Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-12-19
MISCELLAN GUS.
CAPITAL PUN1sHprENT.
Memorial to the LEGISLATURE of Vermo

ne SUBSCRIBERS, cltlZenS OF --
respectfully solicit your attention to that
portion of the criminal code which pre-
scribes the punishment of Death, for the
crimes therein specified.
Your memorialists believe that consid.
eratlons of safety to the public, as we'll as
the dictates of humanity and obedience to
the precepts of Jesus Christ, imperiously
demand the immediate repeal ofthose laws
which subject their victims to the awful
penalty of death. So strong is the current
of public sentiment against the taking of
life for the punishment of crime, that it is
often difficult to find jury who will con-
sent to try criminal cause, and thus ma
ny of our citizens whose superior qualif-
cations best recommend them for Jurors.
are prevented by conscientious Scruples
from acting in those cases in which the
safety OF the community, as we'll as jus.
| tice to the accused, require the exercise
of the clearest judgment and the most
acute discrimination. To the same cause
may also be attributed the fact, that the
guilty are often entirely acquitted, or else
subjected to a measure of punishment
which most would agree was altogether
inadequate to the magnitude of the offence.
Cases occur In which there is no interme-
diate grade of offence, recognized by the
4 law, between innocence and murder of the
first degree-such as poisoning and so
strong is the aversion in the minds Of ma
ny Jurors to finding a verdict of guilty. in
such cases, that doubts are cherished, and
palliations INDUCED, which would not
find place, were the punishment less re-.
voting than the taking of the life of a fell
low creature. Thus the designs of JUS
tice are frustrated, and the vicious are en-
! couraged to resort to the most insidious
and dangerous means of DESTROYING life.
In cases of murder. also, which admit of
being ranked in different degrees, the law
| being so rigorous in the punishment of
that crime in the first degree that Jurors
are strongly inclined to find some pretext
for giving verdict which NAV avert the
the dreadful penalty of this offence. and
which will at most subject the offender to
confinement for limited time; thus the
safety of community is supposed by many
to be hazarded by the rigor of the present
law relating to capital crimes.
Your memorialists conceive that the
only legitimate objects of punishment are.
to reclaim the offender and to protect the
community. The first of these objects
cannot surely be accomplished by the de-
struction of the criminal; and if the safe
ty of the public can be as efectuallv Sc.
cured by other means, there can be no
Justification for the inhuman practice of
capital punishment. In proof of the inef
| ficiency of rigorous laws, for the preven-
ton of crime, and of the greater security
to be derived from those of mider char
acter, your memorialists will only advert
to the fact that where the experiment has
been made, the frequency Of crime has
been diminished in an inverse proper
ton TO the severity ofthe criminal code.
The objections to the existing criminal
law above alluded to, though of serious
magnitude, and such as of themselves in
dictate the necessity of legislative action.
are yet founded mainly in expediency.-
There are others, however, more funda.
mental in their character which YOUR me-
morlalIsts believe cannot be obviated bv
any considerations of human policy.
Startling as the proposition may appear,
we feel bound TO declare our deliberate
conviction that GOVERNMENTS DO NOT
POSSESS THE POWER OF TAKING THE
LIVES OF THEIR SUBJECTS. AS "Gov-
emments derive all their just powers from
the consent of the governed" they cannot
possess or exercise any right which is not
conferred upon them by the people. And
when men associate for the purpose of,
forming a civil government, it is impossi-
bic for them to convey to the compact a
right which they do not possess in their
lndivfdualacapacity. We may confer on
the government the power to levy and