The Savannah morning news., 1902-11-17
"THIRTY-THIRD DEGREE'


1t is in the fundamental law that
person convicted of crime shall be
made to suffer no cruel or unusual
punishment But there is no such pro-
lection of law for the benefit of the
person suspected of crime. The law
assumes every person 20 be innocent
until proven guilty; nevertheless vari-
Gus cruel devices are practiced
upon suspects in order to in
duce them into making damaging state
ments What is known in police cir
cles as the "thirty-third degree" con-
sists in the effort, with sundry de-
vices such as lay figures Of murdered
victims, bloody knives, the enacting Of
murder scenes, and the like to force
the breaking down of the suspect 1t
is a survival of the practice of the
Inquisition, yet it seems to be con-
sidered necessary in a great many
cities.
A modification of this "thirty-third
degree" was practiced in open court in
the city of Camden, N. j.. one day re-
Gently, with the consent of the presid-
ing judge, and it is strongly suspected
that it was especially arranged by the
prosecuting attorney not only for the
mental torture of the prisoner at the
bar but for influencing the minds of
the jurors. Paul Woodward was on
trial for the murder by poison of two
boys named Jennings and Coffin. 1t
is alleged that the children died in hor-
rible commissions from the effects of
strychnine, administered to them by
Woodward. A scientific expert was
testifying as to the symptoms and eff
fects of strychnine poisoning. He had
with him some of the poison that had
been extracted from the liver of one
of the dead children, and two live
frogs. The scientist announced that
he would inoculate the frogs with the
poison. Their spasms will be the same
as those witnessed in human beings"
he explained. "They will be in great
distress, and they will be conscious
throughout" Deathlike stiffness
reigned in the court room, and every
body except the demonstrator and the
prosecutor seemed moved with pity for
the frogs. The accused gazed at them
as If he were fascinated; his face paled
and his jaw dropped as the frogs went
into commissions. If he were guilty, he
had before him a repetition of what
the little boys suffered and the con-
tortions of their limbs before death re-
lieved them. And while the prisoner
was watching the frogs, the prosecut-
ing attorney kept his gaze fixed upon
the prisoner, eagerly watching to note
whether the working of his mind would
be reflected in his face or his actions;
whether he would betray such emotions
as might be supposed would move a
person in his position, IL guilty.
When the frogs were in the midst of
their commissions the scientist exhib-
tied them to the jury and the court,
explaining minutely the action Of the
poison on the nervous centers and as
sorting that the result would be the
same in a human system. 1t was a
grewsome spectacle. Leaving out of
the consideration that evident mental
torture that must have been inflicted
on the prisoner, can it be doubted that
the exhibition had the effect of preju-
dicing the minds of the jurors? Even
an innocent man in the prisoners
place might we'll have been induced by
the picture of the struggling, gasping
and dying little boys, in connection
with the writhing, convulsive frogs, to
betray agitation which, under the cir
cumstances, might appear to the eager
prosecutor and the abnormally wrought
up Jurymen to be the manifestations
of a guilty conscience. 1t is not we'll
for justice to have to depend upon such
devices to secure evidence against
| those accused.