THE LASH.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 149, 25 June 1901, Page 2

THE LASH.

(To tho Editor.)

S j r After reading in your paper of the 21st, "A. C. Smyth's" letter, and another signed "G." on this subject, I would like, "without entering into a controversy," to say a few words. No doubt both letters were written by pood, kind, Christian men who without much thought take up their pens, and for the felicity of humanity at large advocate the torture of a few individuals by the indiscriminate use of the lash. In all cases where children are concerned, and childhood and innocence taken advantage of, then, I Ray, use that most striking persuader, "the lash." The judge and jury should make strict inquiries as to reputation of women who make such accusations, and if there is the least doubt concerning them, allow the culprit, "supposed culprit," I should say, the benefit of the doubt, or at least spare him the lash, and in its place try and instil into his memory the evils which accrue from keeping bad company. In conclusion, I would repeat a fact that is sometimes lost Right of; a man's chivalrous nature often 'tends (where a woman is concerned) to make him side entirely withl the fair sex, forg-etting- that there are some bad women still in the' world. Jurymen should leave sentiment out of the question when summing np their evidence. I am, etc., GAY, Woodhill.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The actions of J's.P. while on the Bench have often been criticised in the papers, b\it I think the late conviction and sentence of Aubrey (I think that was his name) by Judge Conolly is open to criticism as well. Two men are tried and found guilty, one for attempted rape on a grownup female, but the man failed in his attempt; the other for actually succeeding in his attempt, and that, too, on a child five years old. These two cases were deemed worthy of the same punishment by the Judge. Is there to be found any other man who thinks so? Judge Conolly says, "That as imprisonment is no deterrent for this crime, he will order flogging." Now in order to be renlly consistent he would have to order flogging for every crime, because imprisonment is no deterrent of any crime; otherwise there would be no criminals. Judge Conolly has repeatedly stated that he is extremely adverse to flogging, and yet he has sentenced a fellow human being who did not accomplish his purpose—and where the law did not compel him to do so—to be tied hand and foot, his back bared, and tortured till he writhes in helpless, hideous agony. Is this Christianity or barbarism? Knowing how many girls in this country are brought up, may we not ask if there is not room for doubt as to whether —at least in some of these cases —the female is not in more or less degree to blame.—T am, etc., J.E.