations would often 
 provide the incentive and moral support which many of these ex¬ 
 prisoners need if they are to make and maintain efforts to follow 
 honest courses. 
 
 B 3 
 
 14421 
 
34 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Industrial Training. 
 
 80. As already stated we attach great importance to the pro¬ 
 vision in Detention Establishments of suitable forms of employ¬ 
 ment. 
 
 We have received much evidence, including evidence from the 
 Prison Commissioners, of the need for improving the arrange¬ 
 ments for employing prisoners. Most of the people who come to 
 prison repeatedly are indifferent workers, untrained and ill-fitted 
 by temperament or habit for steady employment; and prison does 
 little to remedy their industrial inefficiency. The kind of work 
 a man learns to do in prison is seldom of much use outside, and 
 he does not acquire in a prison workshop the habit of working with 
 speed and concentration. 
 
 81. Some prisoners are employed in the domestic services of the 
 prisons, such as cleaning, cooking, stoking and laundry work : some 
 are employed by the Prison Surveyor’s Department on work con¬ 
 nected with the maintenance and alteration of prison buildings and 
 the erection of new buildings, and the maintenance of the heating 
 and lighting services : and the rest are employed in making articles 
 required for prison use or for the use of other Government Depart¬ 
 ments. The largest of these manufacturing industries is the 
 making and repairing of mail-bags for the General Post Office. 
 Other industries include the making of brushes and mats for the 
 Admiralty, War Office, Air Ministry, and Office of Works, the 
 weaving of cloth for prison use on hand looms (or at Wakefield 
 power looms), tinsmithing, basketmaking, twinemaking, tailoring, 
 and bootmaking. At some prisons there are small carpentry 
 shops, and there are certain special shops such as a foundry at 
 Wakefield and a printing shop at Maidstone. 
 
 82. Some of the best work is provided by the Surveyor’s Depart¬ 
 ment. The construction of new buildings (including officers’ 
 houses), repairs, painting and the upkeep of the heating plant 
 provide occupations on which prisoners work with interest and with 
 profit to their industrial training. Most of the other industries, 
 however, are of kinds which do not stimulate the worker’s in¬ 
 terest, call for little muscular exertion and are apt to be regarded 
 by the prisoners rather as prison-invented tasks than as serious 
 work. If a labouring man is employed for a long time on sewing 
 mail-bags, he becomes “ soft ” and incapable of doing a day’s 
 labour on discharge. Governors frequently try to find for such 
 men in the last weeks of their sentences outside jobs in the garden 
 or in the coaling party to “ tone them up ”, but there are not 
 enough such jobs to go round. 
 
35 
 
 83. The pace of a prison workshop is slow. A prisoner is, of 
 course, subject to punishment if he is demonstrably idle, but he 
 has nothing to gain by being specially industrious; and between the 
 minimum which a man must do to escape punishment and the 
 maximum which he could do if he tried his best the difference 
 is great. Many prisoners are mental or physical weaklings, and 
 the presence of one or two such men has a deleterious influence 
 on a working party. Of two prisoners working side by side one 
 may be capable owing to superior strength or aptitude of doing 
 much more than the other, but to punish the former because 
 his output is only equal to that of the latter creates obvious diffi¬ 
 culties. Many instructors and supervising officers are remarkably 
 successful in inducing prisoners to work with a will, but they are 
 handicapped by their inability either to dismiss a poor w T orker or 
 to reward a good worker. 
 
 84. The working day of prisoners is short. Until recently the 
 aim of the prison administration was that prisoners should be em¬ 
 ployed in association for eight hours and should in addition do 
 evening tasks in their cells, unless engaged on educational work; 
 but the full eight hours of associated work were not reached in 
 many prisons, and recently the hours of associated work have been 
 reduced owing to staff reductions. The only way hitherto devised 
 of effecting any material economy in prison expenditure is to reduce 
 staff (by leaving unfilled vacancies caused by retirements), and a 
 reduction of the staff available for supervision means that prisoners 
 must spend longer hours in their cells. 
 
 85. In many prisons the workshop accommodation is inadequate 
 and poor. In the last century when most of the prisons were 
 built, no workshops were provided, the policy being that prisoners 
 should work in their cells. For many years now it has been the 
 policy gradually to build workshops as funds permit, but the work¬ 
 shop accommodation is still insufficient. 
 
 86. For many prisoners, especially prisoners serving fairly long 
 terms, open air work would be advantageous, but at few prisons 
 is such work practicable. The young prisoners are often employed 
 on farm or garden work or on such other work in the grounds as 
 can be provided, but at most prisons little space is available. 
 
 87. Our proposal for sentences of detention will facilitate the 
 policy of gathering together into special establishments persons 
 whose terms of detention are sufficiently long to enable them to be 
 given industrial training, but this development will increase the 
 need for providing better methods of employment. 
 
 88. Improvement of prison industries is a large and difficult 
 subject which raises such questions as the following :— 
 
 (a) What types of employment are most suitable for prisoners 
 or for offenders sentenced to detention? It is impossible to em¬ 
 ploy every prisoner at his own trade (including for example 
 
 B 4 
 
 1442! 
 
36 
 
 miners and sailors), and the problem is to- select employments 
 which will be suitable for men who have followed varied 
 occupations. 
 
 Is it possible to provide for men and women who are serving 
 sentences of two or three years industrial training in certain 
 specialised trades in which they can hope to find employment 
 on release? At present most organised trades are closed to 
 ex-prisoners, and any scheme of training prisoners for such 
 trades might raise apprehension lest ex-prisoners should take 
 places which are wanted by honest workmen. There is 
 moreover, the problem of how to co-ordinate prison training 
 with schemes of apprenticeship recognised by Trade Unions as 
 qualifying for entry to a trade. This is a question on which 
 the advice and co-operation of representatives of the Trade 
 Unions should be sought. 
 
 (b) When a decision is reached as to the most suitable 
 types of employment, how are the products to be disposed of? 
 Are prisoners to be limited to the making of articles required 
 for Government use or should it be permissible to sell prison 
 products in the open market? If so, what safeguards are 
 needed against unfair competition with private manufac¬ 
 turers ? 
 
 At present the choice of prison industries is dominated by 
 two considerations—(1) what orders for work can be obtained 
 from Government Departments, and (2) among the orders so 
 obtainable what types of work can be carried out in prisons 
 without economic loss? The difficulties which follow from the 
 second consideration are perhaps more important than those 
 that follow from the first, as in Scotland (where a certain 
 amount of work is done for the open market) prison industries 
 seem to labour under similar difficulties to those experienced 
 in England. Einancial considerations forbid the undertaking 
 in most prisons of work which involves expensive material 
 or expensive machinery, such as might be spoilt by workers 
 who are unskilled, careless and occasionally malicious. The 
 effect of these limitations is that the work at present avail¬ 
 able is barely enough to keep all the prisoners occupied. From 
 time to time mail-bag sewing such as could be done by sewing 
 machines is done by hand so as to make it take longer to do. 
 
 ( c ) Can some better incentive to good work be given to 
 prisoners or selected classes of prisoners? Can some method 
 be devised of making the offender feel that his maintenance 
 in prison depends, in part at any rate, on his own effort? 
 Should they receive some payment? If so, how should the 
 payment be reckoned and what will be the cost of such a 
 scheme? A small scale experiment of a system of payment 
 is described in the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners 
 for 1930. The experiment appears to be promising, but we 
 
understand there are great difficulties in measuring many 
 kinds of prison work, and in devising methods which will 
 secure adjustment of reward to effort but will not involve 
 inordinate clerical labour. 
 
 89. We do not feel that the members of this Committee have 
 the knowledge or experience to enable them to investigate and 
 make recommendations on this subject, and we do not gather from 
 the terms of our reference that a detailed inquiry into these matters, 
 which are largely technical, was expected of us. We accordingly 
 confine ourselves to pointing out that for persistent offenders sen¬ 
 tenced to detention the provision of suitable employment will be 
 of great importance, and there is general agreement that the present 
 arrangements for providing work for prisoners require improvement. 
 
 90. We woufd also suggest that the employment of persons 
 sentenced to imprisonment or detention should not be considered 
 in isolation as a problem of internal prison administration without 
 reference to the prisoner’s subsequent career as a free man, or 
 to the organisations concerned with helping him. The problems 
 of prison labour and of after-care have different origins and have 
 developed along different channels. The first takes its rise in the 
 administrative question of how to occupy as economically as pos¬ 
 sible persons under detention : the second represents the develop¬ 
 ment of a time-honoured philanthropy which makes heavy calls 
 upon wide human sympathy and personal services by voluntary 
 workers. But in any consideration of the methods of employing 
 prisoners the importance of fitting them for work outside must be 
 borne in mind. We think that the time has now come to 
 regard these allied problems of administration and philanthropy 
 as a single problem of industrial training and re-settlement. 
 
 We note that the Home Secretary has already stated that on the 
 receipt of our report he proposes to consider what is the proper 
 procedure for a review of the present system of prison industries; 
 and we suggest for his consideration that the allied problems of 
 the employment of prisoners and of their re-absorption into the 
 industrial system constitute a suitable subject for special inquiry. 
 
CHAPTEK X. 
 
 Special Considerations Affecting Women. 
 
 91. What we have said in our previous chapters applies gener¬ 
 ally to women as to men, but certain special considerations arise 
 as regards women, the chief of them being that the number of 
 women offenders is extremely small as compared with the number 
 of men. At any one time there are in England and Wales less 
 than 800 women in custody. In 1930 the figures were 45 serving 
 sentences of penal servitude, 4 serving sentences of preventive 
 detention, 116 under Borstal detention and 620 serving sentences 
 of imprisonment. Of the women serving sentences of imprison¬ 
 ment, nearly 300 are in Holloway Prison, and in other prisons there 
 are such small numbers as 30, 20, and even in one prison 9. 
 
 92. In the course of the year 1930, the receptions of women into 
 English prisons on conviction of indictable offences numbered only 
 1,336. In addition there were 2,674 imprisonments for drunken¬ 
 ness and 1,448 imprisonments for other non-indictable offences. 
 
 The total receptions of women numbered 5,458, of whom 
 4,670 or 86 per cent, had been previously proved guilty of offences, 
 as compared with 70 per cent, among the male prisoners. There 
 were 2,244 receptions of women with over 20 previous convictions. 
 The fact that the percentage of recidivism among women prisoners 
 is higher than the percentage among men is obviously related to 
 the fact that drunkenness accounts for 49 per cent, of the 5,458 
 receptions of women into prison, whereas drunkenness accounts for 
 only 14 per cent, of the 33,541 receptions of men. 
 
 The corresponding figures for Scotland are given in Appendix 2. 
 
 93. The number of dangerous women criminals is negligible and 
 the great majority of persistent women offenders are a nuisance 
 rather than a menace to society. Thus in 1930, 66 per cent, of the 
 receptions of women in prison were in respect of police court offences 
 such as drankenness, prostitution, offences against police regula¬ 
 tions and the Poor Law. Or again, looking at the matter from the 
 point of view of the sentences passed, of the 5,458 receptions of 
 women in 1930, 2,781 were in default of payment of fines and 
 only 883 were for periods of three months’ imprisonment or over. 
 
 94. There were, however, 353 women between 21 and 30 sen¬ 
 tenced to imprisonment for indictable offences and some of them 
 would no doubt have benefited by a period of training under the 
 sentence of two to four years’ detention. There are also some 
 women convicted of serious offences, for example, persistent thieves, 
 false pretenders or professional abortionists, for whom prolonged de¬ 
 tention would be useful. 
 
39 
 
 95. Under present conditions, the training of women sentenced 
 to imprisonment or penal servitude is carried on under serious 
 handicaps, due to the small and mixed character of the female 
 population in most women’s prisons. Women prisoners sentenced 
 to imprisonment and certain women convicts are now collected in 
 nine local prisons; but in spite of this concentration the number of 
 women in certain of those prisons is, as pointed out above, very 
 small. 
 
 96- We do not, therefore, consider that women sentenced to 
 detention should be added to the miscellaneous population 
 of the existing women’s prisons, where a large proportion of the 
 inmates consists of “ ins and outs ”. Moreover, in the case of the 
 great majority of women, prison buildings of the fortress type are 
 unnecessary for purposes of security and the effect of such build¬ 
 ings on women seems to be in many respects worse than on men. 
 
 In these circumstances we recommend that in selected cases 
 women sentenced to detention should be placed in a building of non¬ 
 prison type. As a start, an old country house might be acquired for 
 the purpose at a reasonable price. If numbers permitted, two or 
 more institutions might be set up, which would allow of more effec¬ 
 tive classification and training. The experiment would start with 
 the advantages that training in useful employments is easier with 
 women than with men and that detention in an institution other 
 than a prison would avoid the complete loss of self-respect which 
 women frequently suffer as a result of imprisonment. 
 
40 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 How Far can Persistent Offenders be Treated as 
 Mental Patients? 
 
 97. The Committee recognise that the mental condition of the 
 offender deserves the most careful attention in any consideration of 
 the problem of persistent criminality. In the following chapter we 
 review the question how far offenders should be subjected to care 
 and control or to psychological treatment because they are not of 
 normal mentality. 
 
 Existing Statutory Methods of dealing with Prisoners of Abnormal 
 or Subnormal Mentality. 
 
 98. Until comparatively recent times the legal sanctions applic¬ 
 able to mentally abnormal prisoners were restricted to the provisions 
 of the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1800, the Trial of Lunatics Act, 
 1883, and the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884. 
 
 The Inebriates Act, 1898 and the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913 
 provided alternatives to imprisonment for offenders who, although 
 not insane, presented certain mental abnormalities. Since then 
 public opinion has been directed to the fact that a considerable 
 amount of crime is associated with disordered states of mind. The 
 subsequent history of the two Acts is pertinent to our inquiry. 
 
 Inebriety. 
 
