The mirror. (Stillwater, Minn.) 1894-1925, 1894-08-30
THE INEQUITV OF LAW.

THE INEQUlTV OF LAW.
There is no such thing, says the
Christian Register, as justice in the
United States in the punishment OF
crime There is no standard by which
guilt can be measured and the degree
of the offence determined. We have
nothing but confused medley OF GRIM
inal codes with every possiblevarlatlon
in their application. Those who find
such statements startling may turn to
the article on "The Inequality OF Sen
fences of Crime by Rev. Fred Ill.
Wines, which was the most remarkable
paper given before the National Prison
Association at its recent meeting in
St. Paul. Mr.. Wines connection with
the United States Census has furnished
him the material from which to make
a comparison of the criminal codes OF
all the States and the sentences which
are imposed under them. Those who
studied the subject of criminolOgy have
long felt the need in the United States
of just such comparison as MIR. Wines
has made. His report, with detailed
tabulations, will be published in full
elsewhere at later date. But the alb
stract we give furnishes sufficient
number of facts to make evident the
striking inequalities in the conception
and administration of criminal law in
the United States.
We are not dealing here with mere
technicalities or forms of procedure,
but with standards of justice and
estimates of the comparative wicked
ness of crimes in the different States
of the Union.
In the first place we have met with
the fact that the criminal codes of the
different States represent local views
and estimates of the classification of
crimes which are recognized in one
State are not recognized in others.
Distinctions established in one State
are ignored in another. In some States
the stigma affixed by law to a certain
crime is so deep as to be indelible; in
another State is is so pale as to be
almost unrecogniZable. To the stu
dent of ethics these varying codes fur
nish material by which we may judge
the ethical conceptions of the legisla
lures who framed them. 1t is easy tc
!, see how, when we study the develop
ment of our State governments, these
codes vary under local influences
Thus it is not surprising that horse
, stealing should be looked upon as {
more serious Offense in some of the
far Western States, where to steal {
: horse is like stealing mans legs, thai
/ in the Eastern States where the crime
5 is less common or less serious. W.
might expect a good deal of variation
| too, between the Southern States ant
e the Northern, when what was cOnsid
: cred a crime, such as the holding o
r men in slavery, in one section, wa
q considered a commercial privilege il
e the other But it would be very hare
Y to trace all the influences which hav
: operated in the making of these codes
f and, when we place them side by side
r we see how tickle and arbitrary are tn
e distinctions that are drawn. Why, w
It may ask, should the extreme penalt
# for cOunterfeiting in Delaware be thre
# years, while in five States, represent
e ing the North, East, South, and Yves
e it is Imprisonment for life? The pc
e jurer in New Hampshire can get bu
five years penalty, but in the adjoi1
e ing State of Maine, he may be in
le prisoned for life. There is the sam
l. difference between Mississippi an
% Kentucky. In Delaware it is assume
81 that one year is as much as ma
l. deserves for bigamy, but in Tennessee
Re it is worth twenty-one years. TT
t. value of nose or an eye in Georgi
70 is year and half in Jail and chat
is gang, and fine of thousand dollar
Is In Colorado it is worth three years;
o. Vermont, imprisonment for life.
D. several of the States the death penalt