DISCREPANT SENTENCES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20022, 12 February 1927, Page 10

DISCREPANT SENTENCES.

It is probable that there can be no such thing as a standardisation of sentences for criminals. There are many different factors that must be taken into consideration by every judge in arriving at a conclusion as to the sentences to be imposed by him. The previous character cf the prisoner, the nature of his crime, the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the crime, the probable effect of a conviction on the reputation and subsequent career of the criminal—these are only a few of the points that must be weighed in the assessment of the penalty that the crime warrants. There arc judges who have said that the most difficult of the duties which they have to perform is that of determining the sentences that have to be imposed by them in the exercise of their criminal jurisdiction. It is to be freely acknowledged, at the same time, that a judge, who has heard the evidence or, if he has not heard the evidence, has the depositions before him and has been put in possession of all the relevant facts, is in a better position than anyone who has not those advantages can be to apportion the penalty to the offence. Even, however, when this is taken into account, the disparity between the sentences that were inflicted on two prisoners yesterday is, it may he suggested with all respect to the learned judge, somewhat striking. One man who was convicted of receiving stolen goods to the value of about £llO, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. Another man, who had pleaded guilty to the theft of about £6OO, was admitted to probation for two years on payment of the costs incurred by the Crown. In the latter case restitution of the stolon moneys had been made, and it was in view of this fact and of a war disability which the prisoner had suffered that he was treated so leniently. But the goods that were stolen in the former case were recovered, so that no loss was sustained by the owners. The question, therefore, as between the two prisoners came virtually to one of the difference in the degree of criminality. Apparently, we are to conclude that it was represented by the difference between two years’ hard labour and two years’ probation. It is, however, rather difficult to accept this conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that the case against the receiver of stolen goods was a distinctly strong one. Yet how otherwise is the discrepancy between the sentences to be explained? Mr Justice Reed himself confessed to considerable hesitation about granting probation to the man who was brought before him for sentence, and, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as surprising that he was doubtful about the justification for the course he adopted.