The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-18

eaCu ouence, beyond which neither the ten :
derness nor the rigor of juries shall he per-
mitted to oscillate to have a ni01imuni and
minimum, for the hi6hes and the lowest
offences, between which, extremes it is for
the discretion of a jury. to adjust the punish
ments This range is probably too large,
under tue present law, as to most offences.
Your committee beg leave to point out ano
Their defect in the peniten,ary acts: By the
original act of 1896. it was provided that
every other felony, misdcmeanor or of
renee whatever. not provided for by that
act, was to- be punished as heretofore. -
ms provision is obviously at variance with
the other parts ofthe act, and the omission
was afterwards cured by the ameadatory act
OF 1900: This provides that all such cases.
as were not provided for by the act of '96,
the punishment whereof by the laws then
IN forge, may amount to death without the
beneht OF clergy" should undergo a con.
nnementin the Jail and penitentiary house
fora period not less than one, nor more than
zen gears. This. amendatory act itself is Ii.
| able to strong objections: LIST the range of
pumSnments tor a numerous class of offences
! Is TOO largc.--There are few Grimes indeed.
II there be any, whose shades Of atrocity are
| so great as so admit of as wide range as
from one TO ZEN years. In the I'd place,
nave we not thus adopted anew, and i'm the
| lump. most OF those heterogeneous crimes
which are recognized by the commonlaw of
England! Our act of assembly of Decem
Der y. 1872, has indeed superseded the
whole code OF English statute ia7vs but
| sun such offences as are recognized by the
common leu. and not provided for by our
own statutes, were in force previous to the
Peaitentiary act. What then are we to thir..
OF the provisions of that law which recognj-
zes again all such offences as are created by-
tine English common law; most of which
nave sprung from system of political insti-
tutiois. very different, ifnot abhorrent from
our own; and what is still NOR. deplorable
subjects this numerous class of unNrovideI
crimes, with all their various hues G. atroci.
ty, tothe same grades and range of punish
ments!
Humanity weeps over such an oversight
he genius OF the republic bushes fer such
defect, Why not have code of our own
| why not altogether dispense with the great
nody or the criminal Jurisprudence Of Eng
| iaRd! why not have statutes of our own TO
sseich out our own lists of crimes, as we
nave already done of punishments. The
penltentiary law Of New York has done il.
In mat state almost every sort Of crime is
put ON the list But whilst we approve of
TINS course. we would by no means be tho't
10 approve OF those excessive stretches of
punishment which are made by the law of
| Nav York: Laws which subject so ,uouv
| offences, even that of burning barn. to an
| fmfrlSonnentJ or kife-laws by which, in
the year 1901, as many as II cut OF 34s
conviCts, were actually doomed to this ne
YER ending punishment.
But there seems another oversight in the
law, which your committee beg leave to no.
tice BY the 24ch section of the act of 'e6.
II any one who had previously been convict
ed OF CRIME. which was then catital,
tsf0 Of II t.,t~
! gy' was to commit any such offence a
second time. and be thereof legally convict
| cd. such hersom was TO be doomed to i'm
prisonmentf for life; whereas if he had been
I sentenced to hard Tabor and solitary con.
hnement by virtue of that act, and had e.
cared or been f0rdoned,'' and after such
| escape or pardon, was found guilty of any
such offence as was then capital, or a felo
ny az death without benefit of clergy such
Person was TO be doomed to an imprison
ment tor rs years. This very act, howe
| YER, subjects most of those crimes to "hard
TABOR and solitary confinement" which were
atthat time f" capital. or felony of death
without benefit of clergy" So that in many
Gases these are but convertible terms How
then stands the case ? He who has wrought
through the period OF his fest confinement. is
doomed by a second offence to an imtyisou
mem for Efr; whilst he who has broken his
PRISON, or enjoyed the pardon of the execu
| tive, is sentenced for IS years for the very
same offences. The very circumstances
which should have aggravated the guilt OF
the offender; his forcible escape from pri
son, or his migrate .ul disregard of executive
mercy; have only served To place him upon
better ground. The only excuse which can
! be gwen tor such a strange contradiction is
that tins section OF our own law was taken,
nearly verbatim. from that Of Pennsylvania.
But the law of PENNSYLVANIA itself was
changed in this respect for the worse; for
the original law had stretched its lust and
| indignant severity ovcrthe miserable wretch
who had proved his turbulence or ngrati
tude.
Ihis matter assumes greater importaHsc
from the very excellent rule now adopted by
the executive, of RENTING to certain per-
sons very small period of .heir mprison
ment. The paper which extends this in.
dulgence is, to ali intents and purposes har.
non. 1t is attested by the seal of the state
and the sign manuel oft.ie governor. Either
then this rule cannot be exercised as far as
1t may beproper, or those who experienced
| the indulgence, shoDid not be placed on a
better footing than such as have passed
through the wuoie sentence of the law
hat such relnissions are u some cases
| proper, 1t is almost impossible to doubt.
lhey stimulate the convict; they encourage
MIN In the Observance OF Il correct denort-
| ment. They keep down that spring of ins,ib
| ordination and revolt. Of open riots and Sc
| cret plots, which all such institutions con
tam within them. And it deserves to be no.