New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-03-18

Capital Punishment.
To the Editor Of The 7ribgHe;
The attempt Of your correspondent, b got to evade
the force of Prof Lcwiss mpregnable syuogisrn in
the work of Messrs Lewis and Cheever on CAPITAL
Punishment is entirely indications as .hsll show
beg the close attention Of your readers.
First let me state Prof. Lewiss argument. The
Divine Being Instituted law ,ric4 ,ras TO h. Der.
petuol, for the punishment, Of murder by death.
Those opponents of Capital Punishment whom Prof
Lewis charges with infdeli;y, assert lhst the pun
ishnnent Of murder by death is barbarous, cruel re-
v.neeful and teqcReS iiendsh revenge There
fore they assert that the Divine Being instituted
law rhicL 1cas TO be perpetual teaching fsndiSh re
,.snos The conclusion is blasphemous, bat inevi.
table
dent, he does not attempt today the truth Of Prof
Teyyjs's syllogism, but endeevors to offset it BY
another. thus Messrs Lewis and Cheever saw that
the annexation of the punishment by death 10 minor
,ffances in codes of law VIGOROUSLY severe among
modern nations has bcgoten deep sentiment Of inus
rice and tends TO lowerthe estimate Of human life But
the punishment OF death for minor offences was establish
cd iv .be Divine Being for the Jews Therefore, the
Divine Being established law. which becets the SEMI.
ment Of Injustice. and lo'serE the estimate human
life
This sylogism fails entirely for the following reasons
First because the punishment OF death for murder was
promulgated to Noah for MI mankind hundreds o; years
before the Jewish code had existence Bu: the pun
ishmept Of death for minor offences not,
Second because the punishment, OF death for minor
offences was established for he Jsi7s But modern ma
tons not the Jews
Third because the punishment II death Tor minor OF.
fences was not established by the Divine Being prp
val Bat the punishment Of death for r,urdernos.
Fourth because the punishment OF death for minor
offences in the VIGOROUSLY severe codes of modern
.inns referred TO above has the sanction OF the D
vine Being But the punishment Of death for ml7dd in
the same codes hrs
Fifth because the punishment Of death for minor Of
fences APPOINTED 5y God in he 'gst statutes did be-
ret the sentiment o.. injustice nor lower estimate of
human life though III; bad been appointed without Gods
sanction by human legislators in codes VIGOROUSLY
we're, il would.
The sylossm OF your correspondent entirely fails in
every part because of the important omission OF the D
vine sanction in the premise To show its alsehood
clearly will substitute for it which is perfectly
analogous TO It. both In toe and the spirit thus
The burning of houses By persons unauthorized and
malicious bcCes deep sentiment Of Injustice. and sets
an example ogrcat crime But the Divine Being in the
wears 1885 and ISIS destroyed large part OF the City of
Nes.York by fire. Therefore the Divine Being &c
The blasphemou5 conclusion will not state, bat it is
your correspondents Taesyoaismis. in every respect
MS rood ana true hi that s thatit "a both false and
daInnable Butits just pr csely the reasoning of;hose
opponents OF Capital Punishment who charge the law of
death for murder teaching cruelty and revenge TIA.
law being beyond all denial established by God IS per
petua
If the punishment of death for rn@or offences lad
been annexed By Gods authority to TodcfH cOdcs il
would be b!esphsmous sag tia; ii teaches cruelty aud
revenge or that it bece:s The sentiment OF Injustice and
lowers the estimate 81 human life so far the punish
nent Of death ur minor offences fixed BY Gods
,horty IN he Jesish coe II is biasphcmous say that it
taught cruelty OF revenge TO them who reasons
in this way, is iuids md can be called nothing
else He is scTrious irdfe' as Prof Lewis has pro-
perry said. man who reasons N this way would aso
reason that earthquake. which destroys city ut
blow teaches wholesale cruelty md murder The earth.
quake which destroyed Lisbon the hand Of 3D. as
much the law among the Jews for stoning the aduer
er The law for stoning the a6uteTer was the hand OF
God as much as tho Overwhelming Of Sodom in fire
man would be blaayhercr who should accuse God a7
r.%T anf = Sr Ss Cen 81 me @
for stonne the adulterer among the Jews rs teaching
cruelty and revenge.
undertakes the application o. the death penalty pOpt
the Divine sanction to minor oface az to sheep steal
ing and so forth. under the old laws Of England no Is
liable to the accusnt on of making code VIGOROUSLY
severe, unjust and inhunan This may and must hcgct
sentiment Of Injustice ard lower the estimate Of hui
man life. On the other hand. If n human legislator
strikes the penalty of death. for Murder when God
has REQUIRED IL and made il petuh be chespens e
lowers its estimate puts murder on eve! with other
ufences and tcmpts men 10 commit murder as readily
as forgery or theft The Divine BEING although in the
case OF the Jews he annexed the punishment OF death 10
some minor offences get put murder on level
with those offences inamuch MS he had appointed death
for murder tho penalty FOR NIL mankind bcorc the es'
tablishment Of the Jewish community and made it also
psrpuGl for the Jewish commony after their establish.
nent The crime OF murder stands out in the Scrip.
lures as it ought do in human legislation supreme and
unrivaied, in its guilt its horror and its retribuon
JUSTICE.
CE@ Il strikes Us that Justice is compelled 10
assume the point that God in Gen. tx. 6, authorized
human legislators TO alix the penalty of Death 10
Murder-whichis byno means admitted God may
burn cities, or destroy them by earthquakes, or
,,,co IN moot iaatl, h, hnnd Of n
fellow man. and still not require lars to be vim
dictive Suppose the Creator Ind said, The houses
OF aduherers shall be consumed by FIRE, or even
They shall be set on FIRE by men. We should not
understand that every man was commanded 10 set
the houses of these offenders fire, nor even tina!
Governments are required to provide FOR such con-
migration God is perfectly able to execute His
own judgments; and when He says He that taketh
the sword shall perish by the sword we do not I'M
derstand Him as requiring any ofus TO take swords
and kill all swordsmen.
The main part of Justices argument seems 10 US
10 refute Prof Lewis syllogsm quite thoroughly
as his opponents No case is strengthened, except
with the very weak very ignorant by such asser-
lions rs that the law of Death for Murder was
bgvond all denial established by God as perpetual"
when that is the very point most earnestly denied.
and ou7 side undorb:ingly believe that all such re-
ribu,ive penalties so far as ever sanctioned, were
expressly abrogaed by Christ In short, III assum-
ing too much 10 say that penalties denounced among
the Israeli,es in the Wilderness were vindctive and
not purely defensive. because they would NOR be
vindictive ana unneeded as safeguards against far
Their offences from the same cupH's. Prove that the
culprits of old were severely punished purely be-
cause they had snued. and not mainly because they
could so only be prevented from farther outrages'
andit will then be time TO invent syogisms proving
one side or the other guilty Of technical blaspheDy
Ed