Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-09-11
INDETERMNATE
SENTENCE TALK
HEARDBY JUDGE

Circuit Judge C. w. Ashford heard
arguments from amici curiae this
morning on the constitutionality OF
the indeterminate sentence statute
and stated that on Monday, Septem-
Der 81, he will give his decision on the
question. H.
IL is said by attorneys who have
made some study of the subject that
il Judge Ashford reaches the conclu-
sion that the law is in violation of
any part of the constitution, either
OF the territory or the United States,
he may refuse to sentence convicted
persons in accordance with its provi.
sions and revert to the old law in
operation before the present one took
effect The indeterminate sentence
statute was passed by the legislature
of 1909. +
This would mean, it is stated, that
where a convicted person would be
subject to sentence of 5 to 10 years
under the indeterminate sentence act
Judge Ashford would proceed to pro.
nounce definite sentence, of years,
or years, or the term he might deem
appropriate in that particular case.
The position he will take is not GER
tain, of course, but it is certain that
he has serious doubt as to its consti-
tutionality, otherwise he would not
have called for the discussion which
took place today. He admits there is
much to be said in the present stat
ute's favor, however, one of the most
forceful arguments perhaps being
that similar laws have been adopted
in number of states on the main.
land and have been declared eonsti.
tutional by the supreme courts in
some of those commonwealth.
Those who argued the question be.
fore Judge Ashford today were d. L.
Wilmington, Joseph Lightfoot, George
A. Davis and Attorney general Stain.
back Withington's discussion was
brief and the position he took was
not made very clear. Davis declared
the law violated the fourteenth
amendment to the United States con.
stitution. Attorney general Stainback
took the position that 1T is constitu-
tional and his argument was endors-
ed to a large extent by Lightfoot,
the latter declaring that while he con:
sidered it very unjust in its practical
application he could find no clause
or provision of the constitution with
which it seemed to conflict
The court inclined to the theory
that the present statute leaves no
judicial discretion to the courts in
the matter of sentencing prisoner.
The judges cannot fix the maximum
time a prisoner must serve as the law
provides that in every instance. The
Judge can fix the minimum time, but
the actual discretion for this event
ually rests with three non-judicial
officers-the prison warden, attorney
general and the governor, who are
to grant paroles. Judicial reasons,
Judge Ashford averred, need not en-
ter into the determination of a mans
actual sentence then. In its opera
ton Attorney Lightfoot made this
point clearer by the assertion that II
the warden found prisoner to be a
valuable employe as cook or ehauf-
feur or other mental, he could refuse
his service of the entire sentence,
even though the unfortunate may
have been a model prisoner and the
ends of justice have been served
months or years before Again, said
Lightfoot, personal sentiment might
enter strongly into the affair, and the
governor, because he possessed dis
like for prisoners legal counsel or
representative who sought pardon,
might steadfastly refuse to grant the