 99. The Inebriates Act, 1898, related to two classes of criminal 
 inebriates. In the first place to habitual drunkards who for the 
 fourth time within twelve months had been convicted of any of 
 certain scheduled offences connected with drunkenness ; power being 
 given to detain such cases for a term not exceeding three years, in 
 any certified inebriate reformatory the managers of which were 
 willing to receive him. Secondly, to persons convicted on indict¬ 
 ment of an offence punishable with penal servitude or imprison¬ 
 ment, when the court was satisfied that the offence was committed 
 under the influence of drink or that drunkenness was a contri¬ 
 buting cause of the offence, and when the jury found that the 
 offender was an habitual drunkard. Such persons might be sent 
 for a term not exceeding three years either to one of the certified 
 reformatories, or to a State reformatory, and the committal to a 
 reformatory might be either in addition to, or in substitution for, 
 any other sentence. The Act received at first a considerable 
 measure of legal, medical, and public support, but this was with¬ 
 drawn ultimately for various reasons, and it became inoperative in 
 1921. The decrease in the total annual convictions for drunkenness 
 
41 
 
 during recent years has brought about a corresponding diminution 
 of the medical and other problems associated with this type of 
 persistent petty offender. During our consideration of these matters 
 we were confronted with opposing medical views in regard to the 
 treatment of inebriety. We were told that psychological methods 
 were frequently beneficial, and on the other hand that the results 
 of this form of treatment were discouraging. In any case these 
 measures can have little chance of success if the individual is free 
 to indulge in his addiction. He requires also detention in an in¬ 
 stitution where exercise, suitable occupation and discipline can be 
 regulated under medical supervision. But in penal cases financial 
 difficulties will usually prevent this being carried out except in 
 prison. We concur with the Report of the Liquor Licensing 
 Commission (England and Wales) just published which expresses 
 agreement with the view of the Home Office that little 
 advantage stands to be gained by the revival of the special pro¬ 
 visions relating to habitual drunkards in the Habitual Drunkards 
 Act, 1879, the Inebriates Act, 1898, and certain sections of the 
 Licensing Act, 1902. We believe that expert medical opinion in 
 general also has arrived at the same conclusion. 
 
 Mental Deficiency. 
 
 100. The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, empowers a court of com¬ 
 petent jurisdiction to direct that a petition be presented to a 
 judicial authority under the Act with a view to obtaining an order 
 for the detention in an institution for defectives of any person 
 convicted of any criminal offence punishable in an adult with penal 
 servitude or imprisonment, if satisfied on medical evidence that 
 such person is defective within the meaning of the Act; or itself 
 make an order which shall have the like effect. The period of 
 detention expires at the end of one year, unless continued in the 
 interests of the subject and in the manner provided by the Act. 
 The provisions prevent persistent crime in certain defectives with 
 delinquent tendencies, and the segregation of non-delinquent de¬ 
 fectives, also empowered by the Act, no doubt prevents others from 
 committing a first offence. 
 
 101. It was suggested to us that legislation was urgently needed 
 to empower local Education Authorities to notify to the Mental 
 Deficiency Committees feebleminded children leaving Elementary 
 Schools and needing care, supervision, and control for their own 
 protection and for that of others. At present, under Section 
 2 (2) ( b ) of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and Section 2 of the 
 Mental Deficiency Act, 1927, they can only be notified if they 
 leave Special Schools. We were informed that there are only some 
 16,000 children in Special Schools in the country out of the 
 estimated 75,000 who could come under the Mental Deficiency 
 Acts as feebleminded. Roughly, therefore, 60,000 feebleminded 
 children are not, and cannot be, notified to Mental Deficiency 
 
42 
 
 Committees. It seems probable that a large number of defectives 
 coming before the criminal courts are drawn from this group, for, 
 m most instances, they have left school without (the provision of 
 special after-care. It was proposed that, pending legislation, the 
 local Education Authorities should make more use of their powers 
 to provide home supervision for feebleminded children whilst in 
 Elementary Schools, and we understand the Board of Education has 
 suggested this in a circular. We call attention to this matter as, 
 even without the provision of special education, much could be done 
 to prevent the formation of criminal habits in these defectives if 
 they were under constant friendly supervision whilst in school and 
 after leaving school. 
 
 102. The Mental Deficiency Act, 1927, by reason of its more 
 comprehensive conception of mental defectiveness, extended the 
 protection of the 1913 Act to a still larger class in England. There 
 can be little doubt that the same result would follow its application 
 to Scotland. The support given generally to the two Acts is an 
 indication of the public confidence in their power to deal with 
 defectives including those w1k> are potential persistent offenders. 
 
 103. According to Section 1 (2) of the Mental Deficiency Act, 
 1927, “ mental defectiveness means a condition of arrested or in¬ 
 complete development of mind existing before the age of eighteen 
 years, whether arising from inherent causes or induced by disease 
 or injury ”. Certain medical witnesses considered this definition was 
 too elastic, others proposed that the definition should be extended 
 so as to include all incorrigible criminals. We believe the latter 
 course to be undesirable as well as impracticable. The criminal 
 tendencies, mental make-up, and outlook on life of the active 
 aggressive criminal, who is a menace to society, may be very 
 different from that of the persistent petty offender who is often little 
 more than a nuisance. We do- not consider that it would be in 
 the public interest to permit the former class to qualify for pre¬ 
 ferential treatment and acquire the ameliorations of an institution 
 for mental defectives by the repetition of serious crimes, and we 
 have no reason to believe that the majority of petty recidivists would 
 derive any permanent benefit by segregation among defectives. 
 Indeed, to carry the proposal to its logical conclusion would deprive 
 petty recidivists, as well as dangerous habitual criminals, of their 
 liberty permanently, except in a few cases where the authorities re¬ 
 sponsible for their discharge were satisfied that the criminal 
 tendencies of the subjects were no longer active. 
 
 104. The Mental Deficiency Acts, by withdrawing from prisons 
 and Borstal Institutions a large number of social inefficients, have 
 thrown into relief those offenders who are mentally subnormal or 
 abnormal, but are not mentally defective or insane. In regard to 
 these we are aware of the disadvantages of over-simplification in dis¬ 
 cussions on human conduct, but it is only necessary here to call 
 attention in broad terms to the cases we have in mind. They 
 
43 
 
 preselit a common feature : the tendency to repeat anti-social acts 
 unless the underlying mental condition is relieved. 
 
 105. Experience indicates that as the conception of mental de¬ 
 fectiveness becomes less exclusive a group remains on the border¬ 
 line of the accepted standard of normality and invites inclusion 
 within the defective class. If the definition of mental defectiveness 
 is widened a certain number of the subnormal group will be in¬ 
 cluded as defectives, but the standard of subnormality will tend to 
 rise also. The subnormal group will not be eliminated, and the 
 difficulties connected with the reformation of its delinquent members 
 will continue. Criminal problems are closely connected with other 
 social problems, and we believe that recidivism associated with 
 mental subnormality or with inebriety must be dealt with empiric¬ 
 ally until social and medical sciences are more advanced than they 
 are at present. 
 
 Types of Offenders who cannot be dealt with under existing 
 Statutory Provisions, but who may be affected with minor mental 
 
 abnormalities. 
 
 106. Allied on the one hand to the above cases, and on the other 
 hand to those to which we shall next call attention, is a group of 
 delinquents who become persistent offenders on account of emotional 
 and temperamental instability. Many cases occur during adoles¬ 
 cence, but some later in life. In adolescence particularly, the con¬ 
 dition may be temporary, and perhaps not entirely or fundamentally 
 psychological in origin, and may be relieved when manhood is 
 attained, or earlier. Indeed, it seems probable that some unstable 
 inmates of Borstal Institutions become stabilised and socially 
 efficient during detention, not solely because the psychological 
 difficulties are readjusted, but also because the physiological balance 
 is regained. In many offenders, however, the anti-social conduct 
 appears to be due essentially to psychological causes, and to be 
 relieved sometimes by psycho-therapy. 
 
 107. It is sometimes suggested that sexual crime, in particular, 
 is usually the result of an abnormal mental condition. Undoubtedly 
 alcoholism, mental deficiency, insanity, and minor mental disorders 
 are causal factors in many cases. But often the strength of the 
 sexual urge, or the difficulty with which it is restrained, are im¬ 
 portant influences and fall within normal limits. Moreover, en¬ 
 vironmental, inherited, and economic factors operate in this as in 
 other forms of crime. 
 
 108. There remain offenders who repeatedly commit the same 
 type of crime which, from its nature or the manner in which it 
 is committed, suggests an abnormal mental condition to be the 
 essential causative factor. We allude particularly to some cases 
 of indecency and certain other sex offences, to magpie thefts and 
 some minor peculations, as well as to some cases of arson, violence.. 
 
44 
 
 and wilful damage to property. The cases can be recognised usually 
 without difficulty if all the material facts connected with the crime 
 and the history of the offender are first ascertained. As the punitive 
 and reformatory measures generally adopted are not infrequently 
 ineffective, the subjects remain a menace or a nuisance to the 
 community. 
 
 Psychological Treatment. 
 
 109. There is a widespread impression that many crimes are 
 symptoms or effects of some mental disorder and that the offender’s 
 criminal habits can be cured by appropriate psychological treatment. 
 “It is our conviction ’’ said the representatives of the Howard 
 League, “ that many persons to-day are sent to prison who stand 
 in need only of medical or psychological treatment or supervision. 
 
 . . . At present many persons are sent to prison for whom 
 
 punitive treatment is as little justifiable and as little helpful as it 
 would be for a sufferer from any recognised medical disease ’ ’. 
 
 The Committee, recognising the great importance of modern de¬ 
 velopments in the field of psychological medicine, have been at 
 pains to investigate the question how far offenders should be treated 
 as mental patients, and for this purpose have taken evidence from 
 a number of experts who have specialised in methods of 
 psychological examination and in psycho-therapy. 
 
 110. It is common knowledge that the motives underlying 
 human conduct may be ascertained with comparative ease in some 
 cases and only with the greatest difficulty in others. The diabetic 
 delinquent may persistently steal food, or the means by which it 
 can be obtained, in order to gratify the hunger of this disease. The 
 unwanted child may react to the lack of parental understanding and 
 retaliate with persistent anti-social conduct. The man who is over¬ 
 burdened with the feeling of his own inferiority may obtain a 
 spurious sense of power, and mental compensation, if he hoards the 
 proceeds of many thefts. In such cases the underlying psychologi¬ 
 cal factor may be ascertained without difficulty, but there is reason 
 to believe that sometimes it lies much deeper and requires expert 
 methods for its detection and treatment. 
 
 111. The medical psychologist who sets out to treat abnormal 
 conduct endeavours to ascertain the cause, and to obtain informa¬ 
 tion in regard to any incident or circumstances in the past history 
 of the subject which led up to the event. The subject may not 
 be aware of the connection and the past incident or circumstances 
 may be forgotten. But if the man reveals himself the underlying 
 cause for his conduct may be discovered. He is then shown the 
 reason why he acts in an anti-social manner so as to free him from 
 past influences and enable him to start afresh. But realisation must 
 come from the man himself. When he first unburdens himself he 
 does not appreciate the significance of the various factors which 
 have affected his conduct, and they must be presented to him 
 
45 
 
 again in such a manner that a gradual understanding of their 
 meaning is effected. If these matters can be dealt with he may be 
 brought back to normality. But his co-operation is essential, and 
 it is clear that a person who is addicted to some anti-social act may 
 withhold this if he prefers to retain his abnormality rather than 
 attain a cure which may deprive him of his means of gratification. 
 
 112. We understand that the technique used by different medical 
 men in the psychological treatment of abnormal conduct varies 
 within certain limits, and may be followed by ill-effects unless the 
 practitioner has special skill and experience in this branch of 
 medicine. But there appears to be general agreement that the 
 probability of successful treatment is greater the sooner it is com¬ 
 menced and, in regard to the cases with which we are concerned, 
 before criminal tendencies have become established as criminal 
 habits. 
 
 One witness informed us that his results with adults were dis¬ 
 appointing because of the difficulty of tracing the cause back to 
 earlier years, but he considered that effective work could be done 
 with children up to 14 years of age, and among adults in special 
 cases. He regarded the adolescent period as a difficult one to treat 
 since the individual then is self-sufficient and feels that he is master 
 of his own fate; he fails to realise his own need and consequently 
 is difficult of approach. Other witnesses emphasised the importance 
 of treating cases as soon as possible, but considered that treatment 
 might be successful up to thirty or forty years of age. 
 
 It may well be that some medical psychologists obtain their 
 best results with children, others with adolescents and still others 
 with adults. 
 
 113. No witness was able to give us any precise information 
 concerning the curative value of psychological treatment in any 
 large number of law-breakers, and the results on the whole have 
 been inconclusive in the few convicted offenders who have been 
 so treated during the currency of their sentences. We believe it 
 is generally admitted that, although a large amount of psychological 
 material and well-proved data have been collected by many workers 
 in many countries, the practical treatment of psychological disorders 
 by this means is as yet experimental and, although firmly estab¬ 
 lished, still uncertain in its results. We consider it desirable to 
 point out also that whereas the medical treatment of physical dis¬ 
 orders may establish, as a rule, the fact of cure with reasonable 
 certainty, no such claim can be made in individual cases of psycho¬ 
 logical disorder until proved by actual trial. It must be frankly 
 recognised that some law-breakers who appear suitable for psycho¬ 
 logical treatment are not so in fact because of some medical, psycho¬ 
 logical, or psychotic contra-indication; others who appear suitable, 
 fail to benefit by treatment; others are not known to be failures until 
 they revert to crime when put to the test; and some are treated with 
 success. 
 
46 
 
 114. It was clear from the evidence of those witnesses who have 
 had experience in the practice of psycho-therapy that even if it is 
 practicable to select from the offenders appearing before the Courts 
 those who appear to be suitable for psychological treatement, the 
 need will still remain for subjecting to punishment those who fail 
 to benefit by such treatment. “ It seems to the offender ”, said 
 one witness, ‘‘ not worth while being cured of a tendency which, 
 however unpleasant to others, nevertheless affords pleasure to him¬ 
 self. Hence, he lacks incentive to co-operate in treatment or may 
 even have an incentive not to do so. Hence, it is that the deterrent 
 influence of punishment, either actual or threatened, proves so 
 useful.” 
 
 115. Moreover it was recognised that punishment is necessary not 
 merely for the sake of deterring the particular offender, but for the 
 sake of deterring others from following his example. One witness, 
 himself a medical-psychologist, put the matter thus—“ Psycho¬ 
 logists tend to ignore the major social function of the penal system, 
 but they should be reminded that the community is entitled to the 
 first claim and the individual only to the second. The business of 
 the psychologist is merely to point out methods that are just and 
 that may be fruitful in the individual case, provided that such 
 methods are compatible with the wider interests of society.” 
 
 116. We do not agree with the view that crime is a disease, or 
 that it is generally the result of mental disorder. We believe, 
 however, that a. certain amount of persistent crime—as well as first 
 offences with which we are not concerned—is due to abnormal 
 mental factors ; that the usual punitive and reformative methods 
 often fail in the cases which are outside the purview of the Lunacy 
 and Mental Deficiency Acts; that there is reason to suppose that 
 certain delinquents may be amenable to psychological treatment; 
 that the application of this method of treatment in criminal cases 
 is in its infancy and is likely to remain so for many years to come; 
 that, probably, its scope is limited and may be mainly preventive, 
 and applicable chiefly to children, juveniles and adolescents; that 
 the time has arrived when selected cases should be placed volun¬ 
 tarily under psychological treatment; and that, in order to test 
 thoroughly the vaiue of the method, a systematic follow up of the 
 cases dealt with in this manner should be conducted over a pro¬ 
 longed period; and the results, the failures as well as the successes, 
 of accredited medical psychologists, should be published in due 
 course. And further, if we accept the psychological explanation in 
 certain eases of crime, we do not regard it necessarily as an excuse 
 for the offence. 
 
