Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-02-09
Crime and Punishment

~HIbBtO 0bBO . OIUSbHbtGII6
In notable concurring opinion in a
State murder case the late Supreme
Court Justice Jackson discussed the al
ways difficult problem of safeguarding
the rights of criminal defendant with
out, at the same time, destroying the
right of society to protect itself against
the criminal
Justice Jackson said that the pro-
tectionS written into the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights represent the
maximum restrictions upon the power of
organized society over the individual
that are compatible with the mainte-
nance of organized society ITSELF" He
did not want to whittle down these re-
strictions. Nor did he want to see them
needlessly enlarged by judicial interpre-
tation. This was his reasoning: ut
cannot be denied that, even If construed
as these provisions additionally have
been, they contain an aggregate of re-
Str1ctionS which seriously limit the power
OF society to solve such crimes (unwit-
messed murder) as confront us in these
cases. Those restrictions we should not
for that reason cast aside, but that is
good reason for indulging in no unneces-
Sary expansion of them"
1t seems to us that this last obServa-
ton is especially relevant to the Supreme
Courts decision in the Mallory case and
the problem which that decision poses
for the police and for society. The sit
uationS, OF course, are not identical. In
the case in which Justice Jackson spoke
the court was dealing with conStitu-
tional question arising out of a State
crime. The Mallory case involved an in
depreciation Of Congressional intent and
a Federal rule of criminal procedure. In
principle, however, there is no significant
difference.
Whatever else the Mallory decision
may Tor may not) do, it makes it more
difficult for the police to solve certain
types of crimes and secure the evidence
needed to convict the criminal.
The case of Clarence E. Watson, IT.,
serves as good illustration. Watson,
fortunately for the people of Washing
ton, is serving long prison sentence
for the rape of an airline hostess. He
made the mistake in that crime of leav-
ing fingerprint in his victims apart
ment. But Watson also murdered a
Government worker, Miss Alyce Tag
CART. And he left no discriminating
evidence at the scene.
Under police questioning, and with
out any third-degree tactics, he con-
fessed, both orally and in writing, to
the murder. Evidence developed subse-
quent to the confessions fully estab-
liShed his guilt, and Watson was con-
victed of flrSt-degree murder. The
Court of Appeals reversed the conviction
on the ground that the written con-
not arraigned with the promptness re-
quired by Federal Rule 5 (a).
Watson was tried again, and again
was convicted by the jury-on the basis
of the oral confession and the corrobo-
rating evidence. Meanwhile, however,
the decision in the Mallory case had
come down. The Court of Appeals said
that, under this ruling, it had no choice.
All of the confessions and other evil
dence must be thrown out and the con-
viction set aside. With no evidence left,
the prosecutor had to dismiss the indict-
ment. And so Watson, unqueStionably
guilty of an unusually brutal murder,
escapes any punishment for that crime.
When he finishes his sentence in the
rape case, in which he was careless
enough to leave fingerprint behind,
he will be free man.
Is it really necessary, in order to
protect the essential rights of an ac-
cused man, to produce a result Of this
kind? We do not believe SO, and we
hope not. For the Watson case does
not stand in isolation. There are many
instances in which crimes, often brutal
crimes, are committed without eye
witnesses and without discriminating
physical evidence being left behind. If
crimes Of this nature are to be solved,
and the criminals brought to justice,
there must be, 1t seems to us, some
broader opportunity for police investi-
cation and interrogation than appears
to be permissible under the Mallory
ruling.
Since the Mallory decision deals
with rule Of evidence, as distinguished
from constitutional question, Congress
has right to consider and enact leg
islation to modify the impact Of the
ruling. We hope that the legislators
will go thoroughly and carefully into the
matter. Furthermore, while 1t is not
our function to propose legislation, there
are at least two possibilities which we