The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-02-06

{ the court tried him did not proceed in
due form, as for instance, convicted
| him by verdict that was not unanf-
nous, or by judge that did not have
| jurisdiction to try the offence or re-
leased him because he could not be
| given a speedy trial, although there
| may be evidence that would render his
| guilt apparent beyond a possible
doubt, and yet he cannot again be
| placed in jeopardy for his offence. he
| escapes by a technical defense. Tech
| meal defenses were originally allowed
| to prevent people from being harassed
| by charges that should have been dis
posed of and not kept hanging over
them, and they are an acknowledge
ment on the part of the judiciary of
its incompetence to deal with the
criminal, hence they encourage Judge
lynch who steps in to act where the
proper authority too frequently is tied
up by it's own inefficiency. Success
full technical defenses are admissions,
that the administration of justice is
defective: that is, either the legislature
has erred in making impracticabIe
laws, or in creating courts not proper
ly constituted to enforce the law, or
the judges and prosecuting officers are
incompetent to handle the machinery
provided, in such a way as to prevent
the accused from escaping, irrespec-
tive of his guilt or innocence.
1t consequently becomes the duty of
every citizen, whether legislator pros
ecuting attorney, juror or judge, to
remedy defects that may render tech
nical defenses possible, and to do his
utmost to make the machinery for the
punishment of crime work effectively,
n emit nG IaFn
rather than to go searching for weak
spots. and when they are found, proud
~ to point to them as evidences of
his intelligence and literally, as well
as of the superior ingenuity and learn
ing of the law makers and the courts.
Another error, which too frequently
tends to increase crime, when intend
ed to do the reverse, is for courts to
endeavor to stop certain classes of
offenses by infiicting unusually severe
for them, when anyone is
convicted. 1t is well known that turies
hesitate to convict, if they think an
unusually severe punishment will be
inflicted, while If they expect the
will scarcely be adequate,
f the person is guilty, they are not so
EASILY influenced by sophisticaI argu-
nents concerning what is grounds for
y of punishment, rather than it's
everity that deters crime. The would
'e criminal, if satisfied that he can
lot possibly escape detection, will not
ommit the crime though the punish
1ent is comparatively light. Criminals,
lmost without exception, count on
scaping the consequences of their
cts. In fact, when man deliberately
ommits crime, regardless of whether
r not he will be caught, his conduct
considered strong evidence that he
-as insane at the time he did the
CT.
To prevent crime, punishment should
e both swift and certain: To make
swift we should abolish the numer-
US appeals and other means of caus-
lg delay: To make IL certain. we
Mould provide such effective procedure
nd such capable judicial officers as to
lake acquittals on mere TECHNICAL
es. which are not affected by the
uilt of the accused party, practically
nheard of.
T NJ HARRISON.