The Southland Times. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1872.

Southland Times, Issue 1610, 26 July 1872, Page 2

The Southland Times. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1872.

Two cases, heard at the Resident Magistrate's Court on Monday, appear to suggest very strongly the expediency of some alteration in the law relating to railway offences. The offenders in both ca?es were hoys, actuated in the one instance by the comparatively harmless desire for amusement, all the more temptin o- to their boyish instincts because forbidden, and in" the other by a sheer spirit of wanton mischief. _ In neither case, it may be presumed, did they ever seriously contemplate the terrible consequences which might have arisen from their thoughtless acts. Two lads, whose parents occupy a respectable position in society, took a truck out of the stationyard one Sunday afternoon, levered it over a pair of locked points, and by the aid of poles, punted it some three miles up the line. Knowing tbat they had done wrong, and afraid of being fouud out, they then attempted to remove it from the rails altogether, and partially succeeding, left it there, forming a most dangerous obstruction on the line. Fortunately it was discovered, and would have been removed in time to prevent mischief, even if the boys had not returned, as it appears they did, and brought it in themselves It is questionable whether they would have done so, had the escapade taken place at a later hour, when tbe darkness might have afforded them a better opportunity of escaping unobserved. Be that as it may, the offence was a most serious one, not on account of the intrinsic Tfickedness of the act, for there appears to have been no intention to do any injury whatever, but on account of the frightful consequences which must have ensued had the early train to Winton run into this obstruction in the darkness of the morning. As it was, however, clearly a thoughtless, and not a malicious act, it was very properly dealt with under the 6th clause of the Eailway Offences act, which provides that the placing or leaving of obstructions on a railway, from carelessness, or otherwise without malicious intent, shall be an offence punishable upon summary conviction by fine or imprisonment. The punishment awarded, a very moderate fine, with costs of court and witnesses' expenses, was certainly not too severe, and was perhaps tbe most appropriate afforded by the law, although we cannot think it was altogether suitable, or as effective by way of prevention as it might have been. To have imprisoned two respectable lads for a boyish escapade, would have been cruel, and to have made the fine much heavier, would have borne hardly on the parents. But why cannot a provision, similar to that which exists in the Larceny Act, be introduced into the clause referring to this special offence, by which it should be within th© discretion of the magistrates to punish either by fine or imprisonment, UT 111 «„_, „„.„„ ur uiuluu 'd. bVuoL^J. age, say from fourteen to sixteen years, by whipping. There can be no doubt that the punishment of the rod acts as a powerful deterrent, and is in many cases an effectual cure for juvenile offenders of this class, while it is free alike from the apparent injustice of making the parents pay for the faults of the children, or the bad moral effect of even a short period of imprisonment on a respectable lad. The other case was much more serious. A boy about fourteen years of age, described by the police as an Arab, and who had certainly run away from his parents some months before, placed two pieces of iron on the rails, one on each rail, selecting precisely the spot at which an accident would have been unavoidable, and of the most appalling character, had the obstructions not been observed and removed in time. Here there was no pretext of seeking amusement ; the act was a piece of deliberate, cold-blooded and malicious mischief, and as such was very properly dealt with under the 29tb clause of the Offences against the Person Act, which provides that the placing of an obstruction on a railway, with intent to injure the train or passengers, shall be a felony punishable by penal servitude for life, or imprisonment for a shorter term, and in the case of lads under sixteen years of age, with or without whipping. It can scarcely be supposed tbat this lad, however bad we may believe him to be, ever seriously considered the horrible consequences, nothing less probably than the entire destruction of the tram, and tbe death or mutilation of every person on board, which must have resulted had the engine been thrown off the rails at thafc point, which is usually passed at a considerable speed. But no one can doubt that he well knew he was doing wrong, and deliberately committed a wicked and malicious crime, with the intention of causing serious mischief. Under the Act in question, the magistrates had no option, but were obliged to commit him for trial. The offence must be tried at the Supreme Court, and if proved, no doubt suitable punishment will be awarded. But the Supreme Court will not sit for six months, during which time the boy will probably have to remain in gaol. Crimes of thia character, when committed by persons of mature age, are of course far too serious to be dealt with by summary conviction before a magistrate. But in cases such as this, where the utter absence of motive, and the extreme youth of tbe offender, appear to show that the consequences of the act could scarcely have been seriously considered by the culprit, we think that tbe ends of justice would have been served, and the safety of the public better secured, had it been in the power of the magistrates to convict summarily, and order the appropriate juvenile punishment of whipping. Tbis discretionary power might perhaps be judiciously restricted to cases in which the offenders are under fourteen years of age. The main object of criminal legislation is the protection of life and property. For this purpose punishment should be speedy, and of a kind likely to deter others from the

commission of similar offences, and in many cases, in order to secure the safety of society as a whole, the punishment must be proportioned rather to the possible consequences, than to the actual heinousness of the crime. To effect this object, with the least possible injury to the culprit himself, ou^Ht to be the aim of all humane nnd enlightened lesislation. While it is scarcely possible to imagine a punishment too severe for a person of mature years who committed such a diabolical act, the case is widely different with a thoughtless and neglected lad of fourteen. We believe that every purpose of justice would be served, and the danger to the public from such wanton acts in future by youthful offenders materially lessened, by making them punishable on summary conviction, in the manner in which we have described.