The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-10-17

Hartford, Oct II. Separate
forms Of trial for the wilful law
breakers and the inadvertent Of
tenders against motor vehicle stat
utes is suggested, as q means Of
improving disciplinary practice, in
a bulletin, prepared by Robbins B.
Stocked, commissioner Of motor
vehicles, and issued under today's
date. The title is: discriminating
Discipline For Drivers"
There should be o distinct divi-
sion between automobile offenders
who are criminals and those who
are not" Mr. Stocked says.
'The line Of demarcation must
be set up 80 definitely that every
body can understand 1t. To take
care of the two classes Of Offend
ers; one, a court system which can
infict severe punishment on GRIM
inals; the other. the licensing au-
thority which shall determine the
question. of fitness In the light OF
experience" he adds.
Commissioner Stocked advocates
that for the wilful offender there
should be punishment of such
severity that recurrence COT the Of
fense) Is not likely. but when there
is doubt of tho facts, or when ex-
tenuating circumstances exist,
mercy and understanding shoufd
temper judgment"
He makes 1t plain that he would
not have the regular court system,
as now operating. disturbed but ex-
presses 1t as his belief that the
courts, relieved as they would be
under this program Of the large
number of petty cases, would have
time to give the cases of criminal
aspect more thorough considera-
ton. Mr. Stocked says. further.
that he does not propose setting up
state courts and that he does not
contemplate "any greater discre-
ton Of any sort should be vested
in a state official"
The commissioner suggests that
critical comment Of the general
accomplishment secured by disci-
pine OF motor vehicle offenders
has been two-fold, a thought that
penalties must be stiffened and
discipline take the form of punish
ment aid again, that there have
been unwarranted arrests, unfair
ness and holdups for fees.
"All such expression OF public
opinion" Mr. Stocked goes on to
say, "scems to arise from what now
appears to be the failure In the
past to draw q sharp line between
the automobile criminal and the
inadyertent offender. For one, the
punishment Is none too severe, but
for the other. its infitction may
constitute rank injustice.
Crime, in all definition. has al
ways, since earliest law, included
and been measured by intent. To
commit a crime. intent must be
present. But often In human ex-
perience with automobile Offend
ers, circumstances arise under
which, even IL actual intent be not
present, there Is such a lack OF a
sense of duty, such care1essness re-
speeding the rights Of others. and
no much evidence of negligence,
that 1t has been. found requisite to
consider intent to be presumed
even to the extent where statutory
laws have become enacted to de-
fine when 1t Is present and when
not. Consequently, looking at an
automobile operator involved IN
mischance to determine whether
criminal intent Is present or not,
the common laws as made over by
the amendments required by civil
ization and set forth by statue, Is
the guide.
ain the form of general ex-
preston for popular use this may
lie stated to mean that criminal IN
tent always exists In an automopiie