The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5549, 10 January 1879, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1879.

No one can have paid much attention to the administration of justice on the crimina 1 side of tho Supreme Court of this Colony Uhout regretfully observing that the discrepancies between sentences for similar offences, committed under like circumstances, are many and great. It does not in the slightest degree mend matters, that every one is satisfied the Judges are impartial, and, generally speaking, inclined to the side of mercy. So long as human nature remains what it is, and human judgment is imperfect, it would obviously be absurd to expect that on all occasions unerring justice should be meted out to that miserable section of the people which from time to time comes within reach of the law’s lash. An offence which to one Judge appears, comparatively speaking, trivial, to another will assume very sombre and repulsive characters, and it is to be expected that one or other of these different opinions will find expression whenever either of these legal luminaries is called on in the course of his duty to sentence a prisoner convicted'of such a crime. The one Judge will pass a light sentence ; the other sitting in the next judicial district will for a similar offence pass a very heavy sentence. But we may pursue the subject a step further, and imagine tho case of a Judge who when in good health would be merciful and lenient, but when suffering from gout or some other of the ills to which mankind is heir, would make things particularly unpleasant to every one with whom he came in contact in the course of his official duties, not excepting unfortunate prisoners awaiting sentence. A Supreme Court Judge is, after all, only a man, and is therefore, as a matter of course, liable to be unwittingly turned from the strict right line of action. Admitting all this, and admitting also that the same causes show like effects in other parts of the world besides this Colony, we cannot avoid the conclusion that tho discrepancies between sentences passed by different Judges, and by the same Judge at different times, are in New Zealand a great deal more glaring than there is any necessity for. To take from the Judge all discretion in passing sentence would be a very poor way of getting oyer what appeal’s to us to be a grave difficulty. The law cannot be made to define all shades and degrees of guilt, and it would be no improvement to throw into the hands of the jury more power than they already possess. Obviously, there must be a maximum and a minimum of punishment apportioned for almost every class of crime, and a prisoner having been found guilty, it must rest with the Judge to say how near to the maximum or minimum the sentence should approach. But whilst we are therefore content to leave these large powers with their, present holders, it seems to us that the holders themselves might do something to equalise sentences for similar offences. It is, as we have pointed out, quite hopeless to expect to entirely remove all, or nearly all, the discrepancies, but it might lead to a change for the better if some understanding were come to amongst the Judges, whereby each one should agree with his fellows as to what might be considered as an average sentence for some of the more common offences. If there were special circumstances, either making the offence heavier or lighter, they could of course be taken into consideration. If it be said that any such agreement as we have alluded to would be illegal, or, at least, would constitute a breach of etiquette, we can only reply that at all events with reference to one offence — horse stealing—such an agreement is said to have been come to by the Judges of another Colony some years ago, and at a time when horse stealing was a crime- of every-day occurrence. From that time, until the crime became, comparatively speaking, rare, the sentences were invariably very high. The immediate cause of our remarks to-day was a comparison of the sentence passed yesterday on James Allan Mackib for larceny, with some other sentences passed during the last few years on men convicted of the same kind of crime. In one case the prisoner was condemned to six years, in another it was six months, in another three months, in another three years, and in this case of yesterday the sentence ' was four years. We are not prepared to say whether Mackie’s punishment was too heavy, too light, or exactly what, taking all the circumstances into consideration, it ought to have been. Neither do wo assert that the other cases to which we have thus briefly alluded, displayed exactly the same degree of turpitude when compared' one with the other, or with Mackie’s miserable affair ; but of this much there can be no doubt whatever,, not one of the cases was so totally unlike any one of the ■ others as to have warranted so great a difference in the sentence. In all of them the persons convicted .were men °I education, and placed in positions of great trust and responsibility, and receiving salaries which, • though very low, were sufficient to afford a livelihood. They were none of them very young men, and except in one case, *

ths amounts taken were large. For obvious reasons, we do not give the names of the convicts, but the facts are as we have stated them above, and a little trouble would enable us to extend the list almost indefinitely. What we contend for is, that in apportioning sentences for offences of this class, some care should be taken to equalise the punishment, full consideration being given to the surrounding circumstances. To use two homely phrases, “ it is not right to make fish of one and flesh of another and “ what is sauce for a Wellington goose is sauce for a Canterbury or Auckland gander.” It may be remarked that crimes such as those of which we have been writing are far more numerous than they would be if there were a really sound system of inspection. In a majority of the cases which have from time to time occupied ths attention of the courts, no very elaborate system of concealment has been adopted—nothing, at all events, which could have stood the test of a really careful scrutiny. When suspicion has once been aroused, there has been no difficulty whatever in getting at the bottom of the fraud. We need only add that in each of the cases we have mentioned, with one exception, the salary paid to the defaulting official was altogether too small ; and it is much to be feared that as long as this niggardly scale of payment prevails the crime for which Mackie has just been convicted will continue to be prevalent.