The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1923-03-09
Hundred Cases Show Low
Average Penalties Imposed
Less THAN THIRD
SENT TO PRISON
Average Fines Total $270.23
Compared With Possible $1,000
EASY FOR SECOND OFFENDERS

ldN Nloldl1p0s DN the imposition Oi llg0t
penalties? Are the courts doing their
part 10 stop the widespread violation
cf the 18th Amendment The answer
to those questions is found in the study
OF 100 cases OF convictions in Illinois
courts. These cases were tabulated by
the american Issuc from press reports
sent in from all sections OF the state
by the Central Press Clippings Bure1u.
| The hundred cases were not selected
but each was listed in order as it came
in. This resulted in thoroughly repre-
sentative collection OF cases upon which
to base conclusions relative to penalties
for liquor law-breaking. The tabulation
of 100 eases shows that:
o. vioators were fined $3oooo or less.
OF these siNy-two received jail SELL
tences III addition to fines.
- were fined $4,000.
J. were fined $4,000.
; were fined less than $4,000.
90 received jail sentences.
S27o.e3 was the average line imposed
in the 100 cases.
3z4 days was the average jail sem
tcnec for the 100 cases.
According to the above the average
illinois bootlegger upon conviction pays
penalty Of less than S3oooo in lines
and less than 10 days i'll Jail THE
/ PENALTY THAT MAY BE M
! POSED UNDER THE ILLINOIS
PROHIBITION ACT is A FINE OF
81 ,eoooo AND SIX MONTHS IN
/ JAII. FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE.
/ fhc total fines imposed Upon the 100
violators convicted amounted to S27,-
o22.oo. Under the Illinois Prohibition
Act a total OF 100000 could have been
imposed. \ total of }.74o days was
actually imposed upon 100 violators. \
/ total Of GS,ooo days could 1;ave been inn
posed upon these LOO vioiators under
the Illinois Prohibition Act, for the first
offense. In view of the fact that most
/ OF the heavy penalties listed in the 100
representative cases tabulated were i'm
posed by the federal courts under the
Nolstead Act the average penalty i'm
posed under the state law is even lower
than the above figures Indicate
Second Offenders Get Of Easy
Under the Illinois Prohibition At a
second offense against the dry law is
felcony punishable by not less than
$4,000 fine and imprisonment in the
State Pententiary for not less than one
year. The 100 cases studied record no
case OF violators being sent to the peni-
tentiary for a second offense. Case No.
35, Joseph Woodshank OF Peru, is re-
ported by the Mendoza, Illinois, Re-
porter as follows:
The largest fine was assessed Joseph
Woodshank, Of Peru, VINO was raided
Saturday right. rs it was his second
offense within the last month he was
] fined $50 and costs, amounting to $40.
The fine was not paid Monday, and
! Woodshank is being held in Jail until
the fine is paid. 1t is probable he will
satisfy the fine this week. He was ar
rested about a month ago when liquor
was found in his soft drink parlor,
pleaded guilty to the charge OF selling
Intoxicating liquor, and was fined SIoo
and costs which he paid. Monday he
entered plea OF guilty to a charge
of having liquor in his possession, as
one bottle OF moonshine was found in
his place on Saturday night.
No explanation is given as 10 why the
offender was not penalized by Judge
Reck as provided in the Illinois Pro-
hibitiou Act III the case of second Of
tenders.
The Rockford Star reporting the case
of Mrs. Rose Pcrns, Case No. %, states
that she was an old offender. The fact
that she was tried by federal judge
may explain why she escaped the PEN
atty of the state law
A similar case is that of Joseph Ben
ton, Case No. 43, who was fined $1,000
by Federal Judge Adam Cliffe. The
Sterling Gazette reporting this ease
states that Joseph Benton was arrested
last summer in Dixon and paid fine
of $4,000 for having alcohol in his
nossession The Gazette further re-
ports, The reason for light fine was
not disclosed
Their Second Offense
Theo. johnson and Hughie Nelson,
Cases No. 5000. were given six months