feeling the great pressure of the public opinion which they say exists in this case.
Coming alone in this court room with obscure defendants, doing what has been done in this case, coming with the outside world shut off, as in most cases, and saying to this court and counsel:
"I believe that these boys ought not to be at large, I believe they are immature and irresponsible, and I am willing to enter a plea of guilty and let you sentence them to life imprisonment," how long do you suppose your Honor would hesitate'? Do you suppose the State's Attorneys would raise their voices in protest?
You know it has been done too many times. And here for the first time, under these circumstances, this court is told that you must make an example.
Let us take some other cases. How many times has a defendant come into this court charged with burglary and larceny, and because of youth or because of something else the State's Attorney has waived the burglary, and consented to a year for larceny; no more than that.
Let me ask this question.
How many times, your Honor, have defendants come into this court—and I am not speaking of your Honor's court alone; I am speaking of all the criminal courts in this country—have defendants come in charged with a burglary and larceny and been put on parole, told to go and sin no more, given another chance? It is true in almost all cases of the young, except for serious aggravation.
Can you administer law without consideration? Can you administer what approaches justice without it? Can this court or any court administer justice by consciously turning his heart to stone and being deaf to all the finer
