New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-03-07

one day at Liverpool she may De LOOKED ior AZ
New.York the latter part Of next week, with twenty
days later news.
Punishment-severItyv Certainty.
We had thought the argument against Capital
Punishment based on the reluctance Of Jures TO con-
vict where Death il the prescribed penalty had
been 80 fairly and fully presented that could no
longer be evaded nor misunderstood, but the lead
ing article in the Courier g. Enquirer of Wednes
day does entirely mistake the point which ii pro-
fesses to controvert We shall therefore endeavor
to place it in so clear light that such waste Of
powder may not again be incurred.
Passing by the Couriers exuation over the sig
nal and notable ouerthro,c" Of the opponents Of
Hanging in the Tabernacle debates some winters
SINCE with the simple statement that our side had
no fair share of opportunity in those debates-were
not allowed the closing argument on single even,
ing-were refused meeting on another evening
when we might be allowed to answer instead Of
merely anticipating what could be urged against us
were held throughout to the responsibilities of
challenging party, which we were not, but simply
invited disputants in of series of discussions got
up by neither party-and finally were refused the
privilege Of stating the points tohfch nee rested
our case in the book which put forth with extra
Hourishes of tsumpets as report Of the arguments
by which we were vauquished Todd conduct this,
FOR conguerors y or even in the journal which pro-
fessed TO report the debate but gave only the Hang
ing side of it, though it distinctly promised to pub
lish our points and was repeatedly but vanly urged
TO fulfil that promise-we proceed to consider the
Courier's article. That article states our position
thus:
J,res iuiH find murdeers gully OF murdr, long
the penalty for murder is death ter.orc cha, penalty
must be changedto u atlder one
To this the Courier makes answer, LIST, That the
averment is sheer assumption and not true; 3D.
That juror having scruples as to the DeathPenal-
ty has no right in Capital case; Sd, That
auror who should, after qualifying, refuse to concur
in a verdict Of Guilty because hostile to Capital
Punishment, would be guilty of perjury 4th, That
such Jurors are in like with witnesses who
swear falsely TO culpri and that such vaga-
riss are not to be humored but punished; and, 5h,
That Jurors who can SO trile with the most solemn
obligations might do the same if the penalty in view
were Imprisonment for Life instead Of Death, espc
ciay MS some of argue that the former is the Sc
verer penalty-Such is the substance of the Court
ers answer
Before replying to it, let us state our point more
fully and clearly than the Courier has it
We contend, not that murderer will ever be
found guilty while the penalty is DEATH but that the
general aversion TO and dread of the awful respon-
sbilty Of invoking that penalty is 20 great that Ju-
rors mot those of school only, by any means,l
do. will and must hesitate to convict where there is
saado,c of doubt of the guilt of the prisoner; and
that this natural and unavoidable hesitation has
saved, acsA save mast save many criminal from
conviction, and thus greatly increase the chance OF
escape from legal punishment and the confidence Of
the person medi,ating crime that he tcM escape
hence conduces to multiply murders. This is oui
point Now to the facts:
i. It's no mere assumptions tina, prisoners at ban
are often acquitted such considerations. Is there
any doubt that Wyatt would have been convicted o.
Murder recently at Auburn had the penalty beer
Imprisonment, for Life7 Does any one doub, thu
Polly Bodine would have been long since in State
Prison had such imprisonment been the legal pen
alty of Murder7 Could Richard P. Robinson have
been acquitted if Imprisonment had been the pen
altyi We 40 not believe one in hundred of those
familiar with the facts can disagree with us on
either Of these cases aud they are but few out OF
hundreds TINT might be cited.
.. The Courier blunders in supposing that only
opponents of Capital Punishment, are troubled and
Influenced by these scruples. On the contrary. in
the late trial Of Wyatt all the Jurors objected
10 on other grounds were asked by the Prosecuting
Attorney. Are you opposed TO Capital Punish
ment land we are informed thar about foar: ftths
Of them answered Yes and were set aside on that
ground The winnowed remnant were OF course
men Of the Couriers faith on this point yet they
could not agree TO fad guilty a convict who had
no.oriously stabbed TO the hear fellow prisoner
whom he hated. There was room only 10 doubt the
moral sanity of the prisoner--tha is the defence
implied that he had been gosded mot by hs victim)
into state OF phrenzy or moral insanity. On this
ground be has escaped conviction. But who sup.
poses thata murder was ever committed in state
OF perfect moral sanity We can hardly see how
IN ABLY defended manslayer is ever 10 be convicted
mis- rate If he do his work cautiously and
secretly, the evidence can only be circumstantial,
md tAdt We all know has raised and will, mislead
70 strong presumption tina, the guilty. is innocent
and innocent guilty. But let him strike down his
victim In broad day and in sgh, of hnndreds md
the very audacity of the crime oos.h;,it,
70 say the least that his mind was d;ao-ds,.a
how could he devote himself 60 surely "a , ss,on,s
revolving death
8. Our assumption is not and never wa. ,b,,
jurors who thus hesitate to convict wfully perjur.
themselves No such thing. But they are ins,rue,
ed in case Of any doubt to lean to the side o
Mercy they call to mind the many well authcn,i
ca:edcases wherein the iunocen, have been convic,
ed on the strength Of msconstrued, perhaps artfun
oon.rived, circumstances, or the insane hung 70
crimes of which they had no rational or moral cog
nizsneci and they say to themselves, Far bets