Evening star., 1924-09-11
Why the People Fear.


nois an application for parole can be
made by person sentenced to i'm
prisonment for life only when 90
years have elapsed. BY the same law,
parole cannot he given to a person
sentenced for 90 years until after 81 y
years. At least, that is the manner
IN which the law has been stated by
the chief counsel for the defense in the
Leopold-Loeb case. just decided in
Chicago by Judge Caverly's imposition
of sentence.
If the terms of Tat statute are cor
rectly stated, thr~e two murderers
who have just est:Aped the moose can
not hope to gal. paroles until they
are, respectively. rs and 7s years of
age, assuming that the sentences are
cumulative, 80 years added to life. If
the parole limit of 81 years is the
ultimate that can be required, on the
principle that virtually one crime,
though Of a dual nature, was COM
mltted, the prisoners may not be re-
spectively, So and ST years Of age. If
the c0-year limit governs, they may
be paroled when they are SO and 80
years old.
Judge Carerly in his pronounce
ment of sentence strongly urged that
no paroles should ever be granted.
He cannot, of course. control the ac-
uon of the parole board. The only
way in which he could assure against
the future liberty of these young men
was to sentence them to be hanged
His Recommendation is, however, part
OF the sentence and will always be
before any future parole board.
But no present provision of the law
of the State limits the power of the
governor to grant pardons. No rec
ommendation by the court can safe
terly worthless persons by executive
action. In that fact lies the reason
for. the intense feeling of disappoint-
ment and of indignation caused by the
cent release of Harry Thaw. though
the cases are in many respects diff
ferent, gives force to the fear that
these youthful criminals may, even
under the strict parole laws of Illinois.
soon gain their liberty.
In Massachusetts a little more than
half century ago a youth named
Jesse Pomeroy was convicted of an
atrocious murder and sentenced, on
account of his years. to Imprisonment
for life. He was undoubtedly of alb
normal mind. The State took him in
custody and has kept him ever since
case was somewhat like the Leopold.
Loeb case, save that he was not of
a wealthy family. Whether this man.
ner of his punishment was warranted
by humane considerations is still
question. Massachusetts has suffered
many atrocious crimes since. The ter
rible example of Jesse Pomeroy suf-
fering Imprisonment for life has not
rageous offenses. But would his ex-
ecution have deferred? Therein lies
the whole question of punishments.
In the Pomeroy case Massachusetts
has at least kept faith in holding the
prisoner. Will Illinois keep faith by
similarly holding these dangerous
youths until they become old men, if
their lives are prolonged? Or will
they be relea ased after a term Of years,
perhaps to prey again upon helpless
victims for the sake of thrills?
Upon that question hangs the whole
case of the public against the court
in this display of mercy.
What happens to Leopold and Loeb
henceforth, however, is not so impor-
tant as what may result from their
escape from the gallows affecting the
corrupted the morals of countless
thousands of young men by the force
of suggestion through their pernicious
conduct and their hideous example.
IHey nave Sol Oil, III tHe phrase
of first emotion reaction upon the SEN
tence. Youth is not analytical. It
jumps to distinct conclusions. 1t
sees only results. In this case it is
apt to see capital crime committed
and the usual sentence for such crime
modified because of the comparatively
tender years of the criminals. The
danger is great that this case may
stimulate crime in it's most evil form.