Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-02-11
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT.
To rnE Eprrons or rur wnro.

nat laws OF TINS Commonwealth, L am actuated by
no other motive than that Of common humanity.
Should they lead to the rmeora,ion Of the condition
OF that class OF population to which they refer,
shall feel myself most amply rewarded for the
little time and labor bestowed upon the subject;
and am not without the hope that this, with your
aid, may lie accomplished by even SO obscure
and humble an individual as | am. In the out
set must take occasion to assure you that am
no ahotionist in disguise; nor am one Of those
sickly philanlhropists who hold that slavery Is n
national evil. On the contrary, deem IL, with us,
positive political good; and I would be glad to
see all the wise men who, in the session Of 1881,
advocated the emancipation OF our slaves upon any
terms, leit TO enjoy the comforts OF their own fire.
sides, and forever excluded from Sta Councils.
One other remark preliminary to the main purpose
of ihis address. In what follows have no rcie-
renee to such crimes as, from the necessity OF self
preservation, both individually and rs a commune
~, must be punished with degree of severity that
will ensure protection; but refer to ordinary
offences affecting the rights OF property, and those
affecting, in lesser degree, the rights OF person.
These latter offences, when committed by free co
lored persons, are, by the existing laws many ca
ses punished with severity greatly disproportion-
ate, IN my opinion, 10 the degree Of crimina lily;
with severity that cannot be justified on principle
and is not required by policy, but is repudiatcd by
that humarc feature OF the Bill Of Rights-so be-
nevoently infused into the Code with regard to our
citizens which declares shat cruel and unusual
punishment shall not be inAlcted.n Upon this SUBJ
res as To "the qualities and properties OF offences
by which we eDab.ed TO proportion punish
ment," for whatever may be said about retrbutive
justice, or exemplary punishment the comparative.
ly MUD punishment inflicted by laws upon the
white offender, warrants the conclusion that, with
us the criterion OF punishment the moral charac-
ter OF the act to be punished. This principle has
the appreciation Of reason and natural Justice, and
the sanction OF conscience; and | ask what there
Is IN principle, justice policy Il mean poli-
connected ct MI a
OF itse,fO that authorizes or requires the wide
difference in the punishment Of these two classes
OF offenders guilty Of the same crimes against the
rights OF property, or the lesser rights of person3
Surely our sense of natural Justice cannot be appeal
ed TO 10 sustain IL; and II we look any principle Of
OF moral propriety or political obligation, il does
seem In me that II the matter should not be reversed
there should at least be some approach to equality
oil punishment: that in the case Of the free back
We should not entirely depart from the criterion Of
Furnishing crime according TO the moral character Of
the act. The white man has facilities OF both mo.
raj and intellectual culture, which are utterly de-
MED land property TO the free black; and IT, from
the want Of such culture, his passions and evil nto
penslties remain unsubdued and lead him 20 the
commission of crime, the moral turptude of the net
Is surely not increased. The white man is a cti-
zen under the Constitution, enjoying all the rights
under the Government that 1t affords and has muen
more OF its protection than the free black (who is
not even citizen under the Consttution,) and
therefore is under greater obligations TO be faithful
aud obedient 10 the Government and its laws In
moral sense, there is no view tina, can take of
the subject that does not put them both in the same
scale OF punishment for many offences merely
against the rights OF property; and yet in all there
Is the greatest inequality. Is this difference requir-
ed by policy IL so, II cannot be the moral policy
OF preventing crime by adequate punishment; for
the peace and security Of the community not only
demands this, but also its rigid application to every
member Of society capable of crime, of whatever
colour; and as have before said, the adequacy of
punishment as TO whites, is fixed according TO the
demerit OF the act. From the duration of punish
ment inflicted on free blacks infer that there is
policy in which this great inequality is founded car
ryng the punishment far beyond the dement, OF the
act punished, IN order that when the convict shall
be discharged isom confinement, the bit and Gre
dit account not OF crime and punishment, but of
expense and profit, shall at least be balanced, II
there be not surplus of profits favor OF the State
made from his labour: IN other words, the policy
of making profitable tradesmen in the penitentiary.
by confinement q the convict at hard labour and
upon coarse diet, Tor period greatly
ed To his offence Not the expiation of the crime
merely, is to be endured, but beyond this, inhu-
mainly under the guise Of political economy, de-
tains him until by the profit CT his labour he REIN.
burses the State Tor the expense Of his punishment
proper This is not punishment IN any civilized
sense OF the term, but the abuse of power in the
oltrary inhcuon OF pain and human suffering; and
oil what should State he more sparng and econo-
mical, than the of this powerl But here again.
