The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-08-20
STATE DEMANDS
 DEATH PENALTY
Continued From Page One

(Continued From Page 0ne.) who is to deliver the nal argument of the hearing, said he would need only two or three hours for his effort.
 The attorneys also agreed that hear ing on the indictment charging the de- fendants with Kidnapping, would take place as soon as Mir. Grove finished. Less than an hour probably will be needed for this formality. By that time Judge Caverly probably will be ready to announce the date for his decision. Predictions were made tonight that it would be the middl1 of next week when this stage is reached.
 Mir. Marshall announced that he would base his argument upon three subjects, the responsibility of the de- fendants, the impossibility of mitiga- tion, and the turpitude of the crime it. self. He had progressed only part way into the second subject when adjourn ment time came.
 Responsibility, he maintained. was not a matter of degree, but in the sight of the law, fixed standard.
 Matter Of Responsibility
 "A man is either wholly responsible in legal senseS or he is not responsible at all," he said. "If these defendants knew that they were doing wrong, if they realized that what they were doing would subject them to justice, then they are to be punished according to the law"
 The assasitant states attorney told Judge Caverly that the court was bound to follow the law and consider only his fhWaa Vesr1nip0 dvrhS SV1 ffUtr10 ishment for Ian atrocious murder"
 ''The lesser punishments of fourteen years in the penitentiary, or imprison- ment for life are for lesser crimes" he argued. ''They do not fit this case.
 'sThe defense is here in an untenable position. They ask you to consider a degree of responsibility as mitigation of punishment but the law recognizes no such degree of mentality and says that if a man can distinguish between right and wrong, he is sane. Further more insanity can be offered only as a defense, and not in mitigation of de- grees of guilt.
 'When. there is no responsibility, when the defendant cannot distinguish between right and wrong, there can be no punishment.
 But in this case the de1endants have admitted their responsibility by their pleas of guilty"
 Mir. Marshall said that since respon- sibility had been thus admitted by the defendants, all testimony as to childish phantasies and delusions offered by the defense should be disregarded. He de- clared the other side had confused re- sponsibility with mitigation and that nothing had been offered in enentua- tion of the facts.
 'The turpitude of the crime remains" he said.
 He maintained that no precedent could be found in IlliI.1is for linking re- spOnsibility with moral turpitude and defined the latter terms as covering vile. nessS depravity, absence of decency and honesty "and everything that is against good morals"
 Bear this in mind," he admonished the court, "that a helpless little boy was lured into an automobile by these men and done to death with a chisel, purchased and prepared for that purose. And for what? Their own demand was for $10s0O0, in old bills, to be thrown from a train at a designated place. There is no mitigation offered for these facts."
 The attorney reinforced his point with frequent citations from decisions by the supreme court of Illinois, Oregon, Texas, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He dwelt especially upon the Illinois cases, explaining to Judge Caverly that he mentioned the others to show that this state was not unique in holding that ability to distinguish between right and wrong was the sole legal standard of in sanity.
 Mir. Marshall stood directly in front of the judge while making his plea. He referred to bulky brief case, crammed with typed excerpts from decisions. As he mentioned the Frangs crime he wagged forefinger before the judge, rose on his toes and brought his weight down hard upon his heels, accompany ing this with q sweeping arm gesture
 Judge Caverly heard the gist of the argument leaning back in his big, uphol- stered swivel chair. Occasionally he made a note of a citation until Mir. Marshall said he would give the judge and defense attorneys a full list fo these. By the time adjournment was reached, however, the judge had risen to his feet, resting crOss-armed on the back of the chair, and gazing intensely at the orator.