OCR Text |
Show PUNISHMENT OF SCORCHERS. Mere Pecuniary Penalty Not Sufficient Suffi-cient to Deter Law Breakers. (From-the Chicago Chronicle.) In Washington and New York City. there is a growing sentiment in favor of imposing an imprisonment penalty upon motorists who br:ak the speed laws. There is something o be said in favor of the proposition. It is pointed out that a fine of $25 or $50 means nothing at all to most people who own automobiles. Such a penalty has neither a deterrrnt nor a punitive effect. It means that the offender of-fender is at liberty to go out and repeat the offense in the full knowledge that ii' he is captured again the worst that can happen to him is the imposition of another fine. 'In New York City, where sixty-two people have been killed by automobiles since Jan. 1. it is felt that the situation requires some more effective' remedy than money penalties. Another phase of the matter has also be?n difeussed. The discrimination in favor of well-to-do people which is involved in-volved in a purely financial penalty for automobile recklessness is declared to amount to a perversion of justic?. It is argued that when a "scorching" motorist goes free on payment of a fine while an impecunious offender against some minor ordinance goes to prison for non-payment of a fine the process looks a good deal like punishing poverty pov-erty instead of punishing misbehavior. misbehav-ior. Of course, it may be claimed that this inequity cannot be remedied, since it would be clearly out of the Question to let the impecunious one go free merely because he had no money. But it is I proposrd not to let the moneyless of-I of-I fender go free, but to send the moneyed offender to jail to keep him company. This, however, is merely a collateral phas? of the main question. It is not of so much importance to adjust the ethics of equitably punishing rich offenders of-fenders and poor offenders a. it is to deter automobllists from maintaining dangerous speed on the streets and highways. If it b;necessary to put the ! -scorch ers" in jail to accomplish this end the incidental question of discrimination discrim-ination need hardly be considered. The main object is to make rich and poor alike obey the law-through fear of imprisonment if necessary. |