The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1924-09-11

CAVERLY SAYS
LADS TOO YOUNG
Judge CaverIy in Decision
Makes Complete State
ment of Situation.
AN UNUSUAL CASE

IN view of the profound and I'M
usual interest that this case has
aroused, not only in this community,
but in the entire country and even
beyond it's boundaries, the court feels
e his daty TO state the reasons which
have led him to the determination he
has reached.
Il is no. ao uncommon thing that
plcas OF guilty arc entered in criminal
eases, but almost without exception
IN the pass, such plcas have been tho
resnit of virtual agreement between
the defendant and the states attor-
ney, whereby, in consideration of the
pies, the states attorney consents to
raconmend to the cour. a sentence
.deaeai appropriate by him. and, in
:hs absence cf special REASONS TO the
contrary. it Is tic practice Of tho court
70 follow such recommendations.
An Unusual Situation.
Ir the present ease the situation is
different orc. 4 plea Of guilty has
been entered ~ thc defense without a
previous understanding with tie prose-
cution a1d Without any knowledge
whateve1 or it's Fart. Moreover, the
Plea Of guilty did not in this particu-
Jar case az 1t usually 6osg, render the
task ~ the prosecution easier by sub
sSitrt:ag admission Of gails fox a
possible difficult ant uncertain chain
CT proof.
Here :he state was in possession,
not only of She essential substantial
ing facts, but also of voluntary con-
!essicus on the part of the defen-
dsnts. The plea Of guilty therefore,
does not make special case in favor
of the defendants.
Court Had Discretionary Powers.
Since both of the cases: That, name
ly of murder and that of kidnapping
for ransom, were Of character which
invested the court with discretion as
to the extent of the punishment, it
became his duty under the statute to
examine witnesses as to the aggrava-
ton and mitigation of the offense.
This duty has been fully met. By
consent Of counsel for the state and
for the defendants, the testimony in
the case of murder has been accepted
as equally applicable to the case OF
kidnapping for ransom. In addition, a
prima facie case was made out for
the kidnapping case as well.
The testimony introduced both by
the prosecution and the defense has
been as detailed and elaborate as
though the case had been tried before
a jury. 1t has been given the widest
publicity, and the public is so fully
familiar with all it's phases, that it
would serve no useful purpose to re-
state or analyze the evidence.
o,.I
BY pleading guilty the defendants
have admitted legal responsibility for
their acts, the testimony has satisfied
the court that the case is not one in
which it would have been possible to
set up successfully the defense of
insanity as insanity is defined and
understood by the established law of
this state for the purpose of the adj
ministration of criminal justice.
The court, however, feels impelled
to dwell briefly on the mass of data
produced as to the physical, mental
and moral condition of the two de-
PENDANTS. They have been shown in
essential respects to be abnormal; had
;hoy been normal they would not have
committed the crime. 1t is beyond the
province of the court, as it is beyond
she capacity of human science in its
uroscat state of development, to pre-
aicatc ultimate responsibility for hui
man acts.
Life History of Interest.
At he same time, the court is will
ins 20 recognize that the careful
,,alysis made of the life history of
the dcfcndants and of the present
inantai, ethical condition has been of
extreme interest and is valuable
contribution to criminology. And yet
:hc couye feels strongly shat similar
analysis made of other persons ac-
cuacc Of crime would probably reveal
siMilar or different abnormalities.
TIL, value of such tests seem to lie
III their applicability to crime and
criminals in general. Since they con-
cerh the broad questions Of human
responsibility and legal punishment,
and are in no wise peculiar to these
individual defendants. they may be
deserving of legislative, but not of
judicial consideration. For this rea-
son, the court is satisfied that his
judgment in the present case cannot
BE- affected thereby.
Crime of Singular Atrocity.
The testimony in this case reveals
crina of singular atrocity. 1t is, in
sense, inexplicablc; but it is not
tAercby rendered less inhuman or re-
puisive. 1t was deliberately planned
and prepared for during a considerable
period Of time. 1t was executed with
every feature of callousness and cruelty.
And here the court will say, not
for the purpose of extenuating guilt,
but merely with the object of dis
Polling a Misrepresentation that appears
to have found Judgement in the public
mind, that he is convinced by conclu-
sive evidence that there was no abuse
offered to the body of the victim, but it
did not need that element to make
the crime abhorrent to every instinct
of humanity, and the court is satisfied
that neither in the act itself, nor in
Its motive or lack of motive, nor in the
antecedents of the offenders can he
find any mitigating circumstances.
For both the crime of murder
and kidnapping for ransom, the law
prescrihes different punishments in
the alternative.
For the crime of murder. the
statute declares: