The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1864-03-14
Capital Punishment.

your paper of Friday last, on the subject OF
Capital Punishment, l heartily agree with all
that you have said in his favor. His kind and
gentle spirit is always manifest in whatever
he writes. And yet trust it will not be con-
sdered improper for me to state some objec-
lions to his treatment Of this subject.
Let the question in controversy be kept in
mind.
| The government Is an organized body of
individuals, for their own protection. or ne
cessity it embraces all persons, good and bad,
within given territory. An indispensable
mode of protecting the innocent, is by pun
ishing the guilty. Now il it is necessary, in
order to protect human life, that the muir
derer should be punished with death, has the
| government the right to infict such punish
ment? And If 1t has the right, is there any
necessity for it?
The author of the article does not take
issue on either branch of the question.
He is careful not to deny the right to in
flct capital punishment, if necessary. He
does not, as many have done, repeat truisms
| concerning the sacredness and value of hui
|
on this subject; and he must be blind who
does not learn that lac is sacred, as well as
| life and that the government must be main
tanned, even, il necessary, at the expense of
| life.
Nor does he deny that, in certain cases, it
may be necessary. 1t is quite obvious that be
is not in favor of it, in any case. But he
eulogizes our present law, which provides for
| it, in certain cases. Logically, this comedies
the entire ground of those from whom he
differs. No broader premises were ever
claimed by any advocate Of capital punish
whenever necessary, no question remains open,
except in regard to details, which must depend
upon circumstances.
What then is the force, or design, of all
that is said by him about "the old Barbaric
mode of taking life as punishment?' Why
put il in the same category with being
thrown to wild beasts" as was practised by
despots of o,den time? If it is ever right,
and necessary, to inflct the death penalty, is
not hanging as humane "mode as any
other? If not, then let some other mode be
adopted. But IL it is, as has never been denied,
then there is no good reason for holding it
up to public execration. 1t would have
evinced more courage, if less prudence, to
meet the question of the right to infiict it at
all, directly, rather than TO make it odious by
attacking the mode.
OF the same character are the remarks in
regard to the execution OF it publicly, or pri-
rGtely. This is but a secondary question. But
by raising this, INSTEAD Of the primary question,
and then substituting secretly" for prirateiy,
the way is opened for comparing it with the
Inquisition, where, not for crimes, but for
opinions, innocent men have been secretly
tried, or, without trial, secretly tortured, by
internal methods, in utter disregard OF all
law. How much force this can have, as an
argument against capital punishment, the
reader will judge.
To the same effect is the paragraph con-
corning the cruelties inflicted, under the
forms of law or otherwise, by Marius,
Sylla, Henry the Eighth, and other tyrants,
from the destruction Of Jerusalem down to
the French Revolution. As if all these hor-
rors had been the resultof capital punishment!
As if "despots," in any age of the world, ever
failed to crafty their thirst for "blood" be-
cause any laW stood in the way of It'll
Did it not occur to the writer, that this, if
it has any force, applies equally against all
punishment, of any kind? What sufierings,
worse than death, have been endured in the
loathsome dungeons of Europe. Read the
terrible stories of prison life in France, and
Italy, Spain, and Austria, where such suffer-
ings have been protracted for long years, from
which death, in any form, would have been
welcomed as a relief. Is all Imprisonment
therefore wrong?
There's one statement in the article which
is more in point but its CORRECTNESS" is by no
means universally conceded On the con-
trary, am satisfied, as the result of no limi-
ted observation and inquiry, that it is not
correct; that it is quite as difficult, ifnot more
so, to obtain convictions, as it was when the
penalty of death was inflicted. Thesi difficulty
Is not confined to capital cases. And one
great cause Of it, in cases that are clearly
proved, arises from a sickly sentimentalism
which regards the criminal merely as an un-
fortunate man,-more an object of commser-
alton than of censure. The way in which the
subject OF capital punishment has often been
discussed, has done much to strengthen this
false and dangerous sentiment. The divine
spirit of pity should not be withheld in any
case. But the father who substitutes pity for
| punishment in his system of family govern
meDt, will generally have no such govern
ment And the same principle will operate
with power thousand told greater. when
whole community, including all classes of men,
are left under its influence. quitting the
Bible into the hands" of convicted muir
derer, is frail protection against other muir
derers, who have not been convicted, nor
arrested.
have thus criticised freely, though hope
not improperly, the article Of your correspon-
dent. / have done this because he seems to
me, perhaps almost unconsciously, to have
used epithets, and uttered sentiments, that
have often dropped from the lips OBJ pens of
men with whom he can have no sympathy.
| We should be careful not to encourage that
spirit which tends to destroy the SANCTIONS of
all iap, human and divine, by making all
crime species