The most serious objection to the use
of the lash or the doghouse among con
victs is that the punishment is inflicted
without a fair trial, and is administered
often by those who have a personal
animus to gratify in addition to satisfy
ing the supposed demands of justice,
If the lash were applied only as the re
sult of a court sentence a'fter a fair trial
and by agents of law not connected
with the supervision of convicts, then it
might be defended. But as an opening
Mar the venting of personal spleen
against individuals unable to help them
selves, it is a travesty of justice and not
be tolerated by a decent citizenship,
t'hen who is to judge whether or not a
case is “extreme?” A case might appeal
to a warden, whose jjride of authority
has been injured, as far more serious
than it would appear to "an impartial ob
server. Besides, does not the law ex
pressly provide that extreme cases shall
be regularly tried by the circuit court?
The report of the jury says that since
the lash has been abolished in Alabama
the two mutinies, one at Banner and
one at Aldrich, have occurred. It is
true that the one at Banner occurred
before the use of the lash was restored,
but the one at Aldrich occurred after
the lash was restored, so that argument
falls by its own weight. Did it not oc
cur to the grand jury that the most
significant factor in both cases is that
both mutinies took place among leasee
convicts driven to work in the mines fot
private profit? Let the basic fact not
be ignored that Alabama’s leasing sys
tern is brutalizing and indefensible, anc
that its essential inhumanity breeds de
fiance of the man-drivers and not re
spect for discipline. Besides, is the rea
basis of the mutiny not resentment al
uncalled for mistreatment by ignorant
guards or wardens? It.jieed not be
analyzed as primarily a revolt againsl
state authority.
