The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1924-09-10
Opinion of
CaUerIy
ON Case


pold-Jr. and Richard Loeb to life
follows:
In the view of the profound and
unusual interest that this case has
aroused, not only in this community
but in the entire country and even
beyond its boundaries, the court feels
it his duty TO state the reasons which
had led him to the decision he has
reached.
TT is not an uncommon thing
that pleas Of guilty are entered in
criminal cases, but almost without
exception in the past such pleas have
been the result of a virtual agree
ment between the defendant and the
States attorney whereby. in cOnsid-
Grafton of the plea. the States attor-
ney consents 10 recommend to the
court a sentence deemed appropriate
by him and. in the absence Of special
reasons to the Contrary. 1t is the
practice Of the court to follow such
recommendations. In the present
case the situation is different one.
"A plea Of guilty has been entered
by the defense without a previous
understanding with the prosecution
and without any knowledge what
ever on its part. Moreover. the
plea OF guilty did not in this par
ticular case, as. ii usually does, rem
der the task Of the prosecution easier
by substituting admission of guilty
for a possible difficult and uncertain
chain of proof. Here the State was
in possession, not only Of the essen
tial, substantiating facts, but also of
voluntary confessions on the part of
the defendants. The plea of guilty,
therefore, does not make a special
case in favor Of the defendants.
"Since both of the cases. that.
namely. of murder and that Of kid
naping for ransom, We're of a char
acter which invested the court with
discretion as to Ire extent OF the
punishment. It became his duty I'M
der the statute to examine witnesses
as to the aggravation and mitigation
Of the offense. This duty has been
fully met. BY consent Of counsel
for the state and for the defend
ants, the testimony in the murder
case has been accepted as equally
applicable to the case Of kidnapping
for ransom. In addition. prima
facie case was made out Of the kid
naping 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 be-
fore a jury. It has ben given the
widest publicity and the public Is
so fully familiar with all its phases
that it would serve no useful purpose
to re-state or analyze the evidence.
by pleading guilty, the defend
ants have admitted legal RESPONSE
bility 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 sue
cessfuly the defense Of insanity, as
insanity is defined ana understood by
the established law OF tbs State for
the purpose of administration Of
criminal justice.
PEELED to dwell briefly on the mass OF
data produced to the physical. men
tai and moral condition of the two
defendants.
"They have been found in essential
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 capacity OF human sci
ence in it's present state of develop
ment, to predicate ultimate RESPONSE
bility for human acts.
AT the same time the court IS
willing &c recognize that the care
full analysis made of the life his
tory of the defendants and of their
present mental, emotional and eth
ical condition had been of extreme
interest and is valuable contribu-
ton to criminology. And yet the
court feels strongly that similar
analysis made Of other persons &C
cused Of crime, probably would re-
veal similar or different abnormal
ties. The value of such tests seems
to lie in their applicability to crime
and criminals in general. Since they
concern the one broad question of
human responsibility and legal pun
ishment, and are in no wise peculiar
to these individual defendants, they
may be deserving OF legislative but
not of judicial consideration. For
this reason the court is satisfied
that his judgment in the present
case cannot be affected thereby.
1.-THE testimony in this case re-
veals a crime Of singular atrocity.
1t is. in a sense, inexplicable; but Is
not thereby rendered less inhuman
or repulsive.
ut was deliberately planned and
prepared for during a considerable
period of time. 1t was executed with
every feature of ca1lousness and
cruelty.
"And here the court will say, not
for the purpose of extenuating guilt,
but merely with the object Of dis
polling misapprehension that ap-
pears to have found Judgment in the
public mind, that he is convinced
by conclusive evidence that there
was no abuse to the body of the vic
tim. But it did not need that element
to make the crime abhorrent to ev-
cry instinct of humanity, and the
court is satisfied that neither in the
act itself, nor in it's motive or lack
IF motive, nor in the antecedents Of