The offending boys were charged under those sections of the Crimes Act which prescribed maximum penalties of five or seven years imprisonment. In most cases convictions were recorded and the boys were admonished and discharged; in a few cases the charges were dismissed; in other cases the boys were committed to the care of the Superintendent or placed under the supervision of a Child Welfare Officer.
The girls, not having committed a breach of the Crimes Act or any other statute, could not be charged. Their parents were, in appropriate cases, summoned to Court upon the complaint that they had the custody of a "delinquent", or a child not under proper control.
That the above distinction is not merely a formal one is shown by the fact that an offending boy's name, and the decision of the Court regarding him, is always recorded in the Police Gazette. As the girl is not charged as an offender her name is not so recorded, even although (as shown in Section V (2) of this report) it may have been the misbehaviour of the girl which led the boy into the commission of the offence charged against him.
When a sophisticated girl entices a boy into the commission of an offence it is anomalous[7] that his name should be recorded in the Police Gazette while the girl, who may be the real offender, is not charged and, even when the girl is committed to the care of the State, her offending is not recorded in the Police Gazette.
(3) Corporal Punishment Abolished
By the Statutes Amendment Act 1936 the power which formerly existed for the Court to order a whipping was abolished in so far as children are concerned. (The penalty of whipping was later abolished in all other cases by section 30 of the Crimes Amendment Act 1941.)
Representations have been made to this Committee that the abolition of corporal punishment as a deterrent may have led to an increase in sexual misbehaviour. It was pointed out that parents and school teachers may resort to physical chastisement where thought desirable, and it was suggested that a Magistrate should have power to order a whipping in suitable cases.
There is, however, a big difference between a parent or teacher himself punishing by the cane or strap soon after the offence, and a Magistrate ordering a beating to be inflicted by a complete stranger at a later date.
The Committee, therefore, does not recommend the restoration of corporal punishment. It merely notes the matter here as part of the history of the law relating to child welfare and to show that the representations on this point have been considered.
(4) Defects in the Act and its Application