 117. We do not consider that any special statutory provisions 
 are necessary or even practicable at the present time to carry out 
 this experiment. But we believe that if advantage is taken by 
 Local Authorities of the powers conferred on them by the Mental 
 Treatment Act, 1930, to admit voluntary patients to hospitals 
 
47 
 
 approved by the Board of Control for the treatment of mental 
 illness, or to provide outpatient clinics for the treatment of persons 
 so suffering, a.certain number of offenders might derive benefit by 
 attending for treatment whilst on probation. We were in¬ 
 formed that in a few districts clinics have been established 
 which are independent of the Local Authority and are under 
 skilled and unimpeachable direction, and that cases have been 
 sent to some of them from courts of summary jurisdiction for 
 medical treatment. We understand, however, that there are only 
 a few hospitals or clinics throughout the country available for the 
 purpose. We attach much importance to the principle that only 
 treatment centres should be used which are set up by the Local 
 Authorities, or which have otherwise established themselves in the 
 confidence of the public and the medical profession. We believe 
 that an adequate service of these clinics, and also child guidance 
 clinics, might effect some reduction in the amount of certain forms 
 of persistent crime. 
 
 118. It is quite impracticable, and we believe generally unneces¬ 
 sary to examine the mental condition of all adults who appear before 
 a court on a criminal charge. But of course the mental condition 
 of an offender may be an all-important consideration in deciding 
 upon the appropriate method of dealing with him. We know that 
 a large number of persons who have been proved to the satis¬ 
 faction of the court to be guilty of the offence with which they are 
 charged are remanded for examination into their mental condition, 
 but we do not consider full advantage is taken always of the 
 existing facilities for doing so. It is probable that only a small 
 proportion of such cases will be found suitable for psycho¬ 
 logical treatment, but this consideration should not deter 
 courts from remanding the offender if his family and per¬ 
 sonal history and the circumstances of the case suggest a 
 psychological investigation is desirable. In districts where reputable 
 clinics are established it may be possible for a court to 
 obtain the advice of the medical officer attached to the clinic as to 
 the value of psychotherapy in individual cases, without the necessity 
 of remanding the offender in custody for the purpose. 
 
 119. The primary aim of psychological treatment in criminal 
 subjects is to prevent them from committing crime in future, and 
 it is accepted generally that the fear of imprisonment is often more 
 deterrent than the actual fact. We do not believe that a decision 
 can be made at the present time between the relative advantages 
 of psychological treatment prior to, or during the currency of, 
 imprisonment. Different factors are involved in individual cases. 
 Doubtless many offenders earnestly desire to be relieved of their 
 anti-social tendencies. In others, mental abnormality may co-exist 
 with malingering, an offender may consciously exaggerate his 
 disability, and as we have already pointed out, may refuse to 
 accept the truth if it threatens to abolish his means of self-gratifica¬ 
 tion. One medical witness considered the emotional reaction which 
 
48 
 
 followed upon a sentence of imprisonment placed the subject in a 
 favourable mental condition for psychological treatment. But it 
 seems probable that emotional reactions of an opposite character 
 may have the reverse effect. Perhaps the prospect of future im¬ 
 prisonment may be the physician’s most powerful ally in some cases, 
 a sentence of imprisonment in others. 
 
 120. The present economic conditions may delay the establish¬ 
 ment of clinics, and many courts may hesitate to consider this 
 method of dealing with delinquency until more is known of its 
 value. Meanwhile, some progress might be made if offenders who 
 were willing to be treated during a sentence of Borstal detention 
 or imprisonment were selected and treated in one or more of the 
 establishments under the administration of the Prison Com¬ 
 missioners. In this way the public would be protected no less 
 than before, and the results could be analysed and the method 
 tested when sufficient data had been collected. 
 
 121. For some time past the lads under 21 years of age who are 
 received in the Boys’ Prison at Wormwood Scrubs, sentenced to 
 detention in a Borstal Institution or remanded from the Metro¬ 
 politan and adjacent areas for a medical report have been psycho¬ 
 logically examined by the medical officers of the Prison. A band 
 of voluntary women workers also interview the lads in prison and 
 whenever possible visit the homes, and report their findings to the 
 medical staff. They act as field workers to a mental clinic. The 
 medical examination detects mental defectiveness, major and minor 
 mental disorders, and assesses the psychological conditions asso¬ 
 ciated with the offence. The prison medical officer, however, is 
 often prevented by his official position from establishing the rela¬ 
 tionship necessary for more detailed methods of psychotherapy. 
 In consequence a few cases have been sent for treatment as out¬ 
 patients to a mental clinic, but administrative and other considera¬ 
 tions restrict the usefulness of this practice. If there were attached 
 to one or more selected penal establishments a medical psychologist 
 free from routine official duties, the triad usually recognised as 
 essential to carry out this form of treatment would be established. 
 The field worker would have her place, the prison medical officer 
 —-as in other prisons—would conduct the physical and mental 
 examination and eliminate cases of mental defectiveness and gross 
 mental disorder, and the medical psychologist would carry out 
 further psychological investigations and the treatment in selected 
 
 cases. 
 
 122. We should be on guard lest words are substituted for facts 
 until the efficacy of treatment is based on scientific data. Mean¬ 
 while, we consider that action along these lines would determine 
 whether the psychological treatment of delinquency is of sufficient 
 value to justify statutory recognition as a means for the prevention 
 and treatment of certain crimes. We therefore recommend that 
 measures be taken to give effect to this suggestion. 
 
49 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 The Abolition of the Legal Distinction Between Penal 
 Servitude and Imprisonment. 
 
 123. If legislation is introduced to give effect to our proposals, 
 we hope the opportunity will be taken to get rid of the distinction 
 between Penal Servitude and Imprisonment. At present a sen¬ 
 tence of penal servitude differs from a sentence of imprisonment in 
 two respects only—(1) by reason of its length—a sentence of im¬ 
 prisonment cannot be for more than two years and a sentence of 
 penal servitude cannot be for less than three years—and (2) by the 
 fact that the remission which a prisoner earns by good conduct and 
 industry is absolute under a sentence of imprisonment and is con¬ 
 ditional under a sentence of penal servitude. 
 
 124. The reasons for the distinction between the two sentences 
 are purely historical. Before the middle of the last century persons 
 convicted of major offences were sentenced to transportation, and 
 persons convicted of less serious offences to imprisonment in local 
 gaols which were owned and managed by the local Justices. The 
 arrangements for transportation were undertaken by the Central 
 Government and when, as happened from time to time, it was im¬ 
 practicable to carry into effect sentences of transportation, it was 
 necessary for the Central Government to make other arrangements 
 for dealing with persons so sentenced. By 1850 a regular practice 
 had grown up of confining persons sentenced to transportation in 
 one of the special Government prisons at Millbank or Pentonville 
 or in hulks or depots where they were employed, as far as possible, 
 on public works, and then either given tickets of leave to be at 
 large in a Colony, or when no Colony would receive them, dis¬ 
 charged in this country. The Penal Servitude Act, 1853, regu¬ 
 larised this system by substituting sentences of penal servitude 
 for sentences of transportation and by allowing persons so sen¬ 
 tenced to be released under conditional licences to be at large in 
 this country. In the early days of the penal servitude system it 
 was the practice to keep a convict for the first part of his sentence 
 in separate confinement either in one of the Government prisons 
 or in one of the local prisons, where the Government rented cells by 
 arrangement with the local Justices, and afterwards to transfer him 
 to some place where he could be employed on public works either 
 in this country, for example, at Chatham or Portland, or elsewhere 
 as at Gibraltar or Bermuda. Later, when public works were no 
 longer available, it became necessary to employ convicts on such 
 work as could be done in prison workshops or on land adjoining 
 the prison. 
 
50 
 
 125. Originally there was a considerable difference between the 
 treatment of convicts and the treatment of local prisoners. The 
 difference was due to two main causes. Until 1877 the two types 
 of prisoners were under the control of different authorities—the 
 convicts being under the control of a Government Department, 
 namely the Directors of Convict Prisons, and the local prisoners 
 being under the control of the local Justices. This difference dis¬ 
 appeared when, in 1877, the Government took over the local prisons, 
 placed them under the charge of Prison Commissioners and 
 appointed the Chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons to be 
 also Chairman of the Prison Commissioners. By 1898 it had 
 become the practice to appoint the same persons to be both 
 Directors of Convict Prisons and Commissioners of Prisons, and 
 the Prison Act of 1898 provided that the Prison Commissioners 
 should by virtue of their office be Directors of Convict Prisons. 
 The second cause of difference was that until 1895 persons serving 
 sentences of imprisonment were subjected to strictly punitive 
 conditions including separate' confinement throughout their sen¬ 
 tences, while persons serving sentences of penal servitude were 
 subjected to a preliminary period of separate confinement and hard 
 labour but subsequently were employed in association under con¬ 
 ditions which were intended to be less punitive and more con¬ 
 ducive to industrial training. This second distinction disappeared 
 after the report of the Gladstone Committee of 1895 when the 
 treatment of local prisoners was changed and it became the practice 
 to employ them in association on productive work. 
 
 126. For many years now there has been no material difference 
 between the conditions under which sentences of penal servitude and 
 sentences of imprisonment are served. Of the three convict prisons 
 in England, one, namely Maidstone, is a local prison taken over in 
 1877 from the Kent Justices. At this prison are ithe “ Star” 
 convicts, that is, men who have been convicted of one serious crime 
 but are otherwise not of criminal character or careers, and they are 
 all employed within the walls of the prison on occupations similar 
 to those of local prisoners, except that these long term men can 
 follow certain occupations such as printing and tinsmithing, which 
 would be impracticable for short term prisoners. At Parkhurst 
 where there are 650 convicts, most of whom have previous convic¬ 
 tions, not more than 70 or 80 are employed at any one time on the 
 land adjoining the prison, and the rest are employed in prison work¬ 
 shops. At Dartmoor where there are 440 recidivist convicts, about 
 70 are employed at any one time on work outside the walls, and the 
 remainder in prison workshops. As far as practicable arrangements 
 are made at Parkhurst and Dartmoor to give men who have been 
 employed for a long time in the workshops a change to work out¬ 
 side, and it is a great advantage that for men serving long sentences 
 there should be opportunities of outdoor work. As indicated in 
 paragraph 86 it is desirable that more outdoor work should be pro¬ 
 vided for men serving long terms, but we wish to make it clear 
 
51 
 
 that at the present time a sentence of penal servitude does not 
 necessarily entail employment on outdoor work or on work outside 
 prison walls. Many convicts are employed throughout their 
 sentences under conditions similar to those under which prisoners 
 sentenced to imprisonment are employed and most convicts are so 
 employed for large parts of their sentences. 
 
 As regards women the small number sentenced to penal servitude 
 were for many years in Liverpool Prison and are now in Holloway 
 Prison. Their employments and general conditions are similar to 
 those of women sentenced to imprisonment, with whom they work 
 in association. The Star convicts have for some time been housed 
 in Aylesbury Prison. 
 
 127. It is true that there are, and there should be, certain differ¬ 
 ences between the conditions under which long and short sentences 
 are served respectively. For example, a long sentence prisoner can 
 be employed on occupations which require long training and can 
 be allowed to earn special privileges, but differences such as these 
 are consequential on the length and not on the nature of the 
 sentence. The use of the two terms “ Imprisonment ” and “ Penal 
 Servitude ” is liable to suggest that there is a material difference 
 between the nature of the two sentences, and the abolition of the 
 term penal servitude would have the advantage of making it clear 
 that a sentence of five years differs from a sentence of one year in 
 length only or in such minor features as are incidental to length. 
 We might perhaps also mention as one of the drawbacks of the 
 present distinction that many convicts regard themselves as 
 aristocrats in a prison community and look down on those who are 
 sentenced merely to imprisonment. 
 
 128. If the term penal servitude were abolished there would then 
 be only two designations, namely, Imprisonment and Detention to 
 describe the two main types of sentence involving the segregation 
 of offenders. The term Imprisonment would cover all ordinary 
 sentences up to life sentences such as are now described by the terms 
 of “ Imprisonment ” or “ Penal Servitude ” and aim primarily at 
 measuring out a term for the offence and in that sense are retribu¬ 
 tive in character. The term “ Detention ” would cover all sentences 
 which are of a tutelary character and are based on the character of 
 the offender with the object either of subjecting him to reformative 
 training or of detaining him in safe custody for the protection of 
 the public. Of these tutelary sentences there will be, if our pro¬ 
 posals are accepted, three types, namely, Borstal Detention, Deten¬ 
 tion for periods of two to four years and Prolonged Detention for five 
 to ten years. 
 
 Should the Licensing System be Retained for Penal Servitude 
 
 Convicts? 
 
 129. The abolition of the technical distinction between sentences 
 of penal servitude and sentences of imprisonment would raise the 
 question whether the present system of release on licence should 
 
52 
 
 be retained for persons sentenced for the longer periods. At present 
 a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for any period over a month 
 can by good conduct and industry earn a remission of his sentence 
 not exceeding one sixth. This remission is absolute. As soon as 
 the prisoner leaves the prison gate there is no further control over 
 him. Under the penal servitude system a male prisoner can by 
 good conduct and industry earn a remission of a quarter of his 
 sentence and a female prisoner remission of a third of her sentence; 
 but the remission is conditional only. The convict leaves prison 
 under licence, and, if reconvicted during the period of the licence, 
 is liable to serve the unexpired portion olf his sentence, which is 
 known as a remanet. 
 
 130. The liability to serve the remanet is a statutory consequence 
 of a reconviction on indictment, and theoretically is independent of 
 any sentence which the Court may pass for the new offence. It 
 is, however, a common practice for a Court, in assessing the new 
 sentence, to give weight to the consideration that the prisoner is 
 also liable to serve a remanet. 
 
 We doubt whether the liability to serve the remanet has any 
 material effect in restraining the ex-convict from crime during the 
 period of his licence. If he is not deterred from crime by the 
 liability of another sentence, the liability to serve his remanet as 
 well as his new sentence is not likely to have much influence on his 
 conduct. 
 
 131. There is, however, another important consideration. It is 
 a condition of a convict’s licence that he shall report his address to 
 the police. The Home Office has power to remit this condition and 
 the power is exercised in a proportion of cases. We have tried 
 to ascertain what degree of value attaches to the requirement that 
 an ex-convict shall report to the police. The value of such reports 
 is considerably diminished at the present time by the increased 
 facilities for locomotion. Some years ago if crimes of a certain 
 type occurred in a particular neighbourhood, it was of considerable 
 advantage to the police to know what ex-convicts were living in that 
 neighbourhood. But to-day criminals can, and frequently do, 
 practise their criminal activities in districts far removed from their 
 homes. As one witness said to us “ The housebreakers who live in 
 Edinburgh usually practise in Glasgow, and those who live in 
 Glasgow practise in Edinburgh.” Motor-cars and motor-buses make 
 it extremely easy for the criminal to move over large stretches 
 of country swiftly. Although, therefore, we recognise that some¬ 
 times it is useful to the police to know an ex-convict's address, the 
 advantages of requiring reports to the police are far less than they 
 used to be. 
 
