PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 218, 10 June 1943, Page 4

PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

A few weeks ago, as the public will recall, Mr. Justice Smith passing sentence of imprisonment for life on a man convicted, in th. Supreme Court of double-murder, made this remark to the “Many may think you will suffer little by comparison but as that is the sentence fixed by law for any number of murders, I now pioceed to impose that sentence.” As the law had been altered by the present Government, and its deterrent effect consequently weakened, this n a , described by the judge as “a ruthless bandit,” escaped capital punish ment. A further illustration of the manner in which enemies of society convicted of crimes against persons have profited hy the sot ening of deterrent penalties following the recent a Iteration of the law»’ ve in the Supreme Court on .Tuesday, when the Chief Justice, Su Mic Myers, was passing sentence on a man convicted of attempted lape against an old blind woman. Let. me read to you (said his Honour, what the law was till quite recently. Every one isAir le to 10 j ell imprisonment with hard labour,“"j 1 /. CCO J ((l ing , ng J" \ t flogged, or whipped once, twice, or thrice, who attempt rape, or assaults any person with intent to coinnut rape. “You are at liberty to rejoice in the reflection,” added the Chief Justice “that the law shows much more tenderness and sympathj fo ‘you than you showed for the poor, unfortunate, blind woman you almost throttled and then attempted to ravish. Although neither the Chief Justice nor Mr. Justice on the previous occasion above referred to, passed any opinion as to the Government showed wisdom in repealing the !aw P rov^ in^ ■ t( ? canital sentences and floggings for particular classes of ci ime, it is dear from Xt"they have said from the Bench in the instances noted that they regarded the penalties permissible under the amended law a. inadequate punishment in the light of the circumstances of the respective cases before them. The softening of penalties in such cases not only weakens the deterrent effect of the law. but at the same time also weakens the power of the judiciary to employ effective deterrents the protection of the public, especially of women and children. . . ' it may not be within the province of the judges to pass opinions on the merits of particular legislation, but there is a highei au ho y tb;m Parliament. Government, or the judiciary which is entitled to o so.’and that is the people. What is likely to be their ration to e comments of the Chief Justice upon what he described as, on: of the most shocking cases that I have seen in about 50 years assocu on v h the administration of the criminal law f As his Honour point . . the law as laid dqwn by Parliament must be assumed to express the w id of the people, “women as well as men.” Can it be said that it has done so in this particular instance?