New-York tribune., 1912-02-26
THEFT SENTENCES SHOW
INEQUALITY OF Law
First Offender Gets 20 Years;
HabituaI Criminal, His "Pal,"
TO Serve Only l8,
HIGHER COURT APPROVES
LAWYERS for Boy Accused of Bur
elary Say Judge Had No Power
70 Impose Not More than
Life" Sentence.

The unevenness Of the administration OF
Justice in the criminal courts, due largely
"a the unequal laws is demonstrated by
case in which the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court has just rendered de-
cisior. While not analogous with the
Brandt cese. it is of especial interest al
this time. as showing what seeming errors
may he committed in the imposition oI
ssaianee on men convicted OF crime Whlch
however. In their legal analysis by higher
cnurts are upheld as complying with the
law.
The case AT issue is that of Sehg Levin
nineteen Years old of No 2Si Allen street
who was convicted of burglary as hrst
offender and senterCed 10 term OF not
less than twenty years and not more than
,,fe " His companion, who was two years
bis senior and who had a criminal record
MAS Samuel Rosen. He was convicted ana
,eceived a sentence OF thirty years as an
habituaI criminal. However under the 1or'''
., his sentence he is entitled to commuta-
t,on which will bring his sentence down
70 eighteen years and two months Whl'e
the Younger first offender will nave 10
atty.
1A,in was indicted under the name or
Morris Kramer. The two men were lolntiy
sccpsAd Of entering the apartment of Max
sa,at Of No. a Attorney street Nothlhs
was stolen from the house Inc le'o'u
the case shows that Levin was not even IN
the house. but was stationed on 'he 'ooI
wbile Rosen entered the apartment
Neither man was armed when aIIes'eu'
but the offence was committed at hlsh''
Levin and Rosen were indicted LOT ou,S
larry in the first degree, which is apphcap.'
where a forcible entry is maze at h'si''
although the other element. the possess'o''
OF weapons, was absent in the case LEVIN
pleaded not guilty. He was tried oeloEe
Judge Malone, in the Court OF GeheIdl 9''
sions II was brought cut on his trial that
Levin had come TO this country iroh' nus
ala only a wear before he was arrested
He did not understand much OF the EHs
fish language. and fell in with bad charac-
ters. The jury found Levin guilty, ou'
recommended him to the mercy of the
court because of his youth, his ignorance
Of the laws. the fact that he was first
offender and. further, the defence OF Levin
that he did not know what Rosen intended
10 DO WneO ne lOSlGu INN va h4iN 4ND-'
Judge Malone imposed on Levin the twen-
ty-years-to-life sentence
When Rosen was caught at work in the
SaIat apartment he jumped from second
story window to the ground, and broke
both his legs. Rosen pleaded not guilty
TO the Indictment against him, but he
changed his plea TO one of guilty, on the
promise of the District Attorney that he
he bahitual Grim.
inal So Judge Malone imposed on him the
thirty-years' sentence, with eleven years
and eight months off for good behavior.
The law firm of Rosenthal & Steckler ap-
pealed to the Appellate Division Of the Su-
preme Court from the conviction Of Levin
Counsel argued that Judge Malone had no
power to sentence a first offender TO a not
more than life" term unless the defendant
was guilty of murder. They also made the
point that Levin was not armed when ar
rested. The lawyers further argued that
the purpose Of the indeterminate sentence
was to encourage reform, and this oppor-
tunity was denied TO Levin. They said
that it was neither the intent nor the spirit
of the statute that a sentence of greater
severity could be imposed on a first Of
fender than on a hardened criminal. The
lawyers said that never had a first offender
received life term except for murder. 1t
was further argued that in the Levin case
the indeterminate law was wholly frustrat-
ed, and that he should have been sentenced
TO not less than ten years nor more than
twenty years. which would have given him
his freedom in ten years with good be-
havior, instead OF a minimum Of twenty
years, as under the present sentence.
Mr. Johnston, Assistant District Attor-
ney. argued before the Appellate Division
that the sentence Of Levin was not illegal
nor subject to criticism. The higher court
unanimously upheld the sentence Of Levin
without writing an opinion, but his counsel
will carry the case to the Court Of APP
peals.
SUNDAYS NETWORK TRIBUNE
Mailed anywhere in the United States