IS exhibited this inequality, which maintain ought
not 10 exs'; for # II be good policy in the one case
what renders It lad in the oiher' And, asan-ii
the principle be right, why is it not carried QUIZ
Why does II not reach all those sentenced to the
common jails, where the punishment is much less.
and the expense TO the State much more1 Tie
truih IS, It IS morally wrong, and ought never 10
have been thought OF, much less ensrafied on md
made so odous trait in the character Of our other
wise humane system Of criminal Jurisprudence To
mat mis-
two examples OF the operation Of this system.
They Will not only exhibit this great ineoualtv
but some singular lncongruites in the criminal code
Take, for instance, the case of grand larceny Bv
the code OF lSl9 this offence consists in the stea
ing property 10 the value OF four doar and uo.
wards, and the punishment for both classes ia con-
hnement IN tpe penitentiary for not less than one
nor morehan three years. This is the law now AS 10
whites, except that the value Of the goods must be
ten dollars. BY an act passed 18th February 1925,
tins offence m free negro was punished by strpes
sale, and transportation; and il he returned. with
death. Under this law, John Aldridge was con-
ylcted; and well remember the opinion exnressed
OF the law, by one OF the best OF men and iudses
when he sat upon that trial; and | doubt not that
his benevolence led Ia its repeal on the 10Th of Ee
bruary, 1928. By the act OF the 18th of Februorv
ISIS, this offence and all others, | believe Tint
free negro can commit against the rights Of proper
~, except petty larceny (then the stealing of nro
perry under the value Of ten dollars) and simple
respasses, was punished, for the fitsl offence NV
confinement IN the penrentiary for not less than
nor more than Is yelrs and for the second for life.
and this IS now the law, bon as TO these offences
and many OF the lesser offences against the rights of
persons. The only change IL has undergone is nv
the act Of the l5th Of March, 1899, which makes
grand larceny consist in stealing goods Of the value
OF sac, or less; petty larceny, the punishment f,r
which Is not more than 80 hshes, to be inflicted bv
order ofa justice Of the peace BY the criminal avs
OF this State, then, n white rogue guilty of grand
larceny, cannot be sent TO the penitentiary for
more man three years. but may be sent for
one only, when black rogue cannot be semi
Tor less than five, and may be sent for eighteen
years; THIS legislation, in my opinion is not sane.
TONED either by reason, justice necessity; but il
II not on the contrary, repudialed by every prine
PIE OF humanity and the planest dictates of moral
right Nor can il be sustained upon any faneied
notion Of political economy If il were Unsuitable
10 bnns any such principle into the Calculation
Tor think 1t viii PUBLICAN political economist or
speculative philosopher 10 prove either Of these two
propositions, both OF which must be made good be-
lore ihis ineqSlty can be sustained upon his theory
Of punishment: LIST. That IL one years confinement
OF while convict in the Peniteniary is necess,Tv
to reimburse the Commonwealth the expense Of his
confinement II requires FIVE years confinement of n
black convict TO liquidate his: %. II Tor the same
purpose u be necessary TO conhne the yhite man
from one TO three years. the black must be confined
from five TO eighteen. To shew that this system
upon whatever based is wrong, cruelty wrong; 1
Will give some cases that have occurred in Inc
Courts Of the Commonwealth, and If necessary.
Vouch the record" that they may be understood
however, must premise, that 10 receive stolen
goods oil coloured person, over the value Of soo
- statutory grand larceny and comes within fhs
operation Of the before mo ntoned act Of t0,b ri.
Tulry, 1928. white person ,y,s t,iI r ~,