Why Do We Pity the Rich Criminal?
An editorial questioning the double standard applied to wealthy fraudster C. D. Hillman compared to the swift punishment of the poor.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Why should the rich criminal be given favors that would not be vouchsafed to the poor law-breaker? We are prompted to propound the above query after seeing a plea in the editorial columns of the P.-I. for a 'few days grace for C. D. Hillman to wind up his business' before beginning his richly deserved prison sentence. Did Hillman show any leniency to the men and women he robbed and defrauded? He has known for many months that he faced a term in prison. We do feel pity for his family, so do we feel pity for the family of the poor criminal who must suffer pain and poverty while deprived of the support of the breadwinner. Our pity for the latter does not buy leniency for them, nor any editorial appeal for clemency from powerful newspapers. There are too many papers in this land pitying men like Hillman, yet dropping no tear at the swift retribution following the moral delinquency of the poor and unknown.
“There are too many papers in this land pitying men like Hillman, yet dropping no tear at the swift retribution following the moral delinquency of the poor and unknown.”
The 'two-tier' justice system debated here in 1912—where a wealthy developer like C. D. Hillman could lobby for sentencing delays—remains a core tension in contemporary American legal reporting. The Labor Journal’s sharp critique reflects a long-standing Everett sentiment regarding who gets 'grace' when they run afoul of the law.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.