Wisconsin herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1846-1849, 1846-07-04
For The Herald.

For The Herald.
! Mr.. EDITOR ~ our correspondent ]. t. NJ.
favored me- with a reply, to which earlier at.
tenion was due; but few indeed | apprehend.
can at all times. respondeto the suggestions of
duty or of inclination. He seems TO consider
expedleucy the only tenable ground" for the
opponents of Capital Punishment. This,
however, is not self.evideni, nor does the
proof thereof amount to demonstration. He
asks if there are no exceptions to the command
-"Thou shalt not kill''--and adduces the
cases of Mckay and De Lassaulx as in
stances, in which to kill 10 self defence, would
have been admissible.
The command" Thou shalt not kill
would suppose coniemplates mainly, unPro
voked and malicious murder, bu. we must not
from thence deduce any loose or underlined no.
tions Of the right Of self defence.
The circumstances of McKay's murder, are
unknown except to the perpetrators; but if
there had been any other possible way of es,
cape, manifest TO him at the time. presume
he would have had no right to kill in seIf.de.
fence. The same principle will bear in De
Lassaulx's case. If not by reireating. nor 10
any other possible manner, could De Lassaulx
have avoided being killed he would not only
have had right. but it would have been his
duty to have killed in selfdefence, because in
no, so doing, he would have become the pas
sve agent Of his own murder and consequent.
ly guilty of suicide. Bot would De Las.
saulx. after having received his death wound
and knowing that bis own life was past pres
ervation, have had right to have killed Brew.
der, would at least have been manslaughter,
not certainly in self Defence because of hav-
ing nothing to defend. This would have
been doing a wrong without preventing a
wrong, and wrongs are no. admissible even as
remedies, most particularly when other reme-
dies are available. Now, Government acts
precisely upon this principle when i, hangs
man for murder; i. commits the very wrong IL
Furnishes, and that in the spirit Of vengeance
no, of remedy. Government hangs the muir
derer too wiihou, the least claim on the right
of self-defence; because is for crime already
committed; and further, because il could as ef-
fectually prevent him from numbering again
by Imprisonment for life, as by slfaogulaiion'
Nor can il be said that the terror Of the death
penalty by spreading a saluiary awe on CON-
muuiiy, more securely stays the hand oil me
assassin, and therefore, on the ground oil sell
defence, is Unsuitable; because. II such were
really the effect, Government, has no right 10
commit wrong to avoid the possibility OF
wrong. Besides we do not believe shs death
penal,y has any such effect. little rehec-
lion ynon the secret springs Of human action.
the conclusion. tina. it is not SO much
the character Of punishment, fixed to law that
Influences the transgressor. as the chances OF
escaping all punishment. Few. indeed, would
commit murder if il were no, for the hope of
escape. aud those few who would, when GER
lain Of detection and punishment are most
likely 10 be reckless enough to prefer death to
life Of confinement, aud disgrace.
ToJ.. I. NJ. would tender sentiment Of
regard for his just expressions Of Indignation
a, The practice of public executions. hope
,hey will be fully appreciated BY the public.
z.