Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 558, 14 October 1882, Page 17

The: case of "Worth and Da vies, brought up : yesterday, week before the Resideht, Magistrate and the Mayor for exposure of the person, ought not to be allowed to : pass without public comment. All the circumstances connected with it aire such as to betray a . strange, absence, in those accusing and trying the parties, of anything like a wise consideration for the good of society or the benefit of those who may have ionly thoughtlessly erred. Two young persons, whose ages are said to be about sixteen, were, between 9 and: 10 in the morning, arrested in the Botanical Gardens by a constable, who conducted them straight to the/Police Court, where, without any communication to their relatives being made, or the;advice of counsel allowed, they were I forthwith' arraigned, each sentenced to* one month's imprisonment with, hard labor, and at once conveyed .to gaol. These are the leading facts of the case, and we are not astonished to hear that they awakened in . the city so keen a feeling of indignation at. the severity of the punishment and the harshness of the whole proceedings that a petition was immediately set on foot and largely signed, praying the Minister of Justice to relax the sentence. The public cannot speak out too firmly against such rough and summary, and even reckless, justice as has in this case been administered. The primary object of judicial administration, and the only thing that, in fact, distinguishes justice from vindictiveness or cruelty, is the saving of those who are going astray, by making the grasp of the law be so felt by them that it will not contribute to make them hardened criminals. Has, then, this important aspect of the social security of society been in this instance kept in view ? Were the manner of the arrest, the haste of the trial, and the inconsiderate nature of the judgment, calculated to save society from the infliction of a permanent injury, while being avenged for a partial one ? In all these particulars, the main, because the humane, end of justice seems to have been wholly lost sigh if. In the first place, the arrest appears to have .been conducted in a way that was fitted to make the transgressors go over at a leap from censurable thoughtlessness or initial immorality te tht paths of avowed

wickedness and crime. Was there, it may be asked, any real necessity for the youth being handcuffed and the girl made to march in front to the Police Court, in such fashion as to attract the public gaze, making it first awaken, and then help to destroy the sense of shame ? In the second place, it may be inquired whether the instincts of humanity were awarded their proper obeisance by putting the prisoners upon their trial without allowing them time to send a message to their friends. It was surely incumbent on those occupying the Bench to remember that they themselves are men,, and that, in view of human fallibility, the position occupied by these young people whom they proceeded to try with such indecent speed may possibly, become that of some of their own relatives, and then to ask themselves how they would feel if these were arrested, tried, convicted, and hurried off to be associated with confirmed criminals without any intimation being made to their family. If, on looking at the matter in this light, the propriety of remanding the case for further hearing did not suggest itself to those adjudicating thereon, they would furnish most startling proof of unfitness for the positions they held. And yet that thought does not seem to have occurred to them! With respect to the accused not being allowed the opportunity of counsel, it may be said that this was unnecessary, as they admitted the charge ; but we venture to submit that, in the interests of justice, prisoners of their years should not be placed in a position to plead guilty, save under advice, especially when the only evidence against them is that of the arresting value is to.be attached to their admission of guilt as against the plea that time for consulting counsel should have been allowed them, then it ought to haye had special weight in mitigating the sentence passed on them.; But here, strange to say, it seems to have had ho weight whatever, and it looks, indeed, very much, as if it had rather induced the. Bench to make the sentence more severe. It has, we believe, been the practice in such cases to satisfy the ends of justice by the infliction of a fine ; and, had this practice been adhered to in this instance, the Court would have shown a greater regard for.the interests of morality than it did by sending two young people, heretofore regarded as innocent in the eye of the law, to be the associates of prisoners of the lowest type. It is with regret that we feel obliged to write on this subject, but we have a painful impression, which is largely sharedin by members of this community that; had the culprits m this case belonged to a higher grade of society, the procedure would have been different; that the manner of the arrest, the summariness of the trial, and the undue severity of the sentence, would all have been altered. It is this feeling that has induced a widespread conviction that under the shadow of justice a grave wrong has been done, and Jed to the determination to have that wrong redressed; as :far it now can be, without a day's delay. We say nothing in justification or even extenuation of the offence with which the prisoners were charged. It is essential to public interests that our places of recreation should be guarded from becoming a resort for the viciously inclined, and that society should be protected from the risk of being familiarised with approaches to indecency; but, in the name of all that is good, let these ends be prosecuted and gained in a spirit and manner that will not do violence to the moral sense of our common humanity.