Evening star., 1947-07-19
Punishment for Rape
To the Editor OF The Star:
(See editorial: Mr. Eord,S I.etterl

Punishment for Rape
To the Editor OF The Star:
(See editorial: Mr.. Ford's Letter)
have read with interest your editorials
of June % and Is, 1947, interpreting the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals
fer the District of Columbia in the case of
Green VS.. the United States. This is the
first letter to the editor" have ever written.
There are two aspects to your editorials.
One dealt with your Interpretation of the law
of the Green case as applied to the case of
United States VS.. Musolino, ct al, and the
other dealt with your personal opinion of
the punishment imposed by Mr.. Justice
Holtzoff.
The issue in the Green case was simply
"can defendant compel the court to accept
plea of guilty in a rape case" The court
held that the defendant did not have such
a right AS that was not the issue in the
Musolno case the Green case has no applica-
ton to 1t. Other language appearing in the
Green case is obiter dictum.
You have referred to the Lindsay case as
authority for your position on the Green case.
The only question presented in the Lindsay
case was the constitutionality of the statute
involved. The Court of Appeals in its opinion
in the Lindsay case states Green VS.. United
States, 1913, 40 App. D. C. 426, relied upon
by the Government does not as read it, rule
on the question" In view of this statement
of the Court of Appeals how can you use the
Lindsay case to support the Green case? Other
references in the Lindsay case to the Green
case are obiter dictum.
If you are truly interested in presenting a
correct Interpretation of the District of Co.
lumbia rape statute as applied in the case
- sl@l C4ak@ lsv.r /
1 suggest that you read the Federal Kidnapping
Act, Sec. 408a, Title 1S, United States Code,
which provides for punishment similar to that
provided in the rape statute and the numerous
cases cited in the annexation of that statute
in the United States Code Annotated. Among
the cases cited is the case of Seadlund VS..
United States, 81 F. (2d 742 (C.C.A. D. In
that case the court said "as to whether it
should be so submitted death penalty) is
matter entirely in the discretion of the trial
court. He the judge may sentence to i'm
prisonment in his discretion or he may, in his
discretion, submit to the jury for its recon-
mendation on the question of the death
penalty" Even to laynan this should be very
understandable. Further, trial judge has
the inherent power to set aside any verdict
by jury where the evidence does not warrant
the verdict.
Your editorials further reflect your personal
opinion as to the inadequacy of the sentence
in the Musolino case and like cases. While
your right to possess and express such an
opinion should be universally recognized, never
thelesS, there is no presumption as to its
value. 1t is also universally recognized that
judges OF our courts in the District of CO.
lumbia have spent years in study, preparation
and practice for the positions they occupy,
they are appointed by the President of the
United States and confirmed by the Senate
of the United States after complete investiga-
tions and take solemn oath to administer
the laws. You, the people in the District of
Columbia and know that the District Court
justices of the District of Columbia enjoy a
universal reputation for fairness in imposing
equal justice upon all under the law Your
attention is also directed to the fact that the
court always receives preSentence report Of
the probation officer who fully investigates
the ramiflcations of each individual case. As
public policy has dictated that this probation
report is not available to the general public
l know you knew nothing of the facts con-
tanned in such reports when you wrote your
editorials.
Confident that your strong convictions for
accuracy and justice will prompt you to give
the contents of this letter the same prominence
as your editorials, am,
CHARLES E. FORD.
Editors note-The Musolino case, to which
Mr.. Ford refers, involved the rape of 13-
year-old child by three men, one Of whom
attacked her twice All had previous records.
One was sentenced to from five to fifteen
years, another to from three to ten years, while
the third was given one to five years. Each OF
them could have been sentenced to serve ten
thirty years.
'Anti-Labor Move or Freedom?
TO the Editor Of The Star:
The Senate did it on July 16! In the Ap-
propriations Bill for military establishments,
it sustained the omission of language prohibit
ing time studies of employe work or incentive
pay bonuses.
According to some, its act was vicious,
anti-labor move" 1t was reversal OF policy
of IS years standing. According to others, 1t
freed the Army and the Navy from handicap.
it enabled them to use the methods of efficiency
analysis to eliminate inefficient industrial oper-
ations in military establishments.
Except for Senators Magnuscn and Morse on
one side and Senators Ball and Gurney on the
other the position of individual Senators Is not
matter of official record. There was voice
vote and a division, but no record vote showing
yeas and nays.
Garden or Desert Our Choice
To the Editor of The Star: