THE RECENT WHIPPING IN GAOL.

Evening Star, Issue 7237, 13 June 1887, Page 4

THE RECENT WHIPPING IN GAOL.

TO THE EDITOR, Sib,—l beg to utter my protest against the maudlin rubbish we are now being favored with night after night and morning after morning re the recent whipping in gaol. We have heard enough about it—too much, indeed, by a long Way. If the punishment was so very dreadful, how came it that, as I am informed, the prisoner after the whipping showed no signs of suffering, and by his own wish resumed work next morning, as if nothing out of the common had occurred ? But, say some strangely unthinking mortals, whipping is brutalising. Brutalising ! What of the act that in this instance necessitated the castigation ? Was not that brutalising both to the perpetrator and the helpless child so shamefully outraged? But the foul wrong to the girl, the impure effect of her cowardly assailant’s act upon her young mind, the laceration of her parents’ feelings, and the ijfe-long sense of shame and sorrow, and vexation—all those go for nothing, and only the wrong-doer is to be commiserated, because, forsooth, he gets a whipping! It is true the wrong-doer in this instance is a youth, but those who saw him in Court will remember that, for _ his age, he presented the appearance of a giant in build and strength, in whoso hands a frail girl of tender years would be powerless. Besides, the object of the sentence passed on him, while it is just and not vindictive, is to deter others from indulging in the like brutality. Mr Justice Williams is a truly humane man, and sensitive to a degree when the interests of young helpless children are concerned. All honor to him, 1 have far more confidence in his judgment than in that of sickening, self-asserting sentimentalists. In these days, as witness the scandals with which the newspapers teem, and the myriads of girls drawn into and maintained in the immoral courses, humanity demands that young female children should be protected from brutal violence and viloness; and protected they must be, even by vengeance. To supercede justice by maudlin sentiment (erroneously called Christian) is but to pave the way for Lynch law, as in some parts of America, I have no doubt that if Ross was made aware of the fuss of which be is the object, he would laugh at the simplicity of his unthinking sympthiaers. . . An regards the officer who refused to inflict the castigation, he, to say the least, acted foolishly. I do not speak disrespectfully of warders when I say that, as the gaol “limbs of the law,” they are the instruments of punishment. That is their business, for which they are paid' and accept payment; and the man who stands over his men with loaded piece in band, compelling them to work, and is ready (if circumstances call for it) to shoot them down, is unfit for the position if he is so awfully squeamish when it comes to be a question of whipping a young but heinous offender. If that is degrading to him, so are all the other duties pertaining to the position.—l am, etc., Deterrent. Dunedin, June 11.