Tragedy at Tunnel 13. The d'Autremont brothers and "The Edison of Crime Detection"

Train robbery was frequent in the United States from the late 1800s through the 1920s. On October 11, 1923, the southbound Southern Pacific Express was halted by three men at Tunnel 13 in southern Oregon just north of the California line. The railway mail car carrying +40,000 was then blown apart by an explosive charge, killing the clerk and rendering the money unobtainable. The men shot three other train crew members before escaping into the mountains. The investigation was headed by Chief Agent Dan O'Connell, who soon asked that California criminalist, Edward Heinrich, examine soiled overalls found nearby. Using primarily botanical evidence, Heinrich identified them as those of a woodsman, leading to the identification of three Oregon d'Autremont brothers as suspects. After an intensive manhunt, one was captured 3 years later in the Philippines and was tried and found guilty. The twins, captured in Ohio, then pleaded guilty. This crime, typical of those in which unforeseen events lead the perpetrators to panic and to murder, helped to establish criminology and particularly botanical studies as valid scientific disciplines. Its investigation and solution also remain models of scientific crime detection.     

AFTER THE ANCIEN REGIME: THE WRITING OF JUDGMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 1979/1980

“Ten censure wrong for one who writes amiss; A fool might once himself alone expose, Now one in verse makes many more in prose.” (Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism.)     

Legal moralism and retribution revisited

This is a slightly revised text of Jeffrie G. Murphy’s Presidential Address delivered to the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, in March 2006. In the essay the author reconsiders two positions he had previously defended—the liberal attack on legal moralism and robust versions of the retributive theory of punishment—and now finds these positions much more vulnerable to legitimate attack than he had previously realized. In the first part of the essay, he argues that the use of Mill’s liberal harm principle against legal moralism cannot be cabined in such a way as to leave intact other positions that many liberals want to defend—in particular, certain fundamental constitutional rights and character retributivism in criminal sentencing. In the second part of the essay, he expresses serious doubts—some inspired by Nietzsche—about the versions of character retributivism that he had once enthusiastically defended and now describes himself as no more than a “reluctant retributivist.”