Evening star., 1952-05-25
Courts May Gel
Back Rights.
Of Suspension
Hearings on Bill
Slated Tomorrow
By District Group
By Fred de Luna

This means they will be able
at their discretion. to let first.
offenders in minor charges 60 free
without serving time or paying 9
fine, on the promise they won't
slip again.
Legislation to grant such power
has been introduced in Congress
by Chairman Nicely of the Senate
District Committee. Public hear
ings on the bill. which applies also
to Juvenile Court, will be held at
2:30 pm. tomorrow.
With virtually unanimous back
ing by judges. lawyers and city
officials. the bill is expected to be
passed during the present session
Of Congress.
1t may come as. q surprise to
many that the city court jurists
ever had such option taken away
The practice of releasing obviously
good citizens who made q. single
mistake is widespread throughout
the United States.
Ruled Out 2 Years Ago.
It was in Washington, too, un-
til two years ago. A Judge often
was confronted with man of up
right character, a responsible
citizen and good family provider
who was hauled into court on, say
Q drunk charge.
Now that. according to one
jurist. conceivably could -happer
to anyone.
Formerly, Municipal Couri
judges coped with this type o1
offender by giving him an appro.
pirate fine or prison sentence
then suspending it. The either
would go free, chastened by his
experience and with a black mark
on his record, but no poorer anc
with no time lost from his job.
Since IN many cases the offender
Is in a lQW-income bracket, a fine
would in effect penalize his
family. Time spent in Jail woul6
inf1ict the same financial loss
Because a repeated offense would
draw a double penalty, the sus-
pension would act as a deterrent
But on February 16, 1850, the
Municipal Court of Appeals. in the
case of Ziegler versus the Govern
ment. ruled the practice of sus-
pending sentences had not statu-
tory basis. and hence outlawed it
Since then. Municipal judges
have had three courses of action
open: They could fine. jail or put
q man on probation. Probation
would seem to take care Of the
first-offender problem. but there
are two drawbacks.
In the first place. the Proba-
ton Officer would become too
overloaded to operate efflciently
Secondly. judges point out that
the basic problem of probation is
reform. and this type of offender
certainly doesn't need that.
Smaller Fines and Terms.
Hampered in their dealing with
minor charges since the Zieglef
decision, judges in general have
resorted to imposing smaller fines
or shorter sentences. A drunk
disorderly or traffic offense may
bring a fine Of 81 or two days, fol
instance. Could the sentence be
suspended, it would in many in
stances be larger.
Similar situations arise in the
Juvenile Court. A mother of sew.
eral children, for example, may
be charged with a violation Of the
compulsory education law. A fine
or Imprisonment merely creates
additional problems for a family
already economically over-bur-
dened.
And there is little necessity TO,
placing the offender on probation
since the school attendance officer
will perform the function Of super
vision.
On other hardship cases, ac-
cording to a letter written to Sen
ator Nicely by Commissioner F
Joseph Donohue. the Juvenile
Court "has set aside the defend
ants plea of guilty. entered {
plea of not guilty, and found the
defendant not guilty. all for the
reason that the imposition of thu
Mandatory sentence would hav,
created undue hardship"
The Neely bill was introduced
at the behest Of the Commission
ers. The Board of Judges q
Municipal Court has unanimousl,
adopted resolution asking sucl
legislation, and the District Ba
Association also supports the pro
posal.
Commissioner Dorfohue, Assist
ant Corporation Counsel Rober
F. Kneipp. a spokesman for tn
bar association. and several Judge
are scheduled to testify at tomor
rows hearings. The bill will b
aired before q judiciary subcom
mittee headed by Senator John
ston. Democrat. Of South Caro-
lima.
KrOnheim Backs Bill.
One of the most jealous pro
ponents Of the bill is Municips
Court Judge Milton s. Kronhein
jr. For his reasons, Judge Kron
helm harks back to the basic con
cepts Of punishment. These al
three. he says:
To reform and deter the indi
vidual and to set an example fc
others.
"The concept Of punishment Q
such has lost favor" the jurist be
lieves, "and the theory of ven
geance has been abandoned.
I'm practice" he declared. "w
find many persons who work ever