A DUBIOUS CONCLUSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7140, 30 May 1910, Page 6

A DUBIOUS CONCLUSION

The case of the man Robert Corltill. found guilty of the manslaushter of one Christopher Smith and sentenced at Wellington on Saturday to six months’ imprisonment, cannot fail to give rise to some uneasy suspicions concerning the manner in which such cases may bo dealt with in the courts. It is at least justifiable to entertain a doubt whether.: had this man been twenty years younger the trial would have had the same result. The fact that Corldll went about his business with a lethal weapon leads to the inevitable assumption that ho intended to use it, and verdict of the. jury that when Corltill shot Smith ho wan actually in fear of his life is more likely to have been put forward as an explanation for reducing the character of the charge on which they convicted a frail old man than as a finding that would have followed such evidence in the case of a younger prisoner. Indeed, the verdict seems equivalent to one of “ not guilty,” for if Corltill really believed his life was in jeopardy there can be no possible 'reason for sending him to gaol. ' Nothing further has been required in, the past to support verdicts-;of justifiable homicide. The point we wish.to make, however, is that this case will establish in the public mind a belief that under a particular set of circumstances the degree of culpability -for , .taking human life varies with the age of the offender. It would be a terrible thing to hear of an aged man being hanged, l for instance, but there is nothing more essentially bnita.l in such a deed being accomplished than in the case of a young 1 man. Similarly with imprisonment. Can anyone doubt that if Corldll had been forty-eight instead of sixty-eight this killing of Christopher Sinith. would not have been followed by life imprisonment?' And if it is a good thing to permanently segregate a young individual who had shown impulsive homioide is it not equally good ,to do the same with anyone, notwithstanding his years? The whole j ustification of the penalties provided by law for murder and for manslaughter rest on their de. torrent influence, and they are robbed of this if the penalty comes to be exacted only in ■ special cases. The taking of a life is mi act of supremo sig. nificance to society, , and its protection would appear to demand that verdicts and sentences should not be influenced by considerations that the law itself does not contemplate. Wo find it impossible to see that the community has received any measure of protection against the illegal, panic-stricken use of firearms by the trial and sentence of Robert Corkill.