The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1854-12-30
Gbc Gontroucrsialist.
For The Cecil Wing.
Capital Punishment.

Mr.. Editor 1t would lie ungratcful were
not to acknowledge myself indebted to the
kindness of your correspondent who Offered
"a few suggestions on the other side of capt.
tai punishment, calculated to relieve me of
my difficulties.
My first difficulty it seems arose from a
m;sconception of certain portions Of the
Sermon on tine Mount" where our Saviour
speaks in the most decided terms of disap-
proval Of certain maxms borrowed from the
Mosaic code, and applied to social life My
error here may have arisen from the belief
that the principles of right and truth are
immutable, and are as necessary to constitute
the basis Of social duties, as the groundwork
of jurisprudence, and that common sense, so
necessary in regulating the social duties of
mankind, is said to be the foundation of COM
mon law, and that the doctrine of our Saviour
intoxicating merciful treatment towards often
dcrs, was as applicable to jurisprudence, as
to social duties; and the case of the woman
taken in adultery may be cited as particu-
lar instance: and that mankind are not 50
nfallble, and so much "rdhom .tduh," that
they should contend for more rigid system
of Justice. But this it seems was all wrong
Another error that has been so ably rcfut-
ed, arose from the belief that Cain, the first
murderer, not being condemned TO death by
the Almighty, who was Judge in his case,
was high authority on this subject but your
correspondent relieves my difficulty by in
forming us that eve are obliged to 90 by
general rule" and to consider the case of Cain
as an exception, though he believes the Diety
"lid rery property"
Your humble servant had thought that
man could not delegate power he did not
he could not empower his SER
want to do acts that he has no authority to
90 himscf-that the Irshman was right who
said he could pay fifty dollars as soon as any
man if he had the money. This however,
seems to be very "inadcquatc view" and
the self evident proposition is "that society
has right by the nee essity Of the case, to
do every thing that can be shown to be
to its highest welfare" An I'M
portant question. might arise hcre--cn1 ii be
shoun that solitary confinement for life will
lie less effcctual in preserving the welfare of
society, than strangling the offender TO death?
We are told that courts Of law are of
'diriae right cndowcd" to enforce the laws
made by mcn;-wcll, suppose, in the course Of
the refinement of Il very polite nation, laws
should be enacted to cut off the he ads of
multitudes of offenders, by an ingenious in
with great expedition, would the
Of the courts to carry this law into
execution be of dir,ne authority! The Court
Of Rome claims diriac right, and royalsts
claim divine right for Kings; at least it has
been said so; but may have been in error
for thinking that there is no divine right
for cruel and unnecessary punishment.
have been wrong if said aught that re-
Elected on the integrity jurors-thcse I have
thought were a good deal like other men,
sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, and
lad the impression that there had been much
difficulty in convicting men of the highest
grade of crime, except in very plain cases,
md that Offenders are frequently found guilty
IF murder in the second degree, when from
.he direct tendency of the evidence they must
De guilty in the first degree, or not at all. 1t
s very true that when the evidence is deci-
sive, the jury should find verdict of guilty,
whether the punishment be high or low, but
what is the experience Of mankind on the
subject! Decisions of the kind are not made
Up with mathematical precision-it is not
he addition of certain numbers that must
md will invariably produce the same result,
out there are prcjudices, prepossessions,
doubts, and errors of judgement which oper-
tic on jurors, as on other men, and where
the life of fellow being is at stake, every
JUROR feels the weight of responsibility that
S on him, and the injunction Of the law, that
Ill doubts must operate in favor of the pris-
,ncr, has its effect in capital cases.
In do not wish to impeach the integrity of
urors, nor to assert their infallibility. 1t
happens that juror finds himself
opposed by all the rest CT the panel, and yet
hey come over to his side, and are all well
meaning men. Nothing is more common
han difference of opinion among jurors when
hey retire to their room-thesc differences
nay all be honestly cntertained-thcy arise
rom an improper understanding of the law
nd evidence, from the impcrlections of hui
nan Judgment, and from the operation of
hose feelings and prejudiccs which make a
art of our very being, and have an influence
n all human actions, Notwithstanding the
ice ideal distinctions that may be made
bout the integrity of jurors.
The punishment OF death seems to be the
;vbest punishment that man can inHict and