The Washington times., 1924-09-10
Continued from First Page.)


kidnapping for ransom, were of a
character which invested the
court with discretion as to the
extent of the punishment, it be-
came his duty under the statute
to examine witnesses as to the
Aggrevation 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 murder case
has been accepted as equally mp
plicable 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 de-
Tense 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 ia
miliar with all its phases, that
1t would serve no useful purpose
to restate or analyZe the cyl
dence.
by pleading guilty, the de.
PENDANTS have admitted legal re-
sponsibility for their acts; the
testimony has satisfied the court
that the case Is not one in
which it would have been posi-
bic 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 administra-
ton of criminal justice.
1.-THE court, however, feels i'm
PEELED to dwell briefly on the
mass of data produced as TO the
physical, mental and moral con.
dition OF the two defendants.
They have been shown in es-
sential respects to be abnormal;
had they been normal they would
not have committed the crime.
1t is beyond the province of this
court, as 1t is beyond the capac-
ity of human science in its pres
ent state of development, to ere
dicate ultimate responsibility for
human acts.
Recognizes Analysis.
"At the same time the court
is willing to recognize that the
careful analysis made of the lifo-
history OF the defendants and of
their present mental, emotional
and ethical condition has been
of extreme interest and is
valuable contribution to GRIMM.
ology. And yet the court feels
strongly that similar analysis
made OF other persons accused
OF crime, would probably reveal
similar or different abnormalities,
THE value of such tests eeems
to lie in their applicability to
crime and criminals In general.
Since they concern the broad
questions of human responsible ,
and legal punishment, and are in
no wise peculiar to those indi-
vidual defendants, they may De
deserving of legislative but not
judicial consideration, For this
reason the court is satisfied that
mis- judgment In the present case
cannot be affected thereby.
The testimony in this case
reveals a crime of singular atroc-
ity. 1t is in a sense an inex.
plicable; but it Is not thereby
rendered less inhuman or r:pul.
sive. 1t was deliberately planned
and prepared for during a con-
siderable period Of time. It was
executed with every feature Of
callousness and cruelty.
No Mitigating Circumstances.
"And here the court will say.
not for the purpose of extern
tuating guilt, but merely with
the object Of dispelling = mis-
apprehension that appears to Ave
found Judgment in the public
mind, that he Is convinced by
conclusive 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 offend