A Moral Scale of Thefts.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7079, 27 February 1893, Page 3

A Moral Scale of Thefts.

(West Coast Times.) A singular chapter on the ethics of stealing has been presented bj the comments of the press upon the charges recently made against Mrs Clifford, heard in Dunedin. Mrs Clifford, who is well, connected, had been staying at the house of a friend, Mr M. Hannan, in Greymootb,- andl whilst there stole some jewellery and money. It is alleged that temptation was placed in her way, bat we j are told from the other side that instead ! of such being the base she bad to go to some trouble to get the articles. The Dunedin > magistrates who beard the case took a very lenient and sympathetic view of it, only imposing a nominal penalty. With these facts before them a great many of our contemporaries have condemned, with greater or less warmth, a decision which practically constitutes one law for the rich and one for the poor. This is always an attractive subject for a public writer as it enables him to write with all the force and expression that is in him, conscious of the fact that he will be supported by a great majority of bis readers. The offence against our fellows, which we call stealing, is onlyregarded by the law in one light and is quaintly described by the old- rhymester • He who prige what isn’t his’n, ■ "When he’s cotched he.goes to pris’n.

The statutes simply look upon the fact of the article having been stolen, and the convicted person haying stolen it, and at once lay down the limits between which the punishment should be set. The administrators judge of each case according to the light io which it presents itself to their minds and as a consequence there is very often wide difference between the punishment measured out for precisely similar offences. Of late years we have been more closely confronted with thefts committed for no object, but simply in ‘ obedience to an irresistible inclination to possess certain articles. This feeling is mow spoken of as a disease and dabbed with a long- name, its victims being treated with a certain degree of commiseration. Probably, their condition entitles them to the bestowal of this sentiment, but that is no reason why the law should relax its stringency on this account. Infinitely more reason is there why a distinction should bo made in favour of those who steal to relieve the pangs of hunger or to mitigate the inclemency of the weather, pressing sorely on themselves or those dependent on them. If we pause to consider the infinitely fine gradations of feeling that prompt the committal of the offence we are discussing, the more difficult becomes the problem of how to deal with each offence in such a manner that the danger of a repetition is reduced to a minimum. We have one common ground to start from—the desire to possess something they have not got. The next consideration should be whether the article stolen is one which, in oar common humanity, we think they should have possessed without stealing. The necessaries of life are included in this category, as well as a short list of other > things, which, though not absolute necessaries, have come to be regarded as such. From this class of offenders we proceed by a very closely connected series of gradations to the individual who has the inordinate desire to take everything he can get hold of. In the latter, probably, the criminal instinct is often too strongly developed to afford much hope of reform—it eeems never possible to remove the oause—and amongst this class are many bolding good positions in society and lapses cause so much public comment. Their criminality is a disease as much as is the homicidal mania, but it is necessary for the well being of society that they, should be restrained as much as possible from gratifying their mania. Wo confess that our sympathies are chiefly with those whose heseseities impel them to commit theft and think that society would be much better off did it make more earnest endeavours to remove the cause rather than punish the offenders.