 132. As regards certain types of criminal, however, such, e.g., as 
 professional abortionists or persons who practise coining or the 
 forging of notes, it is extremely desirable that the police should 
 know in what place they are residing after their release from 
 prison. 
 
53 
 
 133. The licensing system, however, does not provide a satisfac¬ 
 tory method of securing police supervision. An ex-convict can only 
 be required to report during the currency of his licence. Most penal 
 servitude sentences are for three years only; consequently, if a 
 convict earns full remission he is only required to keep the police 
 informed of his address during the period of nine months. If by 
 bad conduct in prison he loses the whole of his remission, he will 
 have no licence, and consequently there will be no requirement that 
 he should report to the police. In cases where reporting to the 
 police is desirable, it seems to us that this object should be effected 
 by some method other than a condition in the licence, and the 
 Prevention of Crime Act, 1871, provides the necessary machinery. 
 Section 8 provides that 
 
 where any person is convicted on indictment of a crime, and 
 a previous conviction of a crime is proved against him, the 
 Court . . . may in addition to any other punishment 
 
 which it may award to him, direct that he is to be subject to 
 the supervision of the police for a period of seven years, or such 
 less period as the Court may direct, commencing immediately 
 after the expiration of the sentence passed on him.” 
 
 Very little use has been made of this provision of recent years, but 
 this section provides the proper method of requiring reports to the 
 police in any case where the Court may think such a requirement 
 suitable, and it seems clear that in so far as reporting to the police 
 may be desirable, the object should be secured by the use of this 
 section and not by the licensing system. 
 
 134. We accordingly recommend that persons sentenced to penal 
 servitude, or under our new terminology to imprisonment for three 
 years or more, except persons sentenced for life, should be allowed 
 to earn absolute remission of a portion of their sentences in the same 
 way as persons sentenced to imprisonment. It is to be noted that 
 the number of criminals subject to the licensing system is very small 
 compared with those whose release from imprisonment involves 
 absolute discharge. Out of the 39,000 receptions on conviction into 
 prisons in England and Wales in 1930, only 529 were under 
 sentences of penal servitude. 
 
 135. As to the maximum amount of remission which a prisoner 
 should be enabled to earn, we think it desirable to keep the present 
 maximum of one sixth for the shorter sentences (i.e. sentences up 
 to two years), and the present maximum of one quarter for the 
 longer sentences (sentences of three years and more). Prisoners 
 serving sentences between two and three years in length would be 
 allowed to earn remission amounting to something between a sixth 
 and a quarter of their sentences, according to a special scale 
 designed to ensure that there was an even grading of remission 
 between two and three year sentences. We see no reason for 
 maintaining the distinction that women may earn a third while 
 men can only earn a quarter. This differentiation is a historical 
 
54 
 
 survival due to the fact that before 1853 it was the practice to give 
 women sentenced to transportation tickets of leave at an earlier 
 date than men. There is nothing in present-day conditions to 
 justify continuation of this illogical distinction. 
 
 136. It may be added that the abolition of the distinction between 
 penal servitude and imprisonment would have the advantage of 
 widening the powers of the Courts by enabling them to impose 
 sentences for periods cvf more than two and less than three years. 
 At present Courts cannot impose a sentence of two and a half 
 years. The sentence must either be one of imprisonment for not 
 more than two years or one of penal servitude for not less than 
 three years. 
 
55 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 The Conditions unde®, which Sentences of Preventive 
 Detention are Served. 
 
 137. At the time when the Act of 1908 was passed, it was con¬ 
 templated that sentences of preventive detention would be passed 
 on a substantial number of offenders who had three or more previous 
 convictions for crime, and that the new provisions would have an 
 appreciable effect on recidivism. 
 
 Between the date when the Act came into operation in August, 
 1909, and the 31st December, 1930, 967 sentences of preventive 
 detention have been passed in England and Wales. In the last 
 ten years the total is 364, giving an average of 36 cases a 
 year. As is shown in the Annual Report of the Prison Com¬ 
 missioners for 1928, these figures are insignificant compared with 
 the number of criminals who are known to have three or more 
 previous convictions for crime. The reasons why greater use has 
 not been made of preventive detention are discussed in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 Of recent years the daily average number of prisoners serving this 
 sentence has been about 120 males and two or three women. None 
 of them is young, half of them are over 50 years of age and nearly 
 a fifth are over 60. 
 
 138. With few exceptions they are men with little mental 
 capacity or strength of character. Some of them may be skilled 
 in the arts of forgery or false pretences, many are cunning, and 
 most of them have a strong belief in their own cleverness, but 
 generally they are of the type whose frequent convictions testify as 
 much to their clumsiness as to their persistence in crime. 
 
 139. Until the end of last year the men were confined at Camp 
 Hill in the Isle of Wight in an establishment which was specially 
 built for preventive detention prisoners between 1908 and 1911. 
 Camp Hill has now been appropriated as a Borstal Institution and 
 the men have been transferred to Lewes Prison. The two or 
 three women are at Aylesbury. 
 
 140. In Scotland little use has been made of preventive detention 
 and there are at present only three or four preventive detention 
 prisoners—all men (see Appendix 3). They are detained in a part 
 of Peterhead convict prison built for preventive detention prisoners. 
 When there have been any women undergoing preventive detention 
 they have been placed in Glasgow (Duke Street) Prison. 
 
 141. In pursuance of the provision in the Act that their treat¬ 
 ment shall he less rigorous than the treatment for penal servitude 
 convicts, special Rules have been made for preventive detention. 
 
56 
 
 Under these Pules a preventive detention prisoner can earn various 
 privileges which the penal servitude convict does not normally 
 enjoy. Thus he can earn a money credit for work done, and is 
 allowed to employ this in various ways, including (the purchase at 
 the prison of certain commodities in the nature of luxuries. He 
 has opportunities for association with other preventive detention 
 prisoners, not only during working hours but also at meal times 
 and in the evenings. During the periods of recreation the men can 
 smoke and talk and play table games. They have greater facilities 
 than a convict has for reading newspapers and other periodical 
 publications, for writing and receiving letters, and for receiving 
 visits. There are two other distinguishing features of preventive 
 detention which are to prisoners of great importance. The pre¬ 
 ventive detention prisoner receives a more varied and liberal diet 
 than other prisoners, and he has also greater freedom from detailed 
 supervision than the average local or convict prisoner. In the 
 arrangements made to ameliorate the lot of these prisoners all that 
 is reasonably practicable seems to have been done. 
 
 142. We cannot report that success has been achieved by the steps 
 taken to comply with the provision that persons undergoing pre¬ 
 ventive detention “ shall be subjected to such disciplinary and re¬ 
 formative influences and shall be employed on such work as may 
 be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest 
 livelihood on discharge.” When in 1911 the first batch of persons 
 sentenced to preventive detention had completed their penal 
 servitude sentences and were transferred to Camp Hill, the Prison 
 Authorities of that date were at pains to devise a system which 
 should conduce to the reformation of these men. The officers de¬ 
 tailed for the new establishment were all specially selected; and a 
 regime was introduced for enabling the prisoners to earn by good 
 conduct and industry promotion through a series of grades. Each 
 promotion is rewarded by increased privileges including an increased 
 earning rate. Those who misbehave are liable to be placed in the 
 “ penal grade ” where they lose the privileges of associated re¬ 
 creation, of smoking, of earning money to buy extra comforts, etc. 
 It was hoped that the method of earning promotion and the in¬ 
 creased freedom from supervision granted to men who reach the 
 higher grades, combined with the prospect of qualifying for an 
 early licence, would have a reformative effect on the characters of 
 the prisoners. The system undoubtedly conduces to good conduct, 
 or rather to the absence of bad conduct in prison, but it has little 
 effect on the characters of the men. Compliance with prison routine 
 is no evidence of a change of attitude or of any reform of character. 
 It is common to find that the men who persistently revert to crime 
 when at liberty are well behaved while in prison. Discipline among 
 the preventive detention men is usually maintained without difficulty 
 and misconduct is rare, but all save a small proportion of these men 
 are reconvicted after brief intervals of liberty. 
 
57 
 
 143. In the last ten years the Prison Commissioners have intro¬ 
 duced into most prisons methods of reformative treatment such as 
 are described in Chapter VII, but in developing these methods 
 their policy has been to give attention first to the younger prisoners 
 and to those who are novices in crime, and they have not attempted 
 hitherto to extend these methods to prisoners undergoing preven¬ 
 tive detention. There has been no attempt to utilise for preventive 
 detention prisoners the services of voluntary teachers or of voluntary 
 visitors. We realise the difficulty of using voluntary helpers for 
 the type of men serving sentences of preventive detention, and we 
 also recognise that it was right in the development of the policy 
 of enlisting voluntary assistance to begin with the more promising 
 elements of the prison population, but we think efforts ought now 
 to be made to apply to preventive detention prisoners methods 
 which have proved valuable in other prisons. Most of the men 
 have few visits or letters; many of them have completely lost touch 
 with their families and have no friends. If voluntary visitors of 
 the right type could be found for these men their influence might, 
 we think, be beneficial. The great defect of the preventive deten¬ 
 tion system is that, while the life of a preventive detention 
 prisoner is more comfortable and less irksome than the life of a 
 penal servitude man, it is an empty life. There is little to 
 stimulate interest or mental activity. 
 
 144. As regards employment, our criticisms of prison industries 
 (see Chapter IX) apply to preventive detention prisoners as to 
 others. In a preventive detention establishment the difficulties are 
 increased by the fact that many of the prisoners are medically unfit 
 for strenuous work. At Camp Hill a considerable number of the 
 stronger men were employed on outdoor work on the land adjoining 
 the institution. Now that they have been moved to Lewes some 
 are employed in the prison grounds (there is a considerable area 
 of open ground within the walls of this prison) and others are 
 employed in basket making and other prison occupations such as 
 are described in Chapter IX. Whether it is possible to train for 
 industrial employment on release men of the age and character 
 now undergoing preventive detention is doubtful, but we hope that 
 the problem presented by these prisoners will receive special atten¬ 
 tion in any review such as we suggest of the general subject of prison 
 industries. At present these prisoners are credited with small earn¬ 
 ings provided they are not demonstrably idle. We know the diffi¬ 
 culty of applying any piece-work system in an establishment 
 where many men are employed in cleaning, cooking and other 
 domestic services of the prison, but it would clearly be advantageous 
 if some system could be devised for providing an incentive to indus¬ 
 try by making a man’s earnings and privileges dependent in some 
 way on the degree of his effort. 
 
 145. At present preventive detention is only applied to a few 
 criminals who are mostly past middle life and of the almost in¬ 
 corrigible type. Under the scheme we propose the sentence of 
 
58 
 
 prolonged detention for five to ten years will he available and will 
 no doubt be used for a larger number of criminals, including' 
 some younger men who will be more susceptible of training. 
 If in the future younger and more vigorous men are sentenced 
 to prolonged detention, it will be important that in one or more de¬ 
 tention establishments there shall be developed a system of more 
 strenuous work and of better industrial training than has been 
 provided for persons undergoing preventive detention. 
 
 146. The Act provides that the Secretary of State may “ at any 
 time discharge on licence a person undergoing preventive detention 
 if satisfied that there is a reasonable probability that he will abstain 
 from crime and lead a useful and industrious life or that he is 
 no longer capable of engaging in crime, or that for any other 
 reason it is desirable to release him from confinement in prison.” 
 
 147. The practice is in comparatively hopeful cases where the sen¬ 
 tence is five years to grant a licence usually after three and a half 
 years, in less hopeful cases after four and a half years and in some 
 apparently hopeless cases to grant no licence. When the sentence 
 is six years, a licence is usually granted in comparatively hopeful 
 cases after four years, and when the sentence is ten years after 
 seven years. Tor the purpose of assisting the Home Office in decid¬ 
 ing when to licence these prisoners, there are at the Preventive 
 Detention establishments at Lewes and Aylesbury Advisory Com¬ 
 mittees, whose members are not officials but are selected by the 
 Secretary of State from local residents and other persons willing 
 to render public service. The members of these Committees inter¬ 
 view the inmates, make themselves acquainted with their careers 
 and characters, and after consultation with tire Governor and Chap¬ 
 lain, do their best to estimate the probability of an offender’s 
 abstaining from crime if released on licence. The difficulty, how¬ 
 ever, of making any accurate forecast is great. Often the difficulty 
 arises, not because a prisoner is consciously or deliberately deceit¬ 
 ful, but because he deceives himself : a man may genuinely think 
 he is going to turn over a new leaf but be incapable when faced 
 with difficulties or temptations of maintaining his good resolution. 
 
 148. By observing a man in the limited and artificial conditions 
 of prison life, it is seldom possible to judge whether he is or is not 
 likely to lead an honest life on release, and for this reason we 
 suggest (see paragraph 71) that, while the power of granting early 
 release on licence should be retained, there should be also a procedure 
 for enabling an offender sentenced to detention to become eligible, 
 by good conduct and industry, for release on licence after he has 
 served a fixed portion of his sentence. 
 
 After-Care. 
 
 149. Some time before a prisoner undergoing preventive deten¬ 
 tion is due for release he is given an opportunity of an interview with 
 a representative of the Central Association for the Aid Cf Discharged 
 
59 
 
 Convicts, and arrangements are made, so far as possible, to help 
 him on his discharge. The Association has associates or agents 
 in all districts, and one of these associates meets the man on his 
 arrival at his destination and helps him to find lodgings and work. 
 If the ex-convict has no money, the Association provides him with 
 money for board and lodging for a week or two while he is seeking 
 employment. Despite the difficulty at the present time of finding 
 employment the Association has been remarkably successful in 
 finding employment for those men who are willing to work, and an 
 expression of thanks is due to the many employers who are prepared 
 to offer these men chances of rehabilitating themselves. 
 
 As regards women sentenced to preventive detention, the after¬ 
 care work is undertaken by the Aylesbury Association. 
 
 150. In Scotland, the supervision of preventive detention licence- 
 holders is entrusted to the Scottish Central After-Care Council, a 
 body set up in 1931 to undertake after-care work in connection 
 with Borstal inmates, penal servitude licence-holders and preven¬ 
 tive detention licence-holders, and to co-ordinate after-care work 
 at local prisons. The members of the Council are appointed by the 
 Secretary of State for Scotland and the Council has a staff of 
 officers remunerated mainly out of public funds. A preventive 
 detention licence-holder is normally placed under the joint super¬ 
 vision of some responsible person who is willing to undertake this 
 liability (often the person by whom the licensee is to be employed) 
 and of an agent of the Central After-Care Council. 
 
