Evening star., 1920-02-04
AMEND STOLEN GOODS LAW.
Writer Suggests Way to Lesser
Chances of Theft.

To the Editor Of The Star:
At present the many burglaries and
larcenies anu the murder of police
officers in connection therewitn are
furnishing food for conversation and
criticism. One often hears on the
streets and other public places such
questions as the following asked:
What causes the lawbreaking ele-
ment to ply its trade so consistently
and seemingly in defiance of the met
ropolitan police department? What is
the matter with the police depart
ment? There is nothing the matter
with the police. The writer by close
personal observation and information
obtained from others who know be-
.ieyes the metropolitan police de-
partment of the District Of Columbia
is far above the average: that ii is
well organized, is receiving. and has
been for several years, the best tech :
nical and practical instruction that
can be given: that men are being
placed where they can best serve and
emergencies are being handled with
proper pep" and precision.
But there is something wrong, and
that something is the wording of the
law relative to receiving stolen prop
erty. Leave the wording of the law
relative to receiving stolen property
as it Is today and the peace and
quiet of homes will continue to be
disturbed and police officers mur-
dered Change it and such crimes
will be reduced to minimum. 1t is
true that thieves will st6al and rob
in spite of laws and the police, but
this fact should not check the enact
ment of laws that make the disposi-
ton of stolen property most difficult.
The thief is encourage in his thefts
by the knowledge that he ca n dispose
of the proceeds of his crime by Civ
ing anything that sounds like a name
Section S29. code District of CO.
lumbia-"Receiving Stolen Goods
reads: ANY person who shall re-
ceive or buy anything of value which
ahan have been stolen or so obtained
by robbery. knowing the same 10 be
stolen or SO obtained by robbery
with intent to defraud the owner
thereof. if the thing or things re-
ceived or bought shalt be of the
value of $35 or upward, shall suffer
Imprisonment for not less than one
year nor more than ten years; or II
the value of the thing or things SC
received or bought be less than s35
shall suffer imprisonment for not
more than two years"
Why We're the words, "Knowir2 2
the same TO he stolen or so obtained
by robbery, with intent to defraud
the owner thereof" inserted? DO they
protect the owner? DO they assis,
the police in prosecuting possessors
! OF StOIen properly II IS only com
mon sense to say that il is next &c
impossible to prove the state of ones
mind in reference to certain kinds OF
property being stolen or not. There
fore since the burden of proof rests
with the prosecution it is almost i'm
possible TO get conviction. Why
not change the law?
Strike cut the words, Knowing
| The same 10 be stolen or so obtained
by robbery, with intent to defraut
the owner" and insert in lieu there
of: Not being able to furnish in
formation leading to the arrest anC
| conviction Of the thief or robber"
II such an amendment should b,
made there is no doubt that burglaries
| robberics and the numbering of police
1 officers would be reduced to a minimum
This is being written with the hope
/ that it may come to the attention o.
| members of Congress and the Law
| may be changed. and thereby remOv,
! Il temptation from the weak and Grim
| inalIy inclined and lessen the chance:
| that police officers take of losing
! their lives in performance of duty.
| c. l.. CASTLE.