SENTIMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10852, 18 March 1921, Page 4

SENTIMENT

Sentiment has played a part in our public affairs for a-good many years. When our more recent ancestors spoke of a “man of sentiment,” they expressed their admiration for culture, humanitarianism, and good manners. But in one department, that of the Criminal Law, sentiment did not at first play the part expected of it, the part attributed in general to 4he literary arts of modifying ferocity. When sentiment turned its attention to the ferocities of the law it was denounced as “sentimentality.” Nevertheless, it succeeded, and the ferocities disappeared. Men of sentiment, however, discovered that it was only the major ferocities which disappeared, and now they are crusading against the minor ferocities, which, deprived of the shadow of the others, have become, in the opinion of these crusaders, glaring. Among the achievements of this school is the veil of secrecy which it has induced the Legislature to throw over a part- of the administration of the law. In consequence, the names of offenders are sometimes suppressed. A case attracted some attention quite recently in Wellington. A young man, pleading guilty to three charges of breaking, and entering, and being convicted, obtained the privilege of secrecy. His name being suppressed, he left the court without any stain on •his character. The men of sentiment are much gratified, declaring that the new procedure, while ensuring a clear field for the reform of this young man, has spared his relatives and friends the pain that goes with publicity of conviction. So much for the new spirit of mercy. But the eulogy of the law’s i mercy does not cover the whole of the facts pertaining to the case. Before the case came to the court it was more or less public property. As such it was naturally the subject of comment, and names were bandied about. What about the owners of those names? They incurred a certain amount of suspicion, which has not been cleared away by the publication of the court’s proceedings. The culprit, who confessed to the threSftcharges of breaking and entering, has left the court without a stain on his character; but the men who, by the misadventure of illinformed gossip, were saddled with suspicion, are still suspect. They are victims of the new law’s mercy. So far as they are concerned, and as their relations and friends are concerned, there is certainly no cause for eulogy of the new merciful procedure. What can he said, except that eentim-eht has in this instance degenerated into the sentimentality which thinks too much of hard cases and too little of justice?

The matter is serious, and partly because leaning towards mercy Is part of a growing system of thought which seeks to absolve criminals from all responsibility for their conduct. That responsibility is transferred to environment and heredity. No one can deny that much evil is due to environment, very much; but to fix the whole onus on environment is to take too much for granted. The most that can he said is that environment, being of various pressures, can only divide responsibility into degrees such as are easily suggested by experience of life conditions generally. The question of heredity is x more complicated; so complicated, indeed, that it is reasonable to exact complete responsibility from all who are of sound mind and. descended from equally sound forbears. If ever the day comes when no one is held responsible for his actions, that day will be a sad day for the world. Offenders will be protected; laws will be ineffective; and if the idea of the necessity for punishment survives by some strange freak of the public mind, it will be inflicted on the remains of ancestry, as in the historic cases of the regicides and a certain Archbishop of Canterbury, which may be read in the histories of Charles 11. and Henry VIII. Be that as it may, if the world abandons the principle of responsibility for the conduct of normal people, it will ho an uncomfortable world to live