548 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION G. 



It does not tend to the better administration of justice that any 

 of its proceedings shoukl be rendered liable to be looked upon as a 

 solemn farce. In Enojland, when there were a considerable number 

 of felonies still punishable with death, it came to be considered 

 that to pass sentence of death in cases in which the penalty was 

 not intended to be carried out was objectionable, and accordingly 

 in 1823 a special Act was passed upon the subject (see 4 Geo. 4 c. 

 48), which enabled the Court to abstain from actually passing 

 such a sentence, and simply order it to be recorded, which had the 

 effect of a reprieve. This, of course, has not been applied to cases 

 of murder. A Judge has no alternative but to pass sentence of 

 death on such a finding ; but the passage of such an Act shows 

 how mischievous it is for anything in the nature of a pretence at 

 punishment to be continued. 



One seldom hears anyone defend the present system of allowing 

 murderers imprisoned for life to mix with their kind again after a 

 few years' incarceration. Even the strongest advocates for the 

 abolition of capital punishment admit that a premeditated, a 

 revengeful, or a brutal murder should be looked upon with such 

 abhorrence that the murderer should be securely kept apart for the 

 remainder of his natural life. The certainty of this being done 

 •would remove one of the greatest objections to the abolition of 

 capital punishment in the minds of many who now support its 

 continuance. The contention is that such an anti-social and 

 dangerous being has by his own acts proved himself unfit to be 

 again thrown upon society, and in the minds of many it is an 

 outrage upon the community that this should be permitted. 



INADEQUACY OF PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENCES AGAINST THE 

 PERSON. — TOO GREAT SEVERITY FOR OFFENCES 

 AGAINST PROPERTY. 



Whatever may be the opinions of those who have to administer 

 the Criminal Law on the preceding question, there is no doubt 

 about their unanimity as to the inadequacy of pimishments pro- 

 vided for offences against the person. They are, I believe, almost 

 equally tmanimous in holding that the punishments enacted for 

 offences against property are unnecessarily severe. My authority 

 for these statements, so far as England is concerned, is Mr. Justice 

 Hawkins. In a recent issue of " The New Review" that learned 

 Judge calls attention to the lightness of the sentence for crviel and 

 A'iolent assaults, perhaps on Avomen or children, and the severity of 

 those for trifling acts of dishonesty, and adds that this condition of 

 things is recognised by the whole body of English Judges as in 

 the highest degree detrimental to the interests of justice ; and, in 

 consequence, a council of that body some time ago resolved in 

 substance that it was desirable to establish a court for the revision 

 of such sentences. He does not, however, speak hopefully of the 

 scheme. The present Criminal I^aw of South Australia requires 



