The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-05-25
Laws Interpretation.

| Laws Interpretation.
I'VE have a statute that was enacted
| in the year 1903. which provides that
! when any person is convicted of or
pleads guilty to charge of felony 9th
er than murder arson. burglary, rape,
treason or kidnapping, the court may,
instead of committing such person to
good behavior This does not mean
that he should be acquitted or uncOndi-
tionally discharged, for the Judgment
remains in full force and if the person
convicted violates his parole, he may
at once be re-arreSted and committed
to prison without further trial. and
be required to serve out the term Of
his original sentence. All the crimes
enumerated in the statute as being eX-
empt from its operation, are felOnies of
a higher grade-feOnies which the law
will in no wise cOndone. 1t will be no
ticed that among the enumerated
crimes. is that of burglary. The
crime of burglary involves degree Of
moral turpitude which the law is slow
and thought in its inception. and cOur-
age in its execution. It is unlike
those crimes which result from anger
and passion. The Court was fully in
formed of the facts and circumstances
of the crime committed by defendants
at the time they entered their plCa Of
guilty. AS has been said, there was
charging burglary. and the second,
grand larceny. If there had been a
trial the defendants would undOubted-
ly have been convicted of burglary,
for the evidence was absolutely con-
elusive. Instead of insisting upon a
trial. the prosecuting attorney recon-
mended that the defendants should
have the privilege of pleading guilty
to the charge of grand larceny in order
that they might escape the penalty for
burglary. This they consented to do
and did do in open court.
Parole Refused.
Since they were sentenced. strenu-
Gus efforts have been made by many
good and reputable citizens by petit
tition and otherwise. TO have the priS-
oners paroled, but after considering all
the facts and circumstances of the case
it must be held that the court is with
out power to mitigate their sentence
by paroling the prisoners when the
plain spirit of the statute is consider
ed. The crime committed was burglary.
1t was deliberately planned and under
standingly committed, and after COM
mitting the crime the defendants were
arrested as they were preparing for
flight. taking the money they had OBJ
tained. with them. 1t is true the de-
PENDANTS were permitted to enter a
plea to the Chal>e of grand larceny,
but this was a concession upon the
part of the court for the benefit of the
accused The court at the time knew
and now knows the facts of the case
were and are. and this from the con-
fesSion of the prisoners themselves.
and having this knowledge it would
simply be a subterfuge and an evasion
of the spirit of the statute and of the
intention of the general assembly in
enacting it, for the court TO parole the
defendants 1t would be regarding
the shadow instead of the substance.
In holding that the court has no power
to parole these unfortunate defendants.
it does not desire TO deprive them of
any defense they may have If they
desire, the court will permit them 10
withdraw their plea of guilty and will
grant them a. new trial. This will en-
able them To Dresent any defense they
lCnntinued ON PAGE Sexenl