The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-07-06

1t lie reported from London that Mr.. WILL
LIAM G. WHITNEY Of this city and another
American gentleman were robbed Mt the
Ascot races II few days ago. The thieves
were detected and arrested, and In two or
| three days they were convicted ut Windsor
and sentenced TO prison. A black pearl
pin valued ut $1,000 was stolen from Mr..
WHITNEY by man named WILLIAM
DAY; and q gold watch valued ut $50
was stolen from the other gentleman 10y a
man named HENRY SMITH. The sentence in
the case Of DAY was SIX months imprlson-
mcnt with hard labor, and in the case OF
SMITH three months imprisonment with
hard labor.
These cases are interesting ne Illustrating
the contrast between the punishment in
flictcd for similar crimes in England and In
the Stn,e Of New York.
In this State the crime committed against
Mr. WHITNEY would lie grand larceny in the
first degree, for 1t is grand larcany in tho
first degree t. steal property OF tho value OF
morn than 500 IN any manner whatever.
This grade o: grand larceny is punishable
In New York by Imprisonment for not less
than five nor more than ten years; so that
IL the offence had been committed Oh tho
grounds OF the New York Jockey Club in
stend OF at Ascot, the court before which
the thief was convicted would have been
obliged to impose sentence OF ut least five
years instead OF tho sentence OF six months
pronounced by the English court.
In tho other c,se the stealing OF the watch
would constitute grand larceny in the Sec
ond degree under our statute, because the
watch appears to have been taken from the
person OF the complainant. The punishment
for grand larceny In the second degree is
imprisonment for not less than two nor
moro than live years; 80 that the penalty
for the samo offence in New York would
be two years instead OF three months.
An important difference between English
legislation and legislation in this State in
respect to the punishment OF crime appears
to be the omission Of the English statutes to
prescribe minimum punishmcnts. They
usually fix q limit which cannot be exceeded,
but leave the courts at liberty to inilict as
light punishment of the prescribed nature
as the circumstances seem to render proper.
Thus there is a general provision in the
English criminal law that every person con-
vlcted OF any felony for which no punish
ment is specially provided, Is liable upon
conviction to be sentenced to penal servi-
tude for any period not exceeding seven
years. or to be imprisoned with or without
hard labor or solitary confinement for any
term not exceeding two years.
We are accustomed to regard the laws OF
England in respect to crime as more severe
than those which prevail in this country.
Que reason for this impression Is that the
procedure there is more prompt, and the
punishment follows more quickly upon the
offence. OF late years. however. there has
been q decided improvement In the laws
regulating the prosecution of criminals in
New York. and the notion that the proceed
ure is more dilatory than it used to be is quite
erroneous. We are inclined to think however,
that the British system OF leaving to the
discretion OF the court the minimum punish
ment to be inflicted in cases OF felony Is
wiser than ours. There may well bo many
cases OF grand larceny In the first degree,
for example, which would be adequately
punished by Imprisonment for much less
than five years. At present the difference
In value OF the articles stolen may consti-
tute the sole distinction between tho crime
Of grand larceny in the first degree and
grand larceny in the second degree II the
thing stolen is worth more than $500. the
offence is grand larceny in the first degree,
and subjects the offender to at least
five years Imprisonment II it ia less
than $500 in value, but not worth
more than $25. the thief is liable to imprison-
ment for not less than two years. Such diff
rerences In Value may well constitute n cri-
terion by which to regulate the maximum
punishment but it seems very doubtful
whether they should be allowed to control
tho minimum; for 1t may we'll happen that
the moral turpitude involved In stealing
worth over $500 may he much
less than that involved in tho theft OF an
article far less valuable.
This subject of minimum punishmonts for
crime is much more worthy the serious
OF prison reformerS than many
of the topics to which they devote their
time and attention.