The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-02-09

Editor Advertiser: In your issue of
the 3rd inst. the article Crime and
Justice" comments on the greater prev
alence of crime and the smaller per-
centage of criminals punished in the
United States than in some older coun-
tries such as Great Britain.
It is natural to expect more crime in
a new country than in an old one, as
the restless spirits and those who have
lost caste or reputation naturally drift
to new places. For this reason the
percentage of crime in the newer and
more unsettled parts of any country is
greater than in the older and less
changeable districts But outside of
all this, there are defects in the admin
istration of criminal justice in some
parts of the United States, which make
crime more prevalent than in CORES
ponding parts of, say the British EN-
pire. For instance, the absence of
crime and the rapidity and certainty Of
punishment in the Canadian Klondike,
as compared to some of the mining
towns in our country, is an object les
son which certainly seems to point to
something wrong.
The fact that appeals are permitted
from criminal convictions with us, in
stead of leaving the convicted felon
only the chance of executive pardon
should it appear he has been wrong
fully punished, is not the only defect.
There is frequently a dread on the
part of both judge and jurors, that
they may be considered tyrannical,
harsh or un-American, unless they are
disposed to forget it is their duty to
let no criminal go unpublished, and that
it is the certainty of punishment and
not its severity that deters crime; and
when they are told by counsel for the
defence, that they, being free Ameri-
cans, should prove their superiority to
other-and consequently benighted-
nations by giving the criminal the ben
eft of any reasonable doubt, If jurors,
or. if judge, the assistance of the most
far fetched legal technicalities that
sophistry can colorably attach to the
case, they are disposed to avoid the
possible unpleasant consequences of
condemning a fellow being to punish
ment, when. If they free him, they may
gain some slight credit for being kind
hearted or liberal minded, while it will
be forgotten that they have failed in
their duty Ono matter how unpleasant
the task to free the community from
a criminal, and to show other embryo
criminals what will be the consequent
ces if they give way to temptation.
1t is unpleasant to punish a fellow
being, who has done us no personal in
jury, it is pleasant to have the power
to punish and to be magnanimous and
forgive crime committed against some
other individual, while at the same
time we hatter ourselves with the be-
lief that we are showing our superior
ity to less advanced nations. But
when, as the counterpart of this, there
is the lynching of some person, and it
is afterwards discovered he was inno-
cent we do not feel we have made
such great advances, as we hoped we
had, from the nations we thought SO
benighted.
If our jurors would only remember
it is their duty, although their I'M
pleasant duty, to let no criminal be
deavor to bring home the crime where
it belongs, and allow no accused per-
son to escape through techDicalitias,
unless the technical defence could for
no possible reason be divorced from
greater per centage of convictions and
smaller percentage of crime.
When a criminal escapes. because
the court tried him did not proceed in
due form, as for instance, convicted
him by verdict that was not unani-
nous, or by n judge that did not have
jurisdiction to try the offence, or re-
leased him because he could not be
given speedy trial, although there
may be evidence that would render his
guilt apparent beyond possible
doubt, and yet he cannot again be
placed in jeopardy for his offence, he
escapes by technical defense. Tech
nical 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