Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-09-03
CAPITAL Punishment.
To The Editors Of the Indiana State Sentinel

which the writer commences with a criticism upon
the editorial of previous paper. He seems to be
tremely sensitive 10 the phraseology, Legal Muir
DER" used at the head of that editorial.
Now, do not attempt to reply to that essay, be-
cause think it possesses any great intrinsic merit
or strength Of argument. Nor in doing so do | aim
at any display of talents; for confess that | am
neither " Rev. Divine" character so highly eulo
gised by your correspondent IS" nor a member of
g the profession of the law honor which he claims
for himself But frankly acknowledge myself TO be
advocate of the abolition of the death penalty
outstanding the writer, 49, denounces in such
strong and expressive language all who take this
ground infdels, and them of :" prejudcing
the public mind with morbid and mock phildn-
thrOpy"
But my principal motive in penning this article, is
to inform your sangunary" correspondent that he
labors under very impression, If he lhnks
as he has intimated, that the friends of abolition arc
afraid or unwilling TO discuss, either by essay in
public debate, the subject considering
| am inclined TO think he must have forgotten who
first aroused the "public mind" to a consciousness
that penalty which, though it had been sanctioned
/ by the wise and good for many centuries, might
after all, be unwarranable. Let him call to remem-
brance the examples of Dr. Johnson, Judge Black
stone, Becoaria, lfontesqHieu Erasmus Sir Thomas
More, ChiHingSU0rth, Goldsmith, Franklin, Rash
Howdrd, Livingston, For, Pit. Wil6erJorce, Rom
ay, RantOul, SuLirdn Burleigh, Spear, de- and then
justify himself, If he can, in making the unqualified
assertion, that the agitation of this subject is alone
due TO few Rev. Divines," who maintained that
capital punishment should be inflicted" No: our
cause has nothing TO fear from investigations Pub
lie opinion is omnipotent; and the change in public
feeling which the agitation of the death penalty" has
already produced, may be regarded strong indica
ton that the time Is not far distant when this reict of
bdrbdriSm " will be swept from the penal code. not
only IN the United States but throughout the civilized
world. Mankind are breaking away from the francis
OF anhquated customs aud notions; and though every
reform In science, politics, morals is doomed to
bitter and almost unyielding opposition, have no
fears as to the ultimate triumph Of the "cause of
humanity, this morbid SVmDatlU" sicEly SEN
tinentGlism," and ''mock PhianihroPy," as some of
our opponents have proper to term it, The course
pursued by our Humane" Legislators last winter In
virtually abolishng the death penaty' and in which
most heartily concur, is only another step towards
the correction of false and perverted public sen-
ment" And shall we say that the noble exampe of
Indiana, and that of several sister States are the re-
suit of inadvertcnce,'' want of due reflection as
to consequences! This is q gratuitous ASSUMPTION.
that to me ''smacks " strongly Of bigotry and self
importance.
As to the arguments advanced by SIS, - shall. at
present. give them but passing notice He has in
a very incidental and confused manner, and think
Inadvertently too, limited three texts of Scripture
which are often brought forward in support of the
gallows, viz: Genesis, Ia. chapter, &c verses the
penal code of Moses, and Romans xiii. chapter.
especially, in order that it be admitted as an argu-
mcnt our opponent So must prove-frst that the
English version OF It is correct rendering; and second
that it was given a command, and not a warning
or prediction, many able commentators maintain
And when he has done all this, lie must then show
that this, well the Mosaic code is still impera-
tive us before sufficient Importance can be attached
to 1t TO justify the judicial murder" of the criminal
even though he be murderer of the deepest dye In
regard to the Mosaic code, will barely remark that
/ believe it is now generally conceded that it was
given to the Jews in covenant and alone on them
binding: and further that it had It's ulflment in the
establishment of Christ's Kingdom on the earth If
any contend that the penal code of Moses is still in
force, call upon them TO show why any of the
thirty-hree crimes contained in that dark cata-
logue" of 'capital offences" are now exempt from
this penalty. But driven from this, with them once
city of refuge" the advocates of blood wander
back through Its "types and shadows" and anchor
their hopes the dspensation given TO Noah With
out stopping here to point out the discrepancy of
opinion in regard to the translation of the text here
referred to, viz: "Whoso sheddeth mans blood by
man shall his blood be she'd" will remark that our
version will admit of more than Interpretation.
Shall, in this verse, is generally taken in manda-
tory sense from the fact that this construction best
suits 81 laws and Practice, and because it is now
seldom used 1t any other sense But to regard il as
/ imperative wherever it occurs would fiji the Bible
with absurdities." g Bloody and decetfu men shall
not live out half their days." says the Psalmist No
one will contend that they here commanded to
kill themselves. every living thing that moyeth
shall be meat for YOU" Who will attempt TO prove
from this that we are hidden to devour all manner
of beasts birds, and creeping things clean and un-
clean, harmless and venomous!" This word occurs
no less than fourteen times in the same chapter
(omitting the disputed sixth verse; and in only one
instance, at most, does the sense require it to be
understood imperativey, while in most cases it is
plainly meant to have the simple future meaning.
Again. have quite satisfactory evidence that in the
Patrlarchal age it was not understood as command
! to take life. " We have account of the murder
of Sechem and the people of his city by Simeon and
Levi the sons of Jacob, under circumstances of the
most treacherous ferocity." Genesis, chap xxxv.)
Had the covenant with Noah been understood in that
day, requiring the retrbution of blood for blood it
is not to be supposed that the patriarch Jacob COM
binng the character of ruler with that of parent
would have left unexecuted the mandate so directly
and imperatively given by the recent voice of God
himself But nowhere in his denunciations of the
retributons that should overake the guilty brothers.
is any alluson made to such penalty that which
must have been regarded inevitable had he UNDER
stood the passage in question in the light of COM
mand.
Nor was the penalty executed upon Moses for the
murder of the Egyptian. And we might mention the
case of David, and Paul, further testimony that
even under the Mosaic covenant this penalty was not
invariably inflicted, when expediency dictated other
wise.
But suppose it could be proved beyond a shadow of
doubt, that the text in question really an invo-
liable command to take lfe another difficulty presents
ITSELF If it be admitted that Christ fulfilled the Jew
ISL law, when he established, in lieu of it. the new
and better covenant is it grossly absurd 10 saw
that the Gentle world is still under the anlquased
code OF Noah! Was this Kingdom confined to the |
al / hay pOfS Cd 81