The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-12
WIIE E1N
CLOTHING STORE.
WORTNER'S CASE.
The Points Made in His Case-Can Judge
Sentence TO Death oil Plea Of Guilty?

Special to the INDIANAPOLIS Journal.
RENSSELAER,, Ind. May 1.-THE people of the
county, almost without an exception, believe
Wortner committed the crime of murder, and
that he deserves the punishment prescribed by
the law He confessed his guilt to the judge,
who found, upon due inquiry that the crime
took rank as capital case" Could the judge
then proceed to pronounce sentence of deathi
Or was it the duty of the judge to then invoke
the opinion of jury? If a judge cannot try nor
punish in a capital case, does plea of guilty
extend the scope of his powera Wortner con-
sented, as far rs his silence W 3 waiver, and
the judge fixed the punishmentat at death. Did
the Judge pass the limits of his poweri This
is the question before the Supreme Court.
''If an accused party plead guilty he
shall be sentenced" [Sec. 1767 r. S. 1851
Where the plea is guilty the court shall
fix the punishment" [Sec. 1887 r. S. 1881.
Where the punishment is within the limits fixed
by law the judgment will not be disturbed be-
cause of its severity. McCuly vs. State, G2
Ind, 42S.l These provisions when viewed
alone, seem to sustain the judges action, even
in capital case. If the court cannot, by full
consent of all parties, try a cause, it would
seem that on a plea of guilty, sentence could
not be pronounced.
"On conviction OF murder in the first degree
the convict shall suffer death in the dis
cretion of jury" [Sec. 1904 r. S. 1884, Thus
muider in the first degree may become "capi-
tai case' IA capital case must be tried by jury"
Sec 1921 r.. S., 1881; Murphy vs. State, 81 Ind,
579l The consent of party cannot change
statute in a capital case touching the mode.
lime or occasion of inhicting the death penalty.
IKerner vs. State; 96 Ind, 243
Judge Elliot we'll says: "A man can only
be executed according to law, and this rule
tends to time, place and manner. Nor do we
believe that man can, by consent make it pro-
per to hang him differently than as prescribed
by statute"
The law is older and more sacred than even
human life. The uniform, just and careful min
istration of criminal law is the hope of the free
citizen The point made touches the power of
the Judge and the validity of the judgment
The plea of guilty stands in place of the judges
finding where the judge has power to try, and it
would look if the plea could not enlarge the
scope of the judges jurisdiction. The Judge
could act upon the plea, for 1T was a confession
of guilt as to mansiaughter and murder in the
second degree, both Of which crimes the Judge
had authority to try they not being capital. The
authority of Judge to say to defendant, ''You
shall be hanged by the neck until you are dead"
seems alone to be properly based on the finding
of twelve jurors fixing the death penalty. [Secs.
1921 and 1904
TIE courts all hold that the criminal law can
not be changed to suit the consent of parties
beyond the authority of the Statute
hanging in this county creates some little
feeling, and as the newspapers have published
articles OH both sides of controversy which is
legal, rather than political, state the question
from the standpoint Of those who insist upon
the form and manner-stricty construed-as
prescribed by law. Our people will patiently
abide the sanction of the Supreme Court. and all
will be satisfied with the view advanced by that
tribunal. The condemned man has no kinfolks
pleading for him save his wife and children.
He probably deserves severe penalty for his
confessed crime, and let it be applied under the
clear sanction of the courts and all will be
calm.