1934 Justice.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20280, 14 April 1934, Page 8

1934 Justice.

Dear Sir, —We have seen this week an account of a kitten-throwing affair and another of a lad being sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment for riding a bicycle without a light. In the first the cowardly offender has been allowed to return to his home in the North Island. Of course, it would be a disgrace to the university to punish one of its students, no matter how he had offended all the civilised people in the community. Is it not a greater disgrace to the university to allow such a hoodlum ■within its doors? In the other case, as the offender is poor, he is sent to gaoi because he is unfortunate enough not to have the wherewithal to pay the fine, and for seven days. Is that not a terribly severe sentence? Was it because he was poor? A man for being drunk gets 24 or 48 hours, but this poor boy must be made to associate with criminals for a week. Oh, the pity of it. and the shame of it. If that young fellow becomes a criminal, whose will the fault be? Why should he be so hardly dealt with? Surely every parent who has a lad of their own must have felt for him. Which of these offenders deserved the greater punishment? It is the old story over again. The gentleman’s son goes free and the poor man’s is sent to prison. Is this British justice?—l am, etc., ONLOOKER. The offender was a full-grown man, approaching thirty. He had cycled without a light and obstructed the police, and a fine of £'l was imposed. lie declined to pay and volunteered “to take it out.’’ It was only when he persisted in this attitude that default was fixed. Usually, if requested, time is allowed in which to pay.—Ed., “ Star.”