New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-09-14
JNEOU4LTTIhS IN CRIMiNAL LhW

roc.u, d,suotch from the capital of North
c,r,i,o called attention 10 the fact that in that
State arson and burglary are offences p"ilis"io"
with DEATH and told how two men coiN"'u vi
breaking into Il house for the purpose o' r"po'l!
had been sentenced 10 be hanged III oct"p'r' /"
most people IN this ncighborhood III" sta''ii'n'
must have come with II shock or SURPRISE ~
innict the extreme penalty OF III" law Oh Il
hurcIor recalls the severity Of the old English
law undcr which men were hanged Tor stealing
A sheep or the shooting OF Tlpplt. II "'So
Jir.cts attention 10 the inequality in punish
mrnts for crime in o,Ir various States sun
lee, Of great interest and one thar cannot IAN
10 prove puzzn, in the extreme To for'lg"
students of our civilization unless th'Y are
especially acquainted with III" limits wi'hi"
,,hi,h c,ch of the states is absolutely law unto
,,s.,f This ineuu,lity was fully treated by Mr..
Fr.drricl, H. Wines Il pcnologst Of the hlGh's'
standing In Il paper read by him before 'he
National Prison Association AT is meeting III
$, Paul u few weeks ago. II i inp"ssio'e 10
refer here 10 NOR, than few OF the most S'r'h'
Ing inequalities cited 10y him.
10 begin with the death penalty. Tins j. III
force In The following States for the crimes
named For murder I'm all th" states except
Rhrlc Island, Michigan and Wisconsin, III
Iouislapa. for rape. assault with Intent 10 Kill
administering poison. arson and burglary III
Delaware and North Carolina. for rape arson
and burglary; In Alabama. for rape, arson ana
robbery: in Georgia. for rape mayhem an"
arson: in Missouri, for perjury ana rape III
virginia. West Virginia. South Carolina ana
Mississippi. for rap" AMI arson; III fi"rida' men
tuckv Tennessee Texas and Arkansas. '"r rape
in Montana for arson of dwelling by hlgh''
in MARYLAND. for any variety Of arson ID" pen
allies for other crimes take Wide range Inc
maximum penalty for conn"ririiins III p'l''
ware i three years: IN Maine. MASSACHUSETTS,
Ncw-York Florida and Michigan il Is imprlSon'
men, FOR life: in Missouri III" minimum pchllly
j. five years which Is the maximum IN Ton
ncctcui For perjury the maximum p'ilalt! j.
five wears I'm New Hampshire, Connecticut ana
K,uiucky. hui in Maine Mississippi ana Iowa
II Is He Imprisonment: In Missouri IL II d'''h
II the witness committing perjury thereby d'
skins 10 effect the death ~ an innocent person.
while I'm Delaware the crime Is So lightly regard
ed as 10 be- punishable only by fine Of not
less than $500 nor more than $1,000. Til" "N-
IRENE penalty for blgamy ranges from on" year
In Delaware. to twenty one years III tennessee
The maximum penalty for mayhem in Colorado
Is three years: In Vermont. imprisonment Tor
life The maximum penalty for forgery varies
from three years in Delaware 10 life imprlsoh-
mcnt In Ncwlork and Missouri
MFR Wines also gives some striking statements
concerning relative estimates Of different crimes
In the different codes when compared with each
other. guilt being measured by the maximum
penalty for each offence prescribed in the stat
utcs Thus the guilt ~ councrfcltlng In OHIO
and Minnesota Is twice that Of perjury. while In
Rhode Island and Alabama The guilt OF perjury
Is twice that u counicrfetlng; the guilt of may
hem I'm Ohio ~ twice that OF burglary. while In
Michigan the guilt of burglary Is twice That OF
MAYHEM: the guilt Of arson in Pennsylvania
Ohio Nebraska and Kentucky Is twice that OF
burglary but In Connecticut the guilt Of burglary
IL twice that Of arson; the guilt of forgery in
Kansas Is four times that Of larceny but In Con-
necticut the guilt OF larceny Is four times that
Of forgery.
These are only few Of the Inconsistencies
discovered by Mr.. Wines who also makes com
PARSONS showing the wide differences in the
sentences actually imposed by the courts.
Whether II Is desirable Ia have approximate
uniformity In these matters Is clearly de-
batable question but the facts set forth show
that the criminal law in the various States il
established and administered without any refer
ence 10 absolute standards Of justice And yet
the claim Is made that the criminal law is the
most exact scientific and perfect branch OF the
law Examined relatively, however. 1t Is seen
to be a tumble Of Inconsistencies and absurtlltes
calculated TO excite wonder whether such II
thing as justice Is possible In our criminal
courts Efforts are being made to bring about
uniformity In legislation on some subjects among
the States. Certainly there Is wide field To be
cultivated.