60 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Reasons for the Repeal of Part II of the Prevention of 
 Crime Act, 1908. 
 
 151. As indicated in Chapter VI, we think, that in place of 
 Part II of the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, there should be a 
 simpler procedure for enabling Courts of Trial (in England Assizes 
 or Quarter Sessions; in Scotland the High Court of Justiciary), to 
 pass sentences of Detention for five to ten years on offenders who 
 are of such criminal habits that their prolonged detention is 
 expedient for the protection of the public. 
 
 All witnesses who had experience of the working of Part II agreed 
 that the existing provisions are unsatisfactory, and the 'fact that so 
 few cases have been dealt with under these provisions show that they 
 have been ineffectual for the purpose for which they are intended. 
 
 152. Part II of the Act is framed on the principle that a sentence 
 of preventive detention is to be supplementary to a sentence of penal 
 servitude. Each of these two sentences rests on a separate finding 
 by the jury. The indictment alleges that the accused (a) has com¬ 
 mitted a specific offence, and (b) is a habitual criminal. If both 
 these allegations are proved to the satisfaction of the jury and if the 
 Judge passes a sentence of penal servitude in respect of the specific 
 offence it is then open to him, if he thinks it is expedient for the 
 protection of the public, to pass a sentence of preventive detention 
 on the strength of the second finding of the jury, namely, the finding 
 of habitual criminality. 
 
 The provisions of the Act relating to the charge of habitual 
 criminality are cumbersome, and various suggestions have been 
 made to us for their amendment in points of detail. It is, however, 
 unnecessary to discuss in detail the statutory provisions relating to 
 this charge, since these provisions are dependent on the scheme of 
 treating the sentence of preventive detention as supplementary to 
 sentence for the substantive offence, and all the evidence we have 
 received points to the conclusion that the sentence of detention 
 should be alternative to, and not supplementary to, any other 
 sentence. If, as we recommend, the Court is empowered to pass on 
 an offender who is convicted of “ crime ” and has three previous 
 convictions of “ crime ” a sentence of five to ten years’ detention, 
 not in addition to but in lieu of any other sentence, the question 
 whether the offender is of such a character that a sentence of pro¬ 
 longed detention would be preferable to any other sentence, should 
 be placed entirely within the discretion of the Court. Any other 
 system would lead to anomalies. For example, cases may occur 
 where, after an offender has been convicted of a specific offence, 
 the Judge is in a position to pass a sentence of, say, five years’ 
 
61 
 
 penal servitude, and if, having regard to the character of the offender, 
 he prefers to pass a sentence of, say, five years’ detention, his 
 discretion to impose such a sentence ought not to be fettered. Just 
 as a Court when dealing with an offender between 16 and 21 is 
 empowered to impose a Borstal sentence in lieu of any other 
 sentence if the offender appears to the Court to be of criminal habits 
 and to require a period of discipline and training, so under the 
 scheme we recommend a Court when dealing with an adult offender 
 convicted of a crime ’ ’ will be empowered to impose a sentence of 
 five to ten years’ detention in lieu of any other sentence if the 
 offender has three previous convictions of crime and if, in the 
 opinion of the Court, he is of such criminal habits that a prolonged 
 period of detention is expedient for the protection of the public. 
 
 153. The evidence we have received shows that the existing 
 scheme of adding a sentence of preventive detention to a sentence 
 of penal servitude is regarded with general disfavour, and the 
 grounds in our opinion for abandoning this system may be summar¬ 
 ised as follows. 
 
 154. One object of requiring a preliminary sentence of penal 
 servitude was to restrict the sentence of preventive detention to 
 offenders convicted of serious crimes, and to prevent its application 
 to “ such petty offenders as are a nuisance rather than a danger to 
 society.” At the time when the Act was passed there was some 
 apprehension lest the sentence of preventive detention should be 
 used too freely, and the requirement of a preliminary sentence of 
 penal servitude was thought to be a necessary check. Experience 
 has shown that such apprehension is groundless. Moreover, if 
 Courts are empowered, as we propose, to pass a sentence of 
 from two to four years’ detention, the possibility of using this 
 sentence in the less serious cases will make still more improbable 
 any tendency to use too freely a sentence of prolonged detention. 
 
 The requirement of a preliminary sentence of penal servitude has 
 had the effect of preventing a Court from sentencing to preventive 
 detention a habitual criminal whose crimes have been grave, if the 
 particular offence of which he is convicted is not such as would— 
 according to the principles explained in Chapter III—justify a 
 sentence of penal servitude. In consequence many an offender whose 
 record shows that society ought to be protected against his depreda¬ 
 tions has been excluded from a preventive detention sentence. We 
 had before us records of many criminals who, in addition perhaps 
 to one or two sentences of penal servitude, have had repeated 
 sentences imposed by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction of six or 
 possibly twelve months’ imprisonment. In reply to questions why 
 such offenders should not have been committed for trial with a view 
 to a sentence of preventive detention, we were told that because of 
 the nature of the offences the superior Court would not be likely to 
 impose sentences much longer than can be passed by a Court of 
 Summary Jurisdiction, and that consequently it was not worth 
 while to incur the trouble and expense of proceedings on indictment. 
 
 H4J1 
 
 C 
 
62 
 
 Even when a habitual criminal, after serving many sentences of 
 imprisonment or penal servitude, has been found to be a “ habitual 
 criminal ” within the meaning of the Act and has served a term of 
 preventive detention, it has not infrequently happened that the sub¬ 
 sequent stages of his criminal career have been punctuated with 
 comparatively short sentences, because, unless he were convicted 
 of a crime for which a sentence of penal servitude would have been 
 appropriate, it would have been useless to have indicted him again 
 under the preventive detention provisions. 
 
 155. The effect at the present time of the requirement of a penal 
 servitude sentence is to limit the operation of the Act more closely 
 than was contemplated when the Act was passed in 1908. Many 
 offences which would in 1908 have been punished by sentences of 
 penal servitude, are to-day punished by sentences of imprisonment; 
 and this change in the practice of the Courts excludes from the 
 operation of the Act many offenders who would in 1908 have been 
 liable to preventive detention. 
 
 156. Some Judges have commented in Court on the disadvan¬ 
 tages of this limitation. A common objection is that it Handicaps 
 them in dealing with offenders for whom a long period of detention 
 for the protection of the public would be appropriate, but a sentence 
 of penal servitude is inappropriate either because of the nature of 
 the offence or because of the character and circumstances of the 
 offender; for example penal servitude may seem unsuitable because 
 the habitual criminal is old or infirm, or a weakling in mind or 
 character. 
 
 157. The question has been raised whether in place of the 
 requirement of a preliminary sentence of penal servitude there 
 should be a requirement of a preliminary sentence of imprison¬ 
 ment for, say, six months : but in our view the imposition of a 
 preliminary sentence serves no useful purpose and is inconsistent 
 with the objects of a sentence of Detention. So far as the object 
 of Detention is the protection of society, this can be effected by 
 sending the offender straight to a Detention Establishment, and 
 so far as the object is to train the offender, it is better that the 
 training should start at once. 
 
 158. It may be added that the dual sentence is apt to create the 
 impression that the offender is being punished twice for the same 
 offence. Theoretically the preliminary sentence of penal servitude 
 is imposed in respect of the specific offence and the sentence of 
 preventive detention is imposed in respect of the offender’s per¬ 
 sistence in crime, but the prisoner can hardly be expected to appre¬ 
 ciate the force of this distinction, especially if his several crimes, 
 though not differing in gravity, have been visited by increasing 
 penalties. If a persistent housebreaker has been bound over for 
 his first offence, given six months for his second, a year for his 
 third, eighteen months for his fourth and on the fifth occasion 
 when he commits a crime which is similar in character and gravity 
 
63 
 
 to the preceding ones, gets a sentence of three years’ penal servi¬ 
 tude plus five years’ preventive detention, he not unnaturally feels 
 that the sentence of three years’ penal servitude takes account of 
 his criminal record and that the sentence of preventive detention is 
 a second punishment. 
 
 159. We, therefore, in drawing up proposals for revised methods 
 of dealing with persistent offenders have excluded any idea of 
 combining sentences of detention with sentences of penal servitude 
 or imprisonment, and for this reason we recommend that Part II 
 of the Act of 1908, which is framed to provide for such a combina¬ 
 tion of sentences, should be repealed. 
 
64 
 
 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 160. We give below for convenience of reference a short summary 
 of the principal points in our report. Such a summary is neces¬ 
 sarily incomplete and reference should be made to the text at the 
 paragraphs quoted for a full explanation of our proposals. 
 
 (1) When an offender first comes before a Court, it is essential 
 that he should be dealt with in the manner best calculated to pre¬ 
 vent his becoming a persistent offender. For this purpose great 
 importance attaches to the proper use of Probation, Home Office 
 Schools and Borstal training for young offenders (paragraphs 12 
 and 13). 
 
 (2) The methods available to the Courts for dealing with per¬ 
 sistent offenders over the age of 21 are unsatisfactory (paragraphs 
 2 to 9). For persistent offenders sentences of imprisonment for 
 comparatively short terms are neither reformative nor deterrent 
 (paragraphs 23 and 26). 
 
 (3) Two new forms of sentence should be instituted— 
 
 (a) a sentence of Detention for any period of not less than 
 two years and not more than four years (paragraph 40); 
 
 (b) a sentence of Prolonged Detention for any period of not 
 less than five and not more than ten years (paragraph 45). 
 
 (4) The power of imposing such sentences should be conferred 
 on Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions in England. In Scotland 
 the High Court of Justiciary and Sheriff Courts should be em¬ 
 powered to pass a sentence of Detention, i.e., a sentence for a 
 period of not less than two and not more than four years, and the 
 High Court should be empowered to pass a sentence of Prolonged 
 Detention, i.e., a sentence for a period of not less than five and not 
 more than ten years (paragraphs 41 (a) and 45). 
 
 (5) Subject to the conditions mentioned below, it should be 
 within the discretion of the Court to pass a sentence of Detention 
 or of Prolonged Detention in lieu of, but not in addition to, a 
 sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude (paragraphs 40 
 and 45). 
 
 (6) Sentences of Detention. —(a) The Court should be em¬ 
 powered to order Detention (i.e., for a period of not less than two 
 and not more than four years) in lieu of imprisonment or penal 
 servitude where an offender is convicted of an offence punishable by 
 imprisonment for two years or by penal servitude, and it appears to 
 the Court that by reason of the offender’s criminal habits or ten¬ 
 dencies his detention is expedient for the prevention of crime 
 (paragraphs 41 (a) and ( b ) ). 
 
 (5) In England there should be a provision, as at present in 
 regard to Borstal detention, enabling a Court of Summary Juris¬ 
 diction after convicting an offender to commit him to a Court of 
 
65 
 
 Assize or Quarter Sessions for a sentence of detention. In such 
 cases there should be power to admit an offender to bail while 
 awaiting sentence and to require him where practicable to submit 
 himself for medical examination (paragraph 41 (a) ). 
 
 (c ) Before a sentence of Detention is passed, the Prison Autho¬ 
 rities should be required to submit to the Court a statement con¬ 
 taining a report from the prison Medical Officer on the mental 
 and physical condition of the offender, such information as can 
 be collected as to his history and circumstances and observations 
 as to his suitability for a sentence of Detention. The Home Office 
 in England and in Scotland the Scottish Office should keep the 
 Judicial Authorities informed of the types of Detention Establish¬ 
 ments available and of the classes of offenders received into such 
 establishments (paragraph 41 (c) ). 
 
 (7) Sentences of Prolonged Detention. —(a) The Court should be 
 empowered to order Prolonged Detention in lieu of imprisonment 
 or penal servitude if the offender has been convicted of a “ crime ’ ’ 
 and has, since attaining the age of 16 years, at least three previous 
 convictions of crime, and the Court is of opinion that his criminal 
 habits and mode of life are such that his detention for a lengthened 
 period of years is expedient for the protection of the public (para¬ 
 graphs 45 and 49). 
 
 ( b ) “ Crime ” should be defined to cover the more serious offences 
 against property and against the person, including certain sexual 
 offences (paragraph 49). 
 
 (c) Offenders whose records are such that a subsequent conviction 
 would render them liable to a sentence of Prolonged Detention, 
 should be warned by the Courts of their peril (paragraph 44). 
 
 (8) The objects of both types of sentences of detention should be 
 to provide 
 
 (a) positive and progressive systems of training for all such 
 offenders as are likely to respond to such treatment, including 
 particularly those between the ages of 21. and 30; 
 
 (b) for the custody of all offenders under conditions designed 
 so far as practicable to fit them to take up life on release under 
 normal social conditions (paragraphs 40, 46, 48 and 65). 
 
 (9) — (a) There should be various Establishments for persons 
 sentenced to Detention and Prolonged Detention with varying con¬ 
 ditions to suit the different types of persistent offenders (para¬ 
 graph 51). For the younger offenders and those most likely to 
 respond to reformative and educational influences there should be 
 Training Establishments where methods of treatment should be 
 similar to those which are being tried at Wakefield and Chelmsford, 
 and where the principles which underlie the Borstal system should 
 be adapted so far as practicable to older offenders (paragraphs 61 
 to 65). 
 
 14421 
 
 C 
 
G6 
 
 (b) The experiment of “ labour camps,” and “ minimum 
 security structures ” should be tided for selected classes of offenders 
 (paragraphs 67); also the use of parole systems (paragraph 73). 
 
 (c) The Prison Commissioners should be free to allocate offenders 
 to such Detention Establishments as may be found to be most suit¬ 
 able, and to transfer offenders from one Detention Establishment to 
 another. There should be powers, similar to those relating to 
 Borstal detention, enabling the Secretary of State to transfer to 
 Detention Establishments persons sentenced to imprisonment or 
 penal servitude, and in special cases to transfer to a prison an 
 offender who may be found to be intractable in a Detention Estab¬ 
 lishment (paragraph 51). 
 
 (10) Full use should be made in Detention Establishments of 
 adult educational classes. The policy should be to make these 
 classes an integral part of the system of training. Class work 
 should be correlated with industrial occupations (paragraph 62). 
 
 (11) The desirability should be borne in mind of utilising in 
 Detention Establishments for men the services of some suitable 
 woman or women on the staff (paragraph 64). 
 
 (12) The methods of employing offenders in Detention Establish¬ 
 ments and the nature of the industrial training provided for them 
 will be of vital importance. The whole subject of the employment 
 of prisoners and of persons sentenced to detention requires special 
 and expert investigation (paragraph 90). 
 
 (13) Sentences of detention should be subject to a power in the 
 Secretary of State to release on licence any person after he has 
 completed a third of his sentence if detention has effected its pur¬ 
 pose and there is a reasonable probability of the offender abstaining 
 from crime. There should also be power to license an offender 
 after he has completed three-quarters of his sentence on the grounds 
 of his good conduct and industry while under detention (para¬ 
 graph 71). 
 
