The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1854-12-09
Che Gontrourrsialist.
For The Cccil Wing e..
CAPITAL PUNISH MENT;
4 WORD On THE OTHER SIDE.

the subject, merely ollcr a lew Suggestions
calculated to relieve him Of his difficulties.
1t is evident that his first difficulty arises
from msconccplon Of certain portions of
the sermon on the Mount" Jesus Christ,
in that discourse. speaks in the most decided
terms of diSappYoval of certain maxims bor-
rowcl from the Mosaic Code and applied 10
socidHfe. Particularly to he remarked are
those on swearing Mat. V, 80, and on retail
alton [ver. 3S That Jesus Christ meant to
annul the law of retaliation as principle Of
Jurisprudence, can no more bcshown than that
he intended in the preceding verses to abolish
judicial oaths. Manifcstly his design in eth
or case was to forbid the introduction of these
principles and practices into social life, while,
as connected with the administration of JUS
tcc. he left them untouched.
As to the .'sanguinary code" Of Moses we
have little to say. Is justice sanguinary be-
cause it is .scvcnhandcd 2" What other idea
can we have Of Justice than the rendering to
man exactly what is due him e-of criminal
Justice exactly what the crime deserves!
lie next quotes the case of Cain, who was
so marked that he might not be killed. AS
this was an instance of direct lntcrpoStion
on the part of Deity it cannot fairly be re-
garlcd as constituting precedent for human
action. What God himself does. or inter-
poses to command to he done on a particular
occasion is a matter SUI generls. 1t would be
IA. la, r e., to
rludc, because God has been revealed as do
ing thus and so on particular occasion, we
may do the same on all analogous occasions.
We are obliged to go by general rule. 1t
might possibly he to the advantage Of society
and of the criminal himself, in certain cases,
to remit the penalty Of the law; but we are
not discerning or wise enough to know with
certainty, which these cases arc. Doubtless
the Deity, who knows all things, perceived
that Gains was one of those exceptional
eases, and 50 did very properly, what short
sighted human tribunal, whose only safety is
in general rules would not have been justified
in doing, in the very same case.
Your correspondent further asks evidence
have the ministers of the law derived their
power to take away the life Of a fellow be-
ing?" And particularly under our govern
mcnt, where all power is delegated by the
people, he thinks the difficulty to be very
great ;-"cvcry man" lie says. "muSt pos
Scss the right to take away human life, for
he could not delegate to others a right that
4 4 I e
s'cvcry man" have such a right in the face
of the sixth commandment Yet i'll a fol-
lowing paragraph he proposes solitary con-
tincmcnt at hard labor for life as suitable
punishment, in regard to which we might re-
tort upon him his own observation-disclosures
have the ministers of the law derived the
power to take away hcltLcr'y Of a fellow be-
ing +! AS it is a delegated power in this
country, it must follow that every man. has
the right to take away human liberty, for
he could not delegate to others a light that
he did not possess himself" Yet according
to the Declaration Of Independence life and
liberty arc put upon an equal footing. So
we might argue in regard to every sort Of
punishment under the laws and be frightened
from enforcing them all by the inference,
that "n this government" every man must
possess the right to do the same: for how,
otherwise, could he delegate the right to the
ministers of justice
In opposition to such an inadequate view
of the origin Of Judicial power we affirm the
simple and sclfcvidcnt proposition, that
society hos right, by the necessity Of the case,
to do ercrythinrarhich can be Aomn to be n,ces-
snryio its highest 1rclfrc. Further: we affirm,
that so soon as, in the course of social adj
vancrmcnt, courts Of law have arisln, they
are ipso tncio and Of divine right, endowed
with authority and laid under obligation to
administer justice and to enforce the laws
which according to our supposition) are
framed with view to the highest welfare of
the State.
If these positions arc admitted. and we
shall not lcngthcn our article by defending
them, the only remaining question is whcth-
or the Death Penalty in cases of murder is
'alENIitcu W promote lnc nlHnCSt WClIarC OF
the State! If it is, then we need not ask
whence we derive power to enforce it: the
power is ours granted by the same divine
charter which authorizes us to become state.
Your correspondent. of course, takes the neg
alive in this question; but his remarks upon
this point, which is the gst of the argument
are least definite and convincing. What we
want in order to deter others from the crime
of murder according to him is not so much
severity as certainty Of punishment Solitary
confinement at hard labor for life would be
preferable, because less scrcrc and because
more certain TO be administered. This is
new argument, Tor rather a new assertion, J
to show the inexpcdicncy of Capital Punish
mcnt. Hitherto I have understood the an
tagoniSts Of such Punishment, to argue for
solitary confinement &C., as at least equally,
if not more severe than death. Here it is
recommended for the very opposite reason
and because being less severe it will more
certainly be administered and consequently,
being more certain, (aitho' less scvcre,) it