Public Larceny.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 873, 23 November 1888, Page 29

Public Larceny.

It is very refreshing to read the sensible and outspoken utterances of an Auckland contemporary (which appeared in our telegraphic columns on Saturday), after the sympathy which has been lavished on the rascally ‘thief who was f so properly sentenced to a term of imprisonment for flower-stealing. We say nothing about the offender’s rank and social status, because we can scarcely believe that these considerations have inspired the sympathy which has been expressed for the perpetrator o£ one of the meanest possible thefts. Possibly some few wretched snobs may have fancied that justice ought to “ think twice before punishing a personal of quality,” but we suspect that the majority of those who lifted up their voices and wept over the Auckland thief’s hard fate were actuated by mere weak pity for a sinner who haß been justly punished for what seems a “ little

sin.” They apparently forget two things. In the first place it was by his own choice that the thief incurred the penalty. He need not have stolen the flowers. He knew he was liable to punishment; if ho did steal them. Yet he deliberately chose to steal them and to incur the penalty. Why should he not pay the debt be has incurred ? And if he were to be relieved of the liability be voluntarily undertook—to serve a term of imprisonment as payment for indulging ;iri ; 'the gratification of committing petty larceny, on what possible principle of right or justice or fairness could any other thief be punished ? Surely it would be infinitely more harsh to imprison', some destitute unfortunate .who had committed theft to escape starvation? We cannot see any ground for making fish of one thief and flesh of another. But if there were any justification for differentiating the rascally . class we should emphatically put ; .the thief who stole for the sake of gratifying a mere fancy for his neighbour’s goods, much lower in the criminal scale than one who robbed to supply his pressing necessities. The Courts of Justice, however, cannot with propriety condone any wilful infringement of the law. They may give due weight to extenuating circumstances —such as extreme destitution—but in this case there were none. Tbe thief simply coveted what was not his and stole it. Why should he escape puuishment ? - -

Another thing which the sympathisers with this interesting and wellborn thief forget, dr at any rate ignore, is that a petty theft is still a theft, and that misplaced leniency with regard to offences of this kind is injurious to the wronger and the wronged alike. To the wronger because it encourages him to believe that he can commit crimes with impunity, and to the persons wronged because it offers a premium for. f the repetition of the wrong. Why should the possessor of flowers —-whether the possessor be the public at large or a private individual —be lesis entitled to protection against the robbery of that item of his possessions than be is in respect of other items. A man has as much right to own , flowers as any other property, and as much right to be protected in that ownership. Yet it is most difficult, to obtain a conviction against any, rascally thief who pilfers a. garden of the flowers or shrubs which v are their owner’s special pride, and to the growth of which he;; has devoted large care and pains. The practice of flower-stealing, is very prevalent in this city, and some people have suffered from it to such an extent that they have become utterly disheartened about cultivating* any garden at all. In some jiarts of Wellington it is useless to attempt growing flowers unless under the protection of a high wall and locked gatef'-. Yet it is most difficult to get flower-stealers, even when caught red - handed; inadequately punished.

Magistrates ate often afraid of making themselves unpopular by doing their duty, and so they let off the thieves with a merely nominal penalty or with none at all—only a “ caution.’* We heartily agree with our Auckland contemporary that ” the thanks of the public are cordially due to the Auckland Justices who have visited this crime with impartiality, and that it will be a disgrace to the Colony and a reflection on the administration of justice if the Executive presumes to interpose and to relieve by one iota the very moderate and entirely just punishment that has been inflicted for such a mean and indefensible offence.” There is too prevalent a tendency to think little of small acts of dishonesty. Tbe experience of our local Athenmum is a case in point. Is it not a scandal and disgrace that the magazines and papers deposited in the reading-roomß of that institution for the use of its members should not be safe from pilfering at the bauds of some of those very members ? Is it not deplorable that in a membership of only a few hundred presumably respectable persons there should be some who cannot restrain their tendency to “ picking and stealing ” the property of their fellow - members ? Yet such is the lamentable fact. The Committee, it appears, are forced in the interests of the members to take certain special precautions against the dishonesty of one or two of those very members. Magazines, it seems, are st'oien bodily, newspapers, either wholly or in part, without any but members beiDg admitted into the rooms. This is a disgraceful fact, proving a deplorable deficiency in the moral sense on the part of some who might reasonably have been expected to set a better example. We sincerely trust that the thief or thieves will be detected, and will receive condign punishment. The offence is much of the same class as that of the man Burdett, and should be visited with a sharp penalty. There cannot be a surer way of weakening the moral sense of our rising generation of colonists than by fostering an idea that these small acts of dishonesty are venial. Bather should we sedulously inculcate the strongest detestation of the measures and infamy of such actions, and this cannot be done if we set up a howl of mawkish sympathy with every petty thief who purloins flowers, or books, or magazines. These outbursts of spurious sympathy toward criminals always promote crime. If every intending thief felt certain that his detection would involve a sharp sentence greeted with a public chorus of “ served him right,” he would think twice before committing the crime, and in many instances would resist the temptation altogether. Philanthropy and Christian charity alike demand that we should thus aid these weaker brethren to resist temptation.