Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1845-1851, 1846-01-08
Capital Punishment.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SATUgpAY. January 3. Isl

The House now Proceeded IN committee u the
whole Mr.. Moore III the chair, To the consideration
of the bill abolishing capital punishment
Mr.. Harvey proposed an amendment, to punish
capitally by solitary confinement at hard labor for
life. at the discretion of the Jury
Mr. Baker moved to strike out the word =" soli-
tary.
Mr.. Julian. would make few suggestions. Those
who are in favor of Furnishing capiiay, or by con-
fnement for life, at the discretion of the jury admit
that this would virtullly abolish capital punishment
Taking their own admission of public feeling ON
this question: he could reason why that public
sentiment should not at once be expressed upon the
statute book.
Mr. Davis said, there were aggravated cases that
demanded capital punishment and he thought it
should be continued.
Mr.. Lowe said he was willing to ayow his friend
ship for capital punishment Its adjustment he
considered innovation on long established customs
and usages lying at the very foundation of our sys
TEN of Jurisprudence and the peace and happiness of
the country. The great OBJECT OF punishment TO
deter men from the commission of crime. This was
nm ace of progress but he denied that public mora Is
were far advanced, as, IN all cases, to do away
the necessity of taking human Life for the crime of
murder lie had been conversant with courts of JUS
tcc for thirty years of his life, and he confessed that
he approached this subject with fear and trembling.
No general complaint had been made, in regard to
our laws-and he thought they should not be changed
TO suit the feelings of few benevolent. though mis-
guided individuals, this subject. He referred to
the first section of the law which this section went to
abolish-it was that those convicted Of treason-of
enmty TO their country,-should be punished with
death. lie was acquainted with the principles of
those from whom the petitions on this subject ema-
mated at the present se.sion-ihe Friend Quakcrs.
lie was raised amongst tncm and might have been q
Quaker himself even until this day. but for their pc
cuar notions about and the rights of nations as
well as individuals, to defend themselves He rccol-
lected something about the last and the conse-
qucnccs which the principle here involved might lead
TO- During that struggle there war party and
a peace party, and lac well recolleced that the peace
party consisted IN part Of that society who are
now petitioniug for the adjustment of capital pun
i,hmcnt. Suppose we adopt this principle, what
should we do with those who might be- guilty of the
crime of treason men who would lift their unhal-
lowed arms against the liberties of their country
Would YOU place them in the penitentiary There
might be thousand, OF instances OF tn, kind. If the
law thus lenent suppose said he, that Indiana
was the seat Of war; the enemy's forces land on our
northern borders aud suppose that IN own State
there were thousands opposed 10 that Suppose
that-Europe had sent in her thousands who would act
with the enemy, would the penentiary system an
swsr the purposes Of punishment My God what
a proposition 50 far placing men IN the pea ten
tary is concerned il does not inspire as much terror
I'm some individuals others. The individuals of
this House governed IN their actions by moral
feeling unknown II many others in country. We
have amongst thousands of the hicdrOni of Europe
and the Mearcni of this country, who would even
commit crime to have gc1tcel boarding house I'm
the penitentary He had investigated the matter
sufficiently to satisfy himself This subcct-that
punishment in the State prison Is not. IN al cases, a
preventive Of crime. He opposed this description of
punishment as applicable TO all cases, because it
placed the worst tcnd of all community on a level
with those who acted under far less aggravated cir
cum stances. lie hoped the friends of the bill would
no al IN ms ne
was the duty of the opponents of any great measure
although IN the end they could not vote for it, lest
pcrchance it might become law. He referred to
different classes of crime and asked, what put an
end, I'm great extent. to dlelling In our country
One SAYS, public opinion. What caused this public
opinion He answered. the improved morals of
the country This he would admit bat here is not
the question In the absence of vigorous law on
the subject when Graves murdered Cllev he laid the
sin Of duclng at the door of Congress, and if proper
punishment be necessary in instances like this how
much more so, when we descend into the more de-
GRADED and ignorant walks of life from whence cruel
and cold booded murders sprang He denied that this
last class Of individuals operated more upon bv
public opinion than they hundred years ago
because they sInned against an improved light
and know ledge IN our country. lie raised
amongst the Quakers, and had never struck man in
his life. He was too good natured. But we were
not making laws for the Friends They, and these
like them, will not commit murder; but we are pro-
tectinp society against the abandoned villain who
lost 10 every sense of humanity and mercv wuntonly
riots In waste of human life, and for him the same
severity of punishment IS demanded, as was, hun
dred years ago.
Mr. Edwards said, that the question now before the
House was Of the most important character. The
execution of criminals on the gallowS he considered
a blrbarous relic of by-gone years and which we
should wipe from our statute book. The gentleman
from Monroe had made very ingenious speech in
opposition to the BILL and he agreed with that gentle
man that the greatest caution should be used In ap-
preaching this question. If the law necessary and
in consonance with the spirit of the age in which we
lived and the code of moral ethics, should con-
time it on our statute book but if it be not nccessa-
rv we should at abolish it. But he was opposed
TO solitary confinement, for the condition of the cul
brit thus punished would be far more lamenabIe and
give him his choice he would In instances choose
death The most hardened demon of hell would
quake at the idea of solitary confinement, and he
would rather suffer the law to remain it is than
principle like this should be adopted The laws of
nature demand that all living beings should have ne
eessarv exercise Our statute now licenses murder at
once but if solitary confinement be substituted muir
der would take place by inches. The gentleman had
endeavored to make out that State Prison was
paradise-at criminals there congregated to fat
ten at the public crib; but such was not the case
They are compelled under the lash, to perform their
da Nv tasks, and were in a far worse condition than
the slaves of southern states. lie opposed CAPT.
tai punishment however, for the public ex-
ccuiions were calculated to harden the feelings and
frequently ended in debauchery and dissipation 1t is
principle of law that better that ninety-ninc
guilty persons should escape than innocent should
suffer. Oar experience now teaches that every
wear some innocent person Is executed. Who that
has read the trial of the murderers of Col
but must be led to believe that of three that
we're executed, were most likely innocent of the
crime for which they suffered death. The old maxim
was, an eye for eye and tooth for tooth but
better principle to render good for evil and many
,.o,son- o,ero ted uDon this Xav whore