 (14) A licence should be operative during the currency of a 
 sentence of detention and during 12 months subsequent to the 
 expiration of such a sentence. During this period the offender 
 should be liable, if he fails to observe the conditions of his licence, 
 to be recalled and to be detained for the unexpired period of his 
 sentence or for a period of six months, whichever is the longer 
 (paragraph 75). 
 
 (15) Offenders released on licence should be placed under the 
 supervision of an approved Society or a guardian (paragraphs 74 
 and 78). 
 
 (16) The arrangements for the after-care and reabsorption into 
 industry of persons discharged from detention should be recon¬ 
 sidered in connection with the enquiry we propose as to industrial 
 occupations. The two subjects, namely, the subject of industrial 
 methods in prisons and Detention Establishments and the subject 
 of reinstatement in industry of offenders on discharge, are integral 
 parts of one problem (paragraph 90). 
 
67 
 
 (17) The mental condition of offenders is a matter calling for 
 careful attention. There is reason to believe that certain delin¬ 
 quents may be amenable to psychological treatment. The applica¬ 
 tion of this method to criminal cases is, in this country at any rate, 
 in its infancy. Its scope is probably limited and is applicable 
 chiefly to children, juveniles, and adolescents. Further experience 
 is desirable to show to what extent this method can be used effec¬ 
 tively (paragraph 116). 
 
 A certain number of offenders might benefit by attending under 
 probation approved mental hospitals or out-patient clinics. Use 
 should also be made in suitable cases of child guidance clinics (para¬ 
 graph 117). 
 
 A medical psychologist should be attached to one or more penal 
 establishments to carry out psychological treatment in selected 
 cases. He should be assisted by voluntary women workers 
 who should visit the offender’s home and obtain information as to 
 his history and circumstances. This system should be applied to 
 offenders who are willing to be treated during a sentence of Borstal 
 detention or imprisonment, and are recommended for such treat¬ 
 ment by the Medical Officer as being hopeful cases if transferred 
 for this purpose to a special establishment (paragraph 121). 
 
 (18) The legal distinction between penal servitude and imprison¬ 
 ment should be abolished (paragraphs 123 and 127) . 
 
 If penal servitude is merged in imprisonment, the penal servitude 
 convict should, as in the case of the offender sentenced to imprison¬ 
 ment, be enabled to earn absolute remission and the system of 
 release on licence should be abolished (paragraph 134). 
 
 In cases where it is desirable that an offender after release should 
 be required to keep the police informed of his place of residence, 
 use should be made of the provisions of section 8 of the Prevention 
 of Crime x4ct, 1871 (paragraph 133). 
 
 We have the honour to be, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servants, 
 
 J. C. Dove-Wilson. 
 
 Herbert du Paroq. 
 
 D. Crombie. 
 
 W. Norwood East. 
 
 Dan Griffiths.* 
 
 A. Maxwell. 
 
 J. Wellesley Orr. 
 
 Mary Stocks. 
 
 A. Johnston, 
 
 (Secretary). 
 
 30th April, 1932. 
 
 14421 
 
 Signed subject to the appended reservation. 
 
 C* 2 
 
68 
 
 RESERVATION BY MR. DAN GRIFFITHS. 
 
 1. I regret that the Committee could not deem the general causes 
 of crime, including those of habitual criminality, to come within 
 the scope of our terms of reference. (See Report, para. 10.) In 
 my opinion, no study of the criminal is complete unless it deals 
 with the causes of crime, or the conditions that produce criminality. 
 Treatment usually comes after, and not before, diagnosis. It is 
 unscientific to prescribe even “ partial remedies ” such as training, 
 detention and psycho-therapy without reference to any stated causes. 
 The impression is conveyed that criminality has no cause save the 
 perverted mind or will of the criminal. It is the old, essentially 
 theological view that the criminal is a self-made, wilful, “ bad- 
 hearted ” and lawless “ sinner ”—in an otherwise orderly and 
 beautiful world. The modern scientific view, however, is that the 
 criminal is an ill-adjusted or ill-equipped product of a faulty 
 heredity and/or environment—in a very imperfect world. The 
 chaplain and the “ cat,” the handcuffs and the separate cells are 
 the vestigial remains of the old view. The psychological clinic and 
 the psychiatrist, the probation officer and the prison visitor are the 
 modest beginnings of the new attitude. Social progress demands 
 that we accelerate the pace at which the ‘‘ old order gives place to 
 the new.” 
 
 2. “ The popular conception of punishment belongs to that 
 archaic group of animistic and other ideas which have long since 
 died out,” states Havelock Ellis, the distinguished social philo¬ 
 sopher. “ The fuller our insight into the springs of human con¬ 
 duct, the more impossible does it become to maintain the antiquated 
 doctrine of retribution,” writes Professor William McDougall, the 
 famous psychologist. Not only is punitive repression of the indivi¬ 
 dual a poor palliative or sedative and no final solution of the 
 problem. It is wrong to devote all or even most of our time to 
 the individual. Too much attention to the criminal diverts atten¬ 
 tion from the main s_ource of the evil—society itself. It is time we 
 tackled crime scientifically, drastically, at its source, as a disease 
 is tackled, as tuberculosis is being tackled with such excellent 
 results, and as cancer has begun to be tackled. We are already 
 applying science—at the wrong end—to the detection of crime. 
 We must now apply science—at the right end—to the prevention 
 of crime. In other words, we must reverse our policy and begin 
 to wage war on the fundamental social and economic causes of 
 crime, beginning with the greatest and the clearest—poverty, un¬ 
 employment, insecurity, ignorance, ill-health and low mentality. 
 
 3. The ‘‘ Report from the Select Committee on Capital Punish¬ 
 ment ” (1930) stresses the social causes of crime: 
 
 Society has its own share in the make-up of its criminals. 
 The criminal is often the product of poverty, of wretched social 
 conditions, of drinking habits, of home environment and social 
 
69 
 
 example. He is a plant of the soil where he was grown, ana 
 the blight on his life is due to the community from which he 
 has sprung. Society may be punishing a man whom it has 
 wronged from the hour of his birth. It may be laying its 
 heavy penalties upon crimes, the guilt of which, to a greater 
 or lesser degree, is shared by every member of the com¬ 
 munity. Every community and every generation fixes the 
 amount of its own crime, and every penalty is a censure upon 
 ourselves.” 
 
 4. An American view of the problem is worthy of consideration : 
 
 ‘‘ The average citizen becomes impatient and seeks some 
 short and easy method for reducing the dangers to life and 
 property. Swift and sure punishment seems to him the sure 
 cure for criminal tendencies. But no sooner does the reformer 
 look into the subject carefully than he begins to doubt. He 
 comes to realise that crime is but one symptom of a social 
 disease. There is no great danger that we shall overlook the 
 individual causes of crime, but crime as a social product is a 
 newer conception and requires argument and emphasis for its 
 recognition and acceptance. The problem of the immediate 
 future is to educate the people to understand the ideas back of 
 the scientific treatment of crime. The most useful idea that 
 could be received in the public mind would be that the presence 
 of crime need not be a normal feature in a healthy community. 
 Crime is a form of social maladjustment, and is largely a 
 phenomenon which civilisation has produced. Diagnosis of an 
 individual case involves a diagnosis of the community of which 
 the indivdual forms part.” 
 
 5. Quite apart from the ugliness and the general undesirability 
 of crime as a social sore, quite apart from its cost in economic loss 
 and wastage, and the suffering it brings its victims and perpetrators, 
 there are other and more subtle evils arising out of it which make 
 its removal a matter of vital and urgent necessity. One of these 
 less obvious evils is that ‘‘ crime ” has been raised to the status 
 of an institution and has become a profession and a kind of vested 
 interest to a host of respectable people who make a living out of 
 criminal law administration. Many successful lawyers, detective- 
 story writers and film producers owe the criminal far more than 
 a debt of gratitude. Crime is also one of the best sellers of news¬ 
 papers and, incidentally, one of the best providers of advertising 
 revenue. Perhaps this vested interest in crime assumed its crudest 
 form when recently an ex-hangman toured our fair-grounds with 
 a realistic gallows. We are not likely to recruit such persons in a 
 campaign against crime. It is not natural to expect people who 
 live on crime, rather than by crime, to be willing to jeopardise the 
 source of their own livelihood. 
 
 Another social danger is that in punishing law-breakers in the 
 old punitive way we may be pandering to a portion of the public 
 
70 
 
 who suffer from a kind of mass sadism and receive pleasurable satis¬ 
 faction from the contemplation of what prisoners have to endure— 
 and who make the plea of “ protecting society ” an excuse for 
 indulging their own morbid complexes. 
 
 A further harm resulting from the public execration of offenders 
 is that the practice tends to induce in many fortunately-circum- 
 stanced persons who have not come into conflict with the criminal 
 law a semblance of a moral superiority which, in the last analysis, 
 they rarely deserve and which retards the growth of that public 
 spirit or “ community consciousness ” necessary for the ultimate 
 and complete conquest of crime. 
 
 6. The causes of crime may be divided into three groups : the 
 economic, the physical and the mental—and the greatest of these 
 is the economic. Frequently the physical and the mental causes 
 arise out of and merge into the economic. Ninety-five per cent, of 
 all indictable offences are classed as “ offences against property ” 
 whereas only five per cent, are “ offences against the person.” 
 Two or three of the five per cent, of cases “ against the person ” 
 have an economic motive or purpose. This means that 97 or 98 per 
 cent, of all indictable offences are crimes in which the economic 
 factor plays a leading part. Three-quarters of all crime is due to 
 sheer poverty—poverty of the means of a decent, civilised life or 
 what is worse, destitution of the elementary requirements of 
 physical existence. It is well to know what we imprison or other¬ 
 wise punish. What we “ bind over ” or “ fine,” or “ put on pro¬ 
 bation ” or “ lock-up ” in seven or eight cases out of every ten is 
 poverty. 
 
 11 Far too often,” said one eminent judicial witness to us, 11 the 
 alternatives facing these habitual offenders are starvation or crime— 
 a condition which should not be allowed to remain in a civilised 
 community.” Of the 120 “ preventive detention ” men we saw at 
 Camp Hill only 50 were described as “ physically and mentally 
 normal ” and fit for ordinary labour. The majority were crude 
 house-breakers of the labourer type and a large number were of a 
 very poor mentality. There were not half a dozen of the 120 who 
 were interested in anything educational or intellectual. The brand 
 they overwhelmingly bore was poverty, physical and mental. 
 Wherever we went, to local prisons, convict prisons, detention camp 
 or Borstal, the impression I received was that poverty is easily the 
 first and the greatest cause of crime. 
 
 7. In recent years ordinary poverty has been aggravated by 
 unprecedented unemployment. A prison governor informed the 
 Committee that “ in many areas these days crime is mainly a 
 matter of unemployment.” Witnesses on behalf of Discharged 
 Prisoners’ Aid Societies and of the Central Association for the Aid 
 of Discharged Convicts told us that the bulk of their after-care work 
 consisted of finding suitable jobs for men released from prison. The 
 limitations of Unemployment Insurance and of Public Assistance 
 through the operation of such devices as the Means Test have forced 
 
71 
 
 thousands of men and women into vagrancy and crime. It is a 
 condemnation of our social system rather than a commendation of 
 our prison system that the vast majority of those who are in prison 
 to-day are physically and materially better off inside than outside. 
 “ The present increase of crime is due to the fact that we are living 
 in a time of extreme economic depression,” states the Home Secre¬ 
 tary; “ almost exactly as unemployment rises and falls, crime rises 
 and falls.” The report of the Scottish Departmental Committee on 
 Young Offenders contains an analysis of 50 Borstal cases which 
 shows that 43 of the youths were unemployed when the offence was 
 committed and that four were engaged in street-trading. It is 
 gratifying and promising that these economic factors in the causa¬ 
 tion of crime are at last receiving official and authoritative sanction : 
 
 “ It seems clear that acute industrial depression leads to increases 
 of crime .... There can be little doubt that the all-round 
 increase of crime in the North was due to industrial depres¬ 
 sion .... The increase in the number of offenders appears 
 to be occurring principally in the North and mainly among the 
 young, and to be the result rather of industrial depression than of 
 any increase of juvenile depravity. It may be hoped that when 
 trade and industry improve, crime may diminish.”—“ Criminal 
 Statistics ” 1929, Cmd. 3853. 
 
 8. Mr. E. W. Milner-Jones, the Recorder, in his charge to' the 
 Grand Jury at the Swansea Borough Quarter Sessions, on March 
 15th, 1932, said :— 
 
 “ Unemployment has been so general that it is difficult for 
 young boys to secure employment. They leave school and are 
 unable to find work. Their mothers will not let them stay in¬ 
 doors and they are really turned into the street. When that 
 happens some of them are tempted by bad companions and make 
 bad friends. The result is that we have these many small 
 charges of breaking into lock-up shops. There are ten or eleven 
 boys under the age of twenty to come before you. Let us hope 
 that if times are going to improve as it is prophesied they are, 
 that these boys will in future be able to get employment, and 
 that we shall not have these numerous cases here.” 
 
 9. Mr. Justice Humphreys, presiding at the Manchester Assizes 
 on April 18th, 1932, said :— 
 
 “ I do not think that there is any cause for alarm as to the 
 law-abiding habits of the great mass of the population of this 
 country. We cannot expect to have hundreds of thousands of 
 men out of work without having some increase in crime such as 
 larceny and shop-breaking. It is in that direction that the great 
 increase in crime is to be found. There seems to be no indica¬ 
 tion, so far as I can gather, of any serious increase in any other 
 class of crime.” 
 
 10. Mr. Justice McCardie, in his charge to the Grand Jury at 
 the Essex Winter Assizes on February 5th, 1932, said :— 
 
 “ We must remember that the amount of crime in a country 
 depends not only upon the general economic conditions, but 
 
72 
 
 also upon the physical and mental qualities or deficiencies of 
 the general population.” 
 
 11. Lieut.-Colonel F. E. Fremantle, speaking in the House of 
 Commons on April 15th, 1932, urged the importance of the physical 
 and mental aspects of the crime problem :— 
 
 There is no doubt that we are recognising more and more 
 that the prevention of crime depends a great deal upon psycho¬ 
 logical analysis, investigation and treatment. Medical men are 
 more and more laying stress upon the mental side of health, 
 and in connection with crime we recognise that it is much more 
 important than the physical side. The physical side must not 
 be neglected, but the mental side must come in. We have to 
 take into account the increasing physical and mental dangers 
 of the present time. The rush and hurry, the stress and noise 
 as a result of modern inventions are largely responsible for a 
 great deal of mental illness and indirectly, therefore, are tend¬ 
 ing towards mental crime. The attention which is now being 
 paid to the mental side of health is all to the good in connection 
 with crime.” 
 
 12. The Home Secretary, Sir Herbert Samuel, in his recent 
 masterly survey in the House of Commons, performed a great public 
 duty and rendered a conspicuous national service by relating crime 
 statistics to social and economic conditions :— 
 
 ‘‘ Unquestionably, by far the most important means of 
 securing a diminution of crime is a general improvement in 
 social conditions. The general level of prosperity, comfort, 
 education, the whole standard of civilisation of the nation, is 
 reflected in its criminal statistics.”—(Official Report, April 
 15th, 1932.) 
 
 We were requested as a Departmental Committee to enquire into 
 the present methods of dealing with persistent offenders and to advise 
 as to what changes we regarded as desirable in the present criminal 
 law and its administration. Our Report summarises such recom¬ 
 mendations as we believe to be desirable and practicable within our 
 terms of reference. In my opinion, however, the larger truth is 
 that the chief changes necessary in our methods of dealing with 
 persistent offenders are in other laws than criminal laws—in the 
 application of economic and social laws, in industrial and commercial 
 laws, in housing and public-health laws, in financial and banking 
 laws. Police and prisons are largely mere substitutes for economic 
 justice, and criminal statistics simply register our social neglect. 
 We have to govern persons because we refuse to administer things. 
 The great, fundamental evil is the impoverished condition of the 
 mass of our people. The urgent problem is the organisation of 
 industry, the provision of work and the removal of poverty. The 
 presence of crime is a call for large-scale economic planning and 
 social reconstruction. 
 
 Dan Griffiths. 
 
73 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 APPENDIX 1. 
 
 See paragraph 1.] 
 
 List of Witnesses who gave Evidence before the Committee. 
 
 Mr. D. G. Ackroyd, Chairman of the Bradford Discharged Prisoners’ Aid 
 Society. 
 
 Lady Ampthill, G.B.E., C.I., J.P., on behalf of the Conference of Visiting 
 Justices. 
 
 Mr. Arthur Andrews, J.P., Chairman of the Advisory Committee at H.M. 
 Prison, Camp Hill. 
 
 Mr. E. H. Tindal Atkinson, C.B.E., Director of Public Prosecutions. 
 
 Lieut.-Col. R. E. W. Baird, O.B.E., Secretary, Scottish Prisons Depart¬ 
 ment and formerly Governor of H.M. Prison, Peterhead. 
 
 Miss L. C. Barker, C.B.E., Governor of H.M. Prison and H.M. Borstal 
 Institution, Aylesbury. 
 
 Sir Chartres Biron, Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Courts. 
 
 Mr. W. H. Blackburn, Organising Secretary of the West Riding Discharged 
 Prisoners’ Aid Society. 
 
 Sir Ernley Blackwell, K.C.B., Assistant Under-Secretary of State, (Legal), 
 Home Office. 
 
 Sir Archibald Bodkin, K.C.B., Director of Public Prosecutions from 1920 
 to 1930. 
 
 Mr. W. J. H. Brodrick, O.B.E., Metropolitan Police Magistrate and a 
 member of the Advisory Committee at H.M. Prison, Camp Hill. 
 
 Lieut.-Col. F. Brook, D.S.O., M.C., Chief Constable of the West Riding of 
 Yorkshire. 
 
 Dr. Cyril Burt, M.A., D.Sc., Professor of Education in the University of 
 London and Psychologist in the Education Department of the London 
 County Council. 
 
 Mr. Roy Calvert, on behalf of the Howard League for Penal Reform. 
 
 Mr. John Cameron, Advocate Depute, Lord Advocate’s Department. 
 
 Dr. A. E. A. Carver, M.A., M.D., D.P.M., Medical Superintendent of 
 Caldecote Hall, Nuneaton. 
 
 Rev. W. L. Cottrell, Chaplain of H.M. Prison, Wormwood Scrubs. 
 
 Miss C. M. Craven, Honorary Secretary of the Howard League for Penal 
 Reform. 
 
 Hon. Lady Cunliffe, C.B.E., President of the National Association of Prison 
 Visitors to Women. 
 
 Mr. R. N. Duke, D.S.O., M.C., Assistant Secretary, Scottish Office. 
 
 Lieut. G. E. Durham, on behalf of a Liverpool Group who have been in¬ 
 vestigating the problem of the persistent sexual offender. 
 
 Mr. W. B. Fair, Chief Inspector, Metropolitan Police. 
 
 Dr. F. E. Forward, O.B.E., F.R.C.S., formerly Senior Medical Officer at 
 H.M. Prisons, Parkhurst and Camp Hill. 
 
 Miss Evelyn Fox, Honorary Secretary of the Central Association for 
 Mental Welfare. 
 
74 
 
 Mr. F. Foxall, a Prison Visitor at Manchester Prison. 
 
 Mr. Peter Freeman, Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnor (1929 
 to 1931). 
 
 Dr. T. Saxty Good, O.B.E., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Medical Superintendent 
 of the Oxford Mental Hospital. 
 
 Sir Wemyss Grant-Wilson, Director of the Borstal Association and of the 
 Central Association for the Aid of Discharged Convicts. 
 
 His Honour Judge Holman Gregory, K.C., of the Mayor’s and City of 
 London Court, and Commissioner at the Central Criminal Court. 
 
 Dr. G. B. Griffiths, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Medical Commissioner of Prisons 
 from 1920 to 1930. 
 
 Mr. Arnold Hall, a voluntary worker who assists ex-convicts. 
 
 Captain H. D. Hempton, Governor of H.M. Prison, Leicester. 
 
 Mr. Basil L. Q. Henriques, J.P., on behalf of the Conference of Visiting 
 Justices. 
 
 Mr. William Horn, Procurator Fiscal of Midlothian. 
 
 Miss E. H. Kelly, C.B.E., J.P., Member of City of Portsmouth Bench since 
 1920, Chairman of Portsmouth Prison Visiting Committee, 1927-1930. 
 Member of Winchester Prison Visiting Committee. 
 
 Rev. T. L. Kember, Chaplain at H.M. Prison, Camp Hill. 
 
 Captain S. Kemp of the Church Army. 
 
 Mr. Norman Kendal, C.B.E., Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police. 
 
 Dr. Elizabeth Knight, on behalf of the Women’s Freedom League. 
 
 Commissioner David Lamb, International Social Secretary of the Salvation 
 Army. 
 
 Mr. Malcolm MacNaughtan, Honorary Treasurer of the Surrey and London 
 Prisoners’ Aid Society. 
 
 Dr. Edward IMapother, M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.C.S., Medical Superintendent 
 of Maudsley Hospital. 
 
 Mr. John Maxwell, Chief Constable of Manchester. 
 
 Dr. Hugh Crichton Miller, M.D. M.R.C.P., Honorary Director of the 
 Institute of Medical Psychology. 
 
 Dr. William Moodie, M.D., M.R.C.P., D.P.M., Medical Director of the 
 London Child Guidance Clinic. 
 
 Dr. J. H. Morton, M.D., Governor and Medical Officer of H.M. Prison, 
 Holloway. 
 
 Major C. Pannall, D.S.O., M.C., Governor of H.M. Prison at Camp Hill. 
 
 Mr. Alexander Paterson, M.C., one of H.M. Commissioners of Prisons. 
 
 Dr. E. A. Hamilton Pearson, M.B., Ch.B., of the Institute of Medical 
 Psychology. 
 
 Lord Polwarth, C.B.E., V.D., Chairman of the Prison Commissioners for 
 Scotland from 1909 to 1929 and Chairman of the Scottish Central After- 
 Care Council. 
 
 Dr. W. A. Potts, M.A., M.D., Psychological Expert to the Birmingham 
 Justices. 
 
 Sir Charles Rafter, K.B.E., Chief Constable of Birmingham. 
 
 Mr. A. G. R. Rees, President of the National Association of Prison 
 Visitors. 
 
 Mrs. Jean Dewar Robertson, M.B.E., J.P., Member of the Holloway Prison 
 Visiting Committee. 
 
 Mr. Roderick Ross, C.B.E., M.V.O., O.C.B., Chief Constable of Edinburgh. 
 
75 
 
 Dr. T. A. Ross, M.D., M.R.C.P., F.R.C.P.E., Medical Director of the 
 Cassel Hospital for Functional Nervous Disorders. 
 
 Dr. F. C. Shrubsall, M.D., F.R.C.P., a Senior Medical Officer of the London 
 County Council. 
 
 Dr. M. Hamblin Smith, M.A., M.D., Medical Officer of H.M. Prison, 
 Birmingham. 
 
 Dr. H. Freize Stephens, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., on behalf of the National 
 Council for Mental Hygiene. 
 
 Mr. J. D. Strathern, Procurator Fiscal of Lanarkshire. 
 
 Mr. R. M. L. Walkinshaw, M.C., Governor of H.M. Prison at Barlinnie, 
 Glasgow. 
 
 Mr. Peter Wallace, Governor of H.M. Prison, Aberdeen, and formerly 
 Superintendent of Licence-holders, Prison Commission of Scotland. 
 
 Mr. J. A. F. Watson, Secretary of the National Association of Prison 
 Visitors. 
 
 Sir Ernest Wild, K.C., Recorder of the City of London. 
 
 Dr. H. T. P. Young, M.B., Ch.B., Medical Officer at H.M. Prison, Worm¬ 
 wood Scrubs, and formerly at H.M. Prison, Camp Hill. 
 
 Mr. W. Young, Governor of H.M. Prison, Manchester. 
 
 Written Statements were received from: — 
 
 The Magistrates Association. 
 
 Mr. R. M. B. Colquhoun, Superintendent of the Glasgow Discharged 
 Prisoners’ Aid Society. 
 
 Mr. J. T. Gibbons, Founder of the Wayfarers’ Benevolent Association. 
 
 APPENDIX 2. 
 
 Statistics relating to Persistent Offenders in Scotland. 
 
 General. 
 
 See paragraph 3.] 
 
 In Scotland, as in England, the problem of the persistent offender lies 
 not in the volume of crime, nor in the size of the prison population, but in 
 the fact that the comparatively small number of people sent to prison 
 includes a large proportion who have been previously guilty of offences and 
 are neither reformed nor deterred by the sentences passed on them. 
 
 In the year 1930 out of a population of about 4,900,000 in Scotland the 
 receptions into the prisons of persons convicted of offences numbered 14,704, 
 representing 10,903 individuals, some of whom returned to prison again 
 in the course of the same year. 
 
 Tlhe number of commitments of prisoners of all classes in 1930 was less than 
 in any year since 1919 when it was 11,553 against 15,435 in 1930 — equal 
 to 3.2 per 1,000 of the population—but still a great decrease since 1914, 
 when the number was 43,535. The average daily number of prisoners in 
 custody shows a relative diminution from 2,330 in 1914 to 1,315 in the 
 year 1930. 
 
76 
 
 The 14,704 receptions of convicted prisoners in 1930 include 10,545 
 imprisonments for offences which are more in the nature of nuisances than 
 of crimes, sudh as breach of the peace, drunkenness, begging, and offences 
 by vagrants. If these cases are excluded, there remain 4,159 imprison¬ 
 ments for more serious offences, which include 1,509 cases of theft, 866 cases 
 of housebreaking, 427 cases of fraud, and 387 cases of attempts to murder, 
 culpable homicide or assaults. 
 
 Of the convicted persons received into prison, 8,230 were sent in default 
 of payment of fine. 
 
 Of the 10,903 convicted persons received into prison in 1930, no less than 
 6,829 (or 63 per cent.) had previously been in prison. Many of them had 
 served repeated sentences of imprisonment. 1,511 had been once before in 
 prison; 3,352 had been previously in prison from two to nine times; 934 from 
 10 to 19 times; and 1,032 had served 20 or more previous terms of imprison¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Women. 
 
 See paragraph 92.] 
 
 What has been said in Chapter X regarding women prisoners in England 
 is applicable to Scotland. During the last five years the average daily 
 number in custody has been less than 200, and in 1930 formed only 10.9 per 
 cent, of the total average daily prison population of Scottish Prisons. In the 
 year 1930 the daily average under the various forms of sentences were: 6 
 women undergoing penal servitude, 148 undergoing imprisonment, 19 under¬ 
 going Borstal detention. No woman was serving a sentence of preventive 
 detention. The total number in prison on the 31st December, 1930, was 
 only 134, of whom 81 were confined in Glasgow (Duke Street) Prison. 
 
 In the course of the year 1930, 1,623 women were committed to prison, 
 of whom 1,186 (or 73 per cent.) had been previously imprisoned, and 411 
 (or 25 per cent.) had been imprisoned on 20 or more previous occasions. 
 As in England, the explanation of the higher degree of recidivism among 
 women prisoners is to be found in the fact that drunkenness accounts for 
 42 per cent, of the imprisonments among women, as against 19 per cent, 
 among men. 
 
 While 90 per cent, of the convictions against women in 1930 were for 
 minor offences, some of the 394 women between 21 and 30 years of age 
 convicted of more serious offences would no doubt have benefited by a period 
 of training; and a sentence of prolonged detention might have been found 
 suitable for a few of the more hardened offenders of maturer age. 
 
77 
 
 APPENDIX 3. 
 
 See paragraph 33.] 
 
 Number of Persons Sentenced to Preventive Detention during the 
 Years 1909 to 1930. 
 
 England and Wales. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Numbers sentenced to 
 Preventive Detention. 
 
 Numbers sentenced to Preventive 
 Detention divided according to the 
 period of such sentence. 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 5 years. 
 
 i-9 years. 
 
 10 years. 
 
 1909* ... 
 
 45 
 
 1 
 
 33 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 1910 
 
 177 
 
 1 
 
 154 
 
 21 
 
 3 
 
 1911 
 
 55 
 
 2 
 
 56 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 1912 
 
 88 
 
 1 
 
 82 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 1913 
 
 64 
 
 3 
 
 52 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 1914 
 
 42 
 
 1 
 
 23 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 1915 
 
 11 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1916 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 14 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1917 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1918 
 
 20 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 1919 
 
 19 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 1920 
 
 41 
 
 3 
 
 36 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 1921 
 
 58 
 
 3 
 
 56 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1922 
 
 33 
 
 2 
 
 31 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1923 
 
 27 
 
 — 
 
 24 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1924 
 
 38 
 
 -- 
 
 28 
 
 10 
 
 — 
 
 1925 
 
 27 
 
 — 
 
 21 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 1926 
 
 22 
 
 1 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 — 
 
 1927 
 
 39 
 
 2 
 
 30 
 
 11 
 
 — 
 
 1928 
 
 31 
 
 — 
 
 25 
 
 6 
 
 — 
 
 1929 
 
 29 
 
 — 
 
 19 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 1930 
 
 37 
 
 — 
 
 28 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 
 Totals... 
 
 944 
 
 23 
 
 782 
 
 150 
 
 35 
 
 # 
 
 Act came into operation from 1st August, 1909. 
 
