THE LATE SUPREME COURT SENTENCE.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9124, 7 June 1895, Page 6

THE LATE SUPREME COURT SENTENCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —The clause of the Act (s. 195 of the Criminal Code of 1893), under which his Honour pronounced the sentence which has been the anbject of so much discussion, reads as follows :— *' Everyone is liable to fire years' imprisooment with hard labour who unlawfully carnally knows or attempts to unlawfully carnally know any girl of or above tbe age of twelve years and under the age of fourteen years." " It shall be no defence to an indictment uader this section for an offence committed upon a girl under the age of fourteen that she consented to mch offence. Provided, however, that it shall be a sufficient defence to any charge under this section if it shall be made to appear to the jury before whom the charge shall be brought that the person' so charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl wm

of or above the age of fourteen yeara. No prosecution for aa offence under this section shall be commenced more tbaa a month after the commission of the offence." The marked distinction between the manner in which this offenoe ia to be dealt with, and every other of the same kind will bo acknowledged by every member of my profession. In every other case there is added to the punishment flogging or whipping (according to the age of the offender) once, twice, or thrice, to the extent of fifty lashes Avith the cat, or twenty-five with the birch rod. la no other case is the qualification iusisted of ''unlawfully" carnally knowing, and in no other is the liability to prosecution restricted to one month afber the commission of the offence. The truth is that Avhea this case first came up for consideration, some of our legislators, not les9 alive'than others to the claims of female purity, were perhaps batter informed as to the possibility of its being made a medium for extortion, and they Avero successful in enforcing upon the House the grave necessity for caution. lam toid the evidence in this case did not leal to the view that the extreme penalty was merited ia the interests of justice.—Yours, &c, An Old Laavver.

TO THE IDITOR OF THE PIiESS

Sir, —Although I have not the pen of a ready writer, yet I hope you will allow mc to express my fullest sympathy with the opinions of "J.E." iv this morning's Press. It would indeed seem as if the days of chivalry had gone when such an offence may be committed, aud such a trifling punishment imposed on demons in human form without a word of indignation from those who are supposed to be our men of "light and leading." Ib certainly is a disgraceful blob on our boasted civilisation that such scoundrels should be so tenderly dealt with. Tnat such a diabolical offender should only be sentenced to twelve or eighbeeu months' imprisonment is a perfect farce, and leads one to conclude that our lawmakers mssb be in sympathy with such crimes, or else we should have laws making the " punishment fit the crime." —I am, &c, An Indignant Father.