Evening star., 1947-06-22
'Rouminq Adventures


quate punishment is deterrent to crime,
the leniency shown by the District Court
in handling the case of three men who
raped a 13-year-old schoolgirl is little
short of shocking.
The men, whose ages range from % to
26 years, could have been sentenced to
serve from ten to thirty years in Jail. All
of them have long police records, and the
judge, commenting on their latest crime,
said that "the offense was committed in
an almost bestial manner" Nevertheless,
the ringleader, who has a previous con-
viction for sex offense against a 15-year-
old girl and numerous other arrests on his
record, was sentenced to serve from five to
fifteen years-half of the maximum sem
tence. The second offender, who has been
arrested six times in five years, got off
with three to ten years. The third youth,
with record of nine arrests in thirteen
years, was sentenced to from one to five
years.
There is room for debate as to the man
ner in which these offenders escaped ex-
posure to a possible death sentence, which,
under District law, can be imposed only
when recommended by jury. The district
attorney, exercising his discretion (as to
whether to put the case to a jury or to
accept plea of guilty. concluded that the
facts of the case did not warrant him in
putting the matter before jury and seek
ing the death penalty. But there is doubt,
in case of rape, that he has the right to
exercise his discretion.
Some years ago the Court of Appeals
dealt with this issue in the Green case.
The facts there were different, since it was
the defendant in that case who was claim
ing right to plead guilty to an indictment
charging rape. Nevertheless, the appellate
court, after discussing the intent of Con-
gress in writing the law, said: "The (triaD
court is therefore 1Dithout po1Uer to accept
plea OF guilty Gtalics supplied) upon an
indictment charging rape in this District"
The district attorney felt that this Ian
guage would not apply to case in which
the prosecutor wanted to accept plea of
guilty. And the trial judge, Alexander
Holtzoff, evidently shared this belief, for
he said that while the Green case denies a
defendant right to plead guilty, the court
nevertheless has right, in it's discretion,
to accept plea of guilty. If any clear
authority for this view exists, it certainly
is not to be found in the language of the
Green case. For what the higher court
said was not that defendant lacks right
to plead guilty, but that the lower court
has no power to accept plea of guilty
Be that as it may however, the fact
remains that the three men were not put
before jury, but were permitted to plead
guilty. When the time came to impose
sentence, the defense attorneys pleaded
for leniency. The district attorneys rep
resentative kept silent, not urging the
maximum or even heavy sentence And
the men got off with the penalties previ-
ously described
There is, of course, dispute as to some
of the facts. But others are undisputed
The girl, little more than a child, was
waiting for bus one night last March to
go home. The men. strangers to the girl,
drove up and, on the promise that they
would take her home, induced her to get
in the car. She asked to be driven to
bowling alley to look for two girl friends.
When she did not find them she re-entered
the car because, according to her, the men
said they had seen her friends walk up the
street and would take her to them. In
stead, they drove to the rear of a garage
where the crime was committed. One of
the men admitted that the girl resisted
while the medical statement shows that it
was clearly case of rape and that the
girl was injured. Whether she screamed
Tor help is uncertain, but it was estab-
nShed that one of the men hit her in the
face while trying to hold his hand over
her mouth When finally released. the
girl ran crying and almost hysterical, to
two Workmen and got them to call the
police.
Judge Holtzoff said that a review of the
evidence led him to the conclusion that
III could not be proved beyond a reason
able doubt the young woman IA young
woman l3 years oldD resisted to her ut
most Hence, he proceeded on the theory
that the case was one of "carnal knowl-
edge'-a legal expression meaning that
the girl was below the age of consent.
Often, when this charge is employed. the
girl does consent, although it makes no
difference under the law
But in this case the victim certainly did
not consent. And if she did not resist to
her utmost" whatever that means, what
Is to be expected of 13-year-old child
who is being attacked by three men, one
of whom has hit her in the face? The
judge conceded that "the offense lis a very
aggravated one" He acknowledged that 1T
was committed "in an almost bestial man
ner." And then he proceeded to impose
relatively light sentences, although he
said that he regarded them as "substan-
tial' sentences because young girls have
a right to be safe from roaming adven-
turers of the kind that these defendants
proved to be"
So that is it-"roaming adventures"
who all too soon will be free to roam again,
This characterization of three vicious