78 
 
 Scotland. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number sentenced to 
 Preventive Detention. 
 
 Numbers sentenced to Preventive 
 Detention divided according to the 
 period of such sentence. 
 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 5 years. 
 
 6-9 years. 
 
 10 years. 
 
 1909 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1910 
 
 38 
 
 3 
 
 28 
 
 11 
 
 2 
 
 1911 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 18 
 
 3* 
 
 — 
 
 1912 
 
 7 
 
 -- ‘ 
 
 6 
 
 It 
 
 — 
 
 1913 
 
 8 
 
 . 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 1914 
 
 4 
 
 • _ 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 — 
 
 1915 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 • •- 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1916 
 
 2 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 1917 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 1918 
 
 4 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1919 
 
 2 
 
 ' _ 
 
 2 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1920 
 
 3 
 
 _ 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 1921 
 
 3 
 
 _ 
 
 3 
 
 -- 
 
 — 
 
 1922 
 
 6 
 
 _ 
 
 6 
 
 — 
 
 -’ 
 
 1923 
 
 5 
 
 _ 
 
 5 
 
 — 
 
 1 1 
 
 1924 
 
 1 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1925 
 
 1 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 1926 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 __ 
 
 _ 
 
 1927 
 
 _ 
 
 _sf 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 1928 
 
 1 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 
 _ 
 
 1929 
 
 4 
 
 _ 
 
 4+ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 1930 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Totals... 
 
 113 
 
 3 
 
 91 
 
 22 
 
 3 
 
 * 1 Sentence of P.D. quashed, 
 f Sentence of P.D. quashed. 
 
 + 2 Sentences of P.D. quashed. 
 
 APPENDIX 4. 
 
 See paragraph 34.] 
 
 Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pre¬ 
 fixed to a draft of Rules prescribing conditions in Preventive 
 Detention, laid before Parliament on the 17th February, 1911. 
 
 In laying these draft rules before Parliament in pursuance of section 2 of 
 the Prison Act, 1898, the Secretary of State thinks it desirable to explain 
 briefly the object of the rules and "the nature of the sentences of Preventive 
 Detention to which they relate. 
 
 The rules are made under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Crime Act, 
 1908, which directs that persons undergoing Preventive Detention are to be 
 
79 
 
 generally subject to the convict prison rules, but requires the Secretary of 
 State by new rules to modify the conditions “ in the direction of a less 
 rigorous treatment.” 
 
 The present rules have been prepared by the Prison Commissioners, who 
 have done their utmost to carry out the intention of the statute and to make 
 the conditions of Preventive Detention as easy as circumstances will allow. 
 But it should be clearly understood that no modification of the conditions 
 which prevail in convict prisons can alter the essential fact that Preventive 
 Detention is a form of imprisonment. Several hundred criminals of the most 
 skilful and determined class will have to be confined for considerable periods 
 within prison walls and to be controlled by a staff which cannot be made very 
 numerous without undue expense. During their detention, they must always 
 be either within locked cells or under close supervision; discipline must be 
 firmly maintained, and hard work enforced. If there were neglect or relaxa¬ 
 tion in the supervision and discipline, it would inevitably lead to escape, or 
 mutiny, or vice. 
 
 While, therefore, it is possible to maintain the conditions of sufficient food, 
 adequate clothing, warmth, and shelter, which all convicts enjoy, and to allow 
 further relaxations in the way of conversation and association, of minor 
 luxuries, and to some extent of recreation, the essential fact remains that, 
 after every possible mitigation has been allowed, the convict is completely 
 deprived of his liberty and is subject to constant supervision, control and 
 compulsion in all that he does. Only the great need of society to be secured 
 from professional or dangerous criminals can justify the prolongation of the 
 ordinary sentences of penal servitude by the addition of such Preventive 
 Detention. 
 
 It appears a matter of much importance that this should be clearly under¬ 
 stood and that the idea should not grow up that Preventive Detention affords 
 a pleasant and easy asylum for persons whose moral weakness or defective 
 education has rendered them merely a nuisance to society. 
 
 The Secretary of State is satisfied that no case has been established, either 
 from the statistics of crime or otherwise, for an increase in the general 
 severity of the criminal code, and certainly no increase of general severity 
 was within the intention of Lord Gladstone in proposing, or the House of 
 Commons in passing, the Prevention of Crime Act. On the contrary, it was 
 intended to introduce such mitigation into the conditions of convict life as 
 would allow the longer detention of those persons only who are professional 
 criminals engaged in the more serious forms of crime. This is indicated in 
 the Act by the fact that Preventive Detention cannot be imposed except for 
 a crime of such a character that it has justified the passing of a sentence of 
 penal servitude. It was, moreover, repeatedly stated by Lord Gladstone in 
 the course of the Debates that the Bill was devised for the “ advanced dan¬ 
 gerous criminal, ” for “ the persistent dangerous criminal,” for “ the mo6t 
 hardened criminals ” : its object was ‘‘to give the State effective control 
 over dangerous offenders ” : it was not to be applied to persons who were 
 “ a nuisance rather than a danger to society,” or to the “ much larger class 
 of those who were partly vagrants, partly criminals, and who were to a large 
 extent mentally deficient.” On the 12th June, 1908, he explained to the 
 House of Commons that the intention was to deal not with mere habituals 
 but with professionals : “ For 60 per cent, the present system was sufficiently 
 deterrent, but for the professional class it was inadequate. There was a dis¬ 
 tinction well known to criminologists between habituals and professionals. 
 Habituals were men who drop into crime from their surroundings or physical 
 disability, or mental deficiency, rather than from any active intention to 
 plunder their fellow creatures or from being criminals for the sake of crime. 
 The professionals were the men with an object, sound in mind—so far as a 
 criminal could be sound in mind—and in body, competent, often highly 
 
SO 
 
 skilled, and who deliberately, with their eyes open, preferred a life of crime, 
 and knew all the tricks and turns and manoeuvres necessary for that life. It 
 was with that class that the Bill .would deal.” 
 
 Although, therefore, the term “ habitual ” is used, it is clear that not all 
 habituals but only the professional class is aimed at by the Act, which not 
 only restricts the use of Preventive Detention to those already found 
 deserving of three years’ penal servitude, but provides many safeguards 
 against the too easy use of the new form of punishment. 
 
 It appears specially desirable that this should be impressed on the police 
 authorities who have to take the initiative in the proceedings which result in 
 the criminal’s being dealt with under the Act. After the passing of the Act 
 a circular was issued by Lord Gladstone, in which he endeavoured to explain 
 its object and to indicate the limitations within which it would be applied. 
 But it has proved a matter of much difficulty to secure uniform action among 
 180 different police authorities throughout the country, not all equally versed 
 in the settlement of questions of this grave character. On the one hand, a 
 large niimber of cases have been presented to the Director of Public Prosecu" 
 tions which he has felt bound to reject, and on the other it appears from an 
 examination of the records of convicted prisoners that many, fully qualified 
 within the statutory definition of “ habitual criminal,” have not been 
 presented at all. 
 
 The Secretary of State proposes, therefore, to issue further instructions to 
 the police to guide them in the selection of cases for presentation, and thus 
 to mitigate the inequalities which are likely to arise when the first stage of 
 the procedure rests with so many different authorities. He proposes that the 
 police should not, save for special reasons which they must fully state, submit 
 any case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, unless, in addition to the 
 qualifications expressly required by the Act, the criminal (a) is over 30 years 
 old; ( b ) has already undergone a term of penal servitude; and (c) is charged 
 anew with a substantial and serious offence. 
 
 On the other hand, in order that the range of choice open to the Director 
 of Public Prosecutions may be extended, the police will also be enjoined to 
 consider carefully, with a view to submission to the Director, the case of 
 every person who is qualified under the Act and also comes within these rules. 
 
 The point of most importance, and also of most difficulty, is to restrict the 
 selection to cases where the last offence is in itself substantial and serious. 
 On the one hand, mere pilfering, unaccompanied by any serious aggravation, 
 can never justify proceedings under the Act. The amount stolen or embezzled 
 is of course no certain measure of the criminal’s guilt; but where the amount 
 is small and there is no violence or treachery, public feeling is shocked, and 
 more harm than good is done, by the imposition of a long term of detention. 
 On the other hand, violence conjoined with other crimes, skill in crime, the 
 use of high-class implements of crime, and the possession of firearms or other 
 lethal weapons, will always count as important adverse factors. The general 
 test should be—is the nature of the crime such as to indicate that the 
 offender is not merely a nuisance but a serious danger to society? In 
 deciding on this point, the police will always be able to count on the assist¬ 
 ance and guidance of the Director of Public Prosecutions to whom they 
 present the cases for indictment under the Act, and who is able to bring 
 to bear on them an experience far wider than that of any police authority. 
 While it is impossible for him, as it is for the police, to say beforehand 
 what crimes would, in the opinion of the Judge who may try them, qualify 
 for penal servitude, he will be able to take a general survey of all the cases 
 coming within the scope of the Act, and to exclude from indictment under it 
 those cases where the crime charged is not in his opinion of sufficient gravity. 
 
 It will further be important that the police should obtain information not 
 only (as required by statute) regarding the convict’s mode of life since his last 
 
81 
 
 discharge from prison, but also regarding his whole previous career. It is 
 known that some convicts have obtained nominal employment after dis¬ 
 charge, not in good faith, but in the hope that they will thereby on their 
 next conviction be excluded from indictment as habitual criminals: and a 
 general survey of the convict’s life and conduct is therefore necessary. 
 
 The Secretary of State trusts that when these views are understood by 
 the police authorities of the country, the presentations under the Act will 
 proceed on more uniform and restricted lines than hitherto, and will at the 
 same time cover more accurately the area of professional crime. As time 
 passes and experience of the new system accumulates, it may be possible 
 to lay down more definite rules, and to perfect the principles of selection. 
 It will also, he hopes, be possible to form a better idea of the amount of 
 punishment involved in a sentence of Preventive Detention, and .possibly 
 to introduce new mitigations in its conditions. In any event, however, the 
 Act must not be resorted to as an easy and painless solution of the difficult 
 problem of habitual crime, but must rather be regarded as an exceptional 
 means of protecting society from the worst class of professional criminals. 
 
 Home Office, 
 
 16 th February , 1911. 
 
 APPENDIX 5. 
 
 See paragraph, 34]. 
 
 Copy of Circular Letter, dated 21st June, 1911, issued by the Home 
 Office to Police Authorities. 
 
 Home Office, 
 
 Whitehall, 
 
 21st June, 1911. 
 
 Preventive Detention. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I am directed by the Secretary of State to transmit, for your information, 
 copy of the Rules which he has made under s. 13 of the Prevention of Crime 
 Act, 1908, for the carrying out of sentences of Preventive Detention. 
 
 The Secretary of State has given much attention to the cases of offenders 
 who have been indicted, as habitual criminals with a view to sentences of 
 Preventive Detention being passed on them under the Prevention of Crime 
 Act, 1908, and it appears to him that it is most desirable that the Police 
 should in future endeavour to select more carefully, and on more uniform 
 lines, the cases which they present under the Act to the Director of Public 
 Prosecutions. He learns, on the one hand, that many cases are presented 
 to the Director which were not really within the intention of Parliament in 
 passing the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908; and, on the other hand, he finds 
 that some Police forces appear to overlook a large number of cases which, 
 judging by the previous convictions of the offender, are eminently suitable 
 for presentation. 
 
 Mr. Churchill thinks that he may with advantage lay down certain rules 
 for the guidance of the Police in this matter. The Act itself prescribes 
 two conditions: — 
 
 (1) That the offender must, since attaining the age of 16, have been 
 at least three times convicted of crime as defined in the Schedule to 
 the Act; and 
 
 (2) That he must be “ persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life.” 
 
82 
 
 There are, in addition to these, three other conditions which should, he 
 thinks, be present in almost every case. As they are not statutory condi¬ 
 tions, there may be occasional exceptions; but no case should be presented 
 to the Director of Public Prosecutions where any of these conditions is 
 absent except for strong and special reasons, and the reasons should be 
 explicitly and clearly stated in the application: — 
 
 (a) The offender must he over the age of 30 years. Below that age, 
 the case can hardly ever be so hopeless as to justify recourse to Pre¬ 
 ventive Detention. 
 
 (h) The offender must have undergone at least one sentence of penal 
 servitude. Unless penal servitude has been tried and failed, it will 
 generally be wrong to propose the prolonged punishment of penal servi¬ 
 tude plus Preventive Detention. 
 
 (c) The new offence with which the offender is charged must he a 
 substantial and serious crime. 
 
 On the other hand, the Police should carefully consider, with a view to 
 presentation to the Director of Public Prosecutions, every case which comes 
 within the Act and within these three rules. 
 
 On the question what is to be regarded as a substantial and serious offence 
 and for further explanation of the whole subject you are referred to the 
 Memorandum prefixed to the draft Rules laid before Paliament on the 17th 
 February last, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. 
 
 I am to request that this letter may be substituted for the letter addressed 
 to you on the 4th March last, enclosing a draft of the Rules. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 Edward Troup. 
 
 APPENDIX 6. 
 
 See paragraph 49]. 
 
 Certain sexual offences which are not felonies but which in the opinion 
 of the Committee should be included in the definition of “ crimes ” 
 
 WHICH BENDER PERSISTENT OFFENDERS LIABLE TO PROLONGED DETENTION. 
 
 Indecent assault on female (24 & 25 Viet., c. 100, s. 52). 
 
 Indecent assault on male (24 & 25 Viet., c. 100, s. 62). 
 
 Assault with intent to commit sodomy (24 & 25 Viet., c. 100, s. 62). 
 
 Gross indecency between males (48 & 49 Viet., c. 69, s. 11). 
 
 Indecent exposure (Common Law and, in respect of previous convictions, 
 5 Geo. IV., c. 83, s. 4). 
 
 Abduction of girl under 18 to have carnal knowledge (48 & 49 Viet., c. 69, 
 s. 7). 
 
 Carnal knowledge of girl between 13 and 16 (48 & 49 Viet., c. 69, s. 5 (1)). 
 Permitting defilement of girl between 13 and 16 (48 & 49 Viet., c. 69, 
 s. 6 (2)). 
 
 Procuration (48 & 49 Viet., c. 69, ss. 2 & 3). 
 
 Detention in brothel (48 & 49 Viet., c. 69, s. 8). 
 
 Male person living on earnings of prostitution (61 & 62 Viet., c. 39, s. 1). 
 Solicitation by male person (61 & 62 Viet., c. 39, s. 1). 
 
 Incest (8 Edw. 7, c. 45, ss. 1 & 2). 
 
 (14421-52) \\ t. 701—967 2015 6/32 V. St. G. 335 
 

 
 
 
 

 Pamphlets 
 
 f 
 
 Vol.6 
 
 
 L41230 
 
 J_ 
 
 DATE 
 
 ISSUED TO 
 
 L41&50