Evening star., 1947-08-15
Where the Law Fails

The local courts have just taken action
in two more morals" cases. But the &C
ton is one which merely serves once again
to illustrate the deplorable failure of the
law to protect the public against degen-
crates.
This is not said in criticism of either
the prosecuting authorities or the judges,
for apparently they did about all that
could be done under the law. 1t is the
law which is at fault.
One case involved the conviction of
man for indecent exposure on streetcar.
He had previously been convicted of a
similar offense in New Jersey. Yet the
penalty imposed by the local court for his
second known offense was fine of $3.50
or 24o days in jail upon failure to pay the
fine. The second case brought into court
a man guilty of indecent exposure before
an 11-year-old girl in Fairlawn Park. He,
too, had a record, having been convicted
of similar offense in Pennsylvania. Yet
J he was sentenced to pay fine of $3.50 or
serve IL months in jail in lieu of paying
the fine on the morals charge. (There was
an additional lesser penalty for disorderly
conduct)
These sentences, although the latter was
the maximum permissible under existing
law, are deplorably inadequate from the
standpoint of the protection of society.
For it is from the ranks of these offenders
that so many maniacal killers emerge, like
the degenerate in Chicago who earlier this
month stole three-year-old boy from his
bed and strangled him because he had ga
terrific urge to squeeze something" He,
too, had record of what were regarded
as minor" sex offenseS-minor, that is, in
the sense that his earlier victims were not
killed.
Another case in Municipal Court yester-
day serves to point up the absurdity of a
morals" law which fixes the maximum
sentence of sex offender at $3.50 fine or
80 days in jail, but not both. (The longer
Jail sentences take effect only when the
offender cannot pay his fne) The other
case involved youth caught while trying
to steal pocketbook from a man who was
sleeping in park. He was just a sneak
thief, and presumably not vicious char
acter. Yet he was sentenced to serve 180
days in jail and to pay fine of 5000, with
an additional 180-day jail term in lieu of
the fine.
This is both senseless and dangerous.
Manifestly, there is something wrong with
system of law which permits potential
killer to 60 free if he has $3.50, or at most
provides for 90-day jail term, while a
relatively harmless sneak thief can be sent
to jail for 180 days.
Even a more substantial jail sentence
however, would be no real answer to the
problem of the sex offenders. For, as FBI
Chief J. Edgar Hoover has pointed out
these people are afflicted with twisted
minds. There is no way of telling what
they will do. In his judgment, sex Of
tenders should be treated, instead of
solely as criminals, as individuals needing
medical attention" And he added, mo
known sex offender should be permitted
to go free unless it is certain he is cured"
Yet they are being permitted to go
free all the time, for the existing law
treats them as being among the least of
offenders, although actually they are po-
tential killers. AS the lengthening list of
sex murders shows, there is imperative
need for change in the law. 1t will not
be changed, however, until public opinion
becomes aroused to the seriousness of this
matter and registers an effective demand
for corrective action.