THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1881. THE CASE OF BEAUFIELD

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2220, 7 April 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1881. THE CASE OF BEAUFIELD

The case of John Beaufield, indicted for having, on the 3rd of March, shot at one John Spring with intent to murder, was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday and resulted in the prisoner being sentenced to penal servitude for ten years. Viewing the extreme gravity of the offence, which was proved against the prisoner, we cannot but think that his Honor Mr. Justice Johnston passed a very lenient —indeed, a too lenient—sentence. His Honor informed the prisoner that he could have sentenced him to penal servitude for life, and that the sentence to be passed would he one that would at least give an assurance that the strong arm of the law would be exerted to suppress such outrages as those of which the prisoner had been guilty. That outrage, bo it remembered, was shooting at a man with a full intention of killing him. Had Beaufield been a better shot than ho was he would undoubtedly have killed Spring; so that, as far as the prisoner was concerned, his inability to shoot straight represented the difference between a sentence of death and a sentence of ten years* penal servitude. It would appear as if the law did not contemplate that the amount of punishment to be inflicted on a criminal should depend on such a very fortuitous circumstance as the straightness of his aim. For if it were otherwise why allow a sentence of penal servitude for life to be passed ? It is the criminality of the intention of the would-be murderer that constitutes the essence of the gravity of this offence. Now, in the present instance there appears to have been no extenuating circumstances that could bo taken into consideration. No plea of insanity was brought forward, and his Honor stated that, even were the existence of a delusion proved by most competent medical evidence, it would not allow in law of a man committing a great crime with impunity. The prisoner made certain statements respecting Spring which wore totally unsupported by evidence, and which related to events that were alleged to have happened many years ago. The jury would appear to have seen nothing in the evidence to warrant them in alluding to anything in the way of provocation offered by Spring. To an ordinary observer it would seem as if the offence were that of a man nursing a fancied wrong and determined at all hazards to personally revenge himself on Ids supposed enemy. It is difficult indeed to conceive a case more fraught with danger to the intended victim and society at largo, and less excusable in the perpetrator. Beaufield appears to have made no attempt at arguing the case out calmly, or seeking for any explanations whatsoever on the subject. He places his hand upon his pistol and says, “ Here is my remedy.” It was apparently an attempt to murder, most deliberate and most wanton, committed by a desperado. And yet ho gets a sentence of only ten years. It is hard to see what offence the Legislature had in view which was

deemed of sufficient gravity for a sentence of penal servitude for life, if Boaufield’s offence is sufficiently met by the sentence passed on him. There is a theory that laws are passed as much, or more, for the protection of society as for the punishment of the evil doer. Viewing such a crime as Beaufield’s with reference to the effect it may have on the general safety and well-being of individuals, it is impossible not to rocognise that it contains in it elements of a most dangerous nature. The criminal who attempts to get rid of his enemy in some secret manner does not defy society so much ns ho defies the chance of detection. But Boaufield ran a tilt against all the laws by whicli the present more advanced state of civilisation is bound together. Ho defied society, and openly declared that he believed not in the general compact that the law is now f»ated in the place of the individual in the matter of redressing wrongs. While it is difficult to fully realise the folly of a man “running a muck” against society, it is equally certain that the strongest measures should at once be taken to show such offenders that society will not for one instant place any lenient construction on anything they may do while attempting to uphold their pernicious doctrine. And there is yet another point to be considered, specially bearing on ourselves. There are countries where the law does not vindicate itself with the directness to which Englishmen are accustomed, and where the “institution of the pistol” has grown into alarming dimensions, to the manifest detriment of the civilisation in those quarters of the globe. The institution is one which holds out certain attractions to a peculiar class of mind, and it is apt to grow with alarming rapidity if not nipped in the bud. New Zealanders pride themselves on being extremely law-abiding, but there are dangerous elements in all societies, and it is the manifest duty of the more law-abiding classes to wish that all chance of any retrograde movement should be at once destroyed by the severest application of the law. Looking, then, at the extreme heinousnoss of the crime committed by Beaufield, and the tendency of such offences to disintegrate society, wo cannot hut think that the sentence passed upon him was of a too light a character.