TNAG-0397-FCO40-443-Problem-of-increase-in-crime-in-Hong-Kong-1973 — Page 152

*

The second matter that I would like to raise is the question of I think it is very important for any sentencing in criminal cases society to have every confidence in the processes of the law, partic ularly in regard to crimes of violence.

Much has been written on the philosophy of punishment. How- ever the terms used today are not dissimilar to those of Sar William BLACKSTONE 200 years ago. He said that the purpose of punishment This was "as a precaution against future oflences of the same kind. is effected three ways: either by the amendment of the ollender himself: . . . . or, by deterring others by the dread of his example from offending in the like way: . . . . or, lastly, by depriving the party The public gains injuring of the power to do future mischief

equal security whether the offender himself be amended by whole- some correction, or whether he be disabled from doing any further harm: and if the penalty fails of both these effects, as it may do, sull the terror of his example remains as a warning to other citizens.”

Now, the questions of prevention and reform are probably best left to penal experts. The question of deterrence, however, is one on which, by its very nature, the public rather than the expert must be the best judge. Whether the sentence of one criminal will deter others from committing the same offence obviously depends on whether they, to paraphrase BLACKSTONE "are terrified by his example".

I do not think that any member of the public would be deterred from committing blackmail by the threat of a sentence of 3 weeks' imprisonment. Yet in a case in Kowloon a man found guilty on 2 counts of blackmail plus one count of demanding money with menaces was gaoled only for 3 weeks in total,

I do not think that any member of the public would be deterred from committing violent robbery by the threat of being gaoled for one month or merely put on probation. Yet in a Kowloon case a man found guilty of robbery on 3 separate occasions was sentenced to only one month's imprisonment for each offence and in a New Territories case a youth found guilty of 2 counts of robbery with aggravation was on appeal placed merely on probation by the Supreme Court.

In another case early November last year 3 persons were con- victed of robbery with aggravation. One of the criminals was 25 years old and had a long criminal record: he was bound over for larceny in 1962, put on probation forʼbreach of the peace in 1965. gaoled for a week for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in 1968 and fined $100 for larceny in the same year. In last November the facts were that this young but persistent criminal, together with 2 other persons, broke into the victim's home, tied up and gagged the husband, his wife and their teenage son, threatened them with a knife and covered His sentence was simply to be them with a blanket and robbed them. bound over for 2 years in the sum of $500. In other words, so long as he kept himself out of trouble for 2 years, there was no penalty at all.