Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-04-15
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

! The favorers and opponents Of the Death Pen.
atty had hearing recently before committee OF
the Massachusetts, Legislature. The Common,
,cealh gives the following abstract Of Wendell
Phillips arguments
Mr.. pnItLtPs said:-Mr. Chairman,--0ur object
is to carry still further the policy of last act
of legislation relative to the death penalty. In
this country and Great Britain, the tendency OIL
the law is to less aud less punishment-to miiderl
and more humane treatment OF criminals say
this to put aside the objection, that this movement
to abolish the death penalty comes from morbid
sympathy" for the criminal. The purpose OF law
is TO prevent crime and we claim that our method
lis better than the old We do not propose To-
take down the barriers against crime nor to create
a morbid sympathy for criminals. We claim that
the gallows does not protect society," that 1t is an
unnecessary severity, and that the welfare OIL So
ciety demands its abolition.
We are not alone. 1t is not merely few men
lin New England, who seek to abolish this penalty.
You can hardly take up treatise ON law IN which
you will not find some sign of the tendency TO-
lighter treatment of criminals. lie mentioned
various distinguished names in his favor begin
lining with Sir Thomas More, and ending with Lord
BrOugham. Legislation is constantly dismisslng
Ibarbnrsm. England had one hundred and Fifty
different capital offences. Virginia had a large
humber. Legislation had lessened the number.
In mono Of our States there now more than sew
en- or eight. In many of them not more than two
or three. Arc we not as well protected now as
The idea Of punishment has no legitimate place
in human government. Cheever falls into great
mistake by assuming that il has. Human govern
ment has not TO do with sin but with evils. SOc-
city draws line between the intent to murder, and
the deed of murder. The punishment Of theft is
shaped to the evil it does. We treat the evils Of
crime. God lets down his plummet Of justice
land Of mercy, tool into the unfathomable depths
of the human heart measures the sin, and deals
with that; but not thus can man do. Therefore
! put away with the idea that the punishments Of
human governments must be or can be shaped to
the amount Of the criminals sin.
The object of legislation is to protect the com
munty, and he il the wisost statesman who con-
tryes to do this most truly There are two meth
ods Of doing this, to-wit: hanging and imprison-
ment And where do you get the right to take
liieY Government, which is social compact,
founded on atheism, may have warrant for sui
eide, and therefore each man under it may claim q
right to concede to others the right to take his life,
for the stream cannot rise higher than the fountain.
But Christianity does not admit such premises,
and therefore cuts OF the conclusion. Our oppo-
meats here will not claim that rightfully
kill himself give another the right to kill him.
!. Where, then, do you get the right to take life
But they 60 to that text in Genesis "Whoso
shcdleth mans blood by man shall his blood be
she'd" The real difficulty is religious one.
The gaows is sustained by the belief that society
o stands under that text of the Old Testament and
= is therefore obliged to take life. contend that
q no fair Interpretation Of this text imposes any
= such obligation The verse has had nine different
/. transatons The Septugint, Wckliife, and the
l., Vugatc, omit the words "by him." Michaelis
n renders it, Whatsoever sheddoth mans blood,
}. his blood shall be she'd" which accords with the
n practice in the East, of confscating or destroying
Q whatever weapon or instrument has been concern
{ ed in killing man.
u Now here is single line Of IIebrew-no schol.
C ar will stand up in company Of scholars and
l. affirm that he is certain Of its meaningyet it is
appealed to as an impregnable foundation for the
d gallows. Now do you believe, can you believe
g that God would have left such matter so ambgu.
|, Gus and equivocal? If he meant to have us be-
n lieve that the gallows is divine and permanen,
If institution would he have left il to rest dis
s puted line Of the old Hebrew scriptures? Ne
Sheriff in Massachusetts would dare to use the
q galow on a warrant so cquivocal. And shall we
deny reason, put aside the whole experience Of the
y world, and cover our mouths with this doubtful
/ Hebrew text?
q Let this line Of Hebrew mean what it will, il
G was addressed to no government. 1t was address
0 ed to individuals. Ii may be the warrant for the
# "ayenger of blood" who as the nearest relative
to murdered man, felt himself under obligation
Q to kill the murderer If it be law it means this
4 But let any man undertake to obey that law now
as it was obeyed for 1900 years after the time Of
Noah, and society would rise in arms against
@ him.
il Again:--In this text, the penalty, "by man
IS shall his blood be she'd" is denounced not merely
Y against him who kills with malice aforethought
d but against shedding blood with or without malice
Z II says, ho must be killed who kills another acc
Is dentaly, or under any circumstances. Yet no
man here will advocate hanging the man who kills
is another by accident.
10 Consider also, that this direction comes not from
r Moses, but from Noah. Moses found in existence
& the custom Of avcnging blood but he could not
4 tolerate it, and therefore made cities Of refuge
" and provided that the cases of those who fled t0
n them should be examined. II he could not ex.
h tirpate the CUSTOM he sought TO regulate it, This
e shows that he did not allow that text as a supreme
,f authority.
Ii If this text be an absolute law of God, we arc
bound to take 1t as 1t stands, and take its meaning
d as that is given us by coemporaneous exposition
and carry 1t out as it carried out during the
1900 years after Noah. The Jews were more hu.
Is name than we are apt to give them credit for
v They soitened the custom of vengeance; un-
~ dertake to insert into their practice q mistaken
rigidiy from ourselves lie examined the verses
q connected with the text in question, and maintain.
n cd that to be consistent, thuse who use this text
as warrant for the death penalty, should obcyed
n all the injunctions connected with it. Paul for.
l. badc eating blood; yet we disregard his prohbi
q ton.
o Moreover this text, law is total In its com.
q mand 1t forbids us to spare the man who has
killed another. lie must not be spared. There
r, must be no pardon. Where does any government
t, get the right to establish pardoning power?-
N by what authority does any State presume to par
ID don murderer Yet every State has its pardon.
r, ing power. If you can find in that text hole big
N enough to put the pardonng power through, will
a put the whole gollows through it. No government
v regards this text, for We have the power we do
ir not punish mansaughter with death, and We pro
hibit the old fashion Of avenging blood.
J. And how is this answered? Choeyer says, "cir-
10 cumstances have changed" &C., and therefore we
le must so modify the law to provide for pardons
and not hang for manslaughter. But this reply
d goes much further than he intends Circumstan.
At ces hare changed, and therefore we urge change
h in the treatment Of murderers We claim that
y the practice of half civilized age shall not be
III inade perpetual law for the human race. Tie
N hnlf-barbar0us and uncertain condition of thincs
re among the jews, may have been reason for pun.
,r shing murderers with death. But we, whose
n condition is different and who have every facility
s. Tor keeping the murderer securely imprisoned
lt cannot urge this reason for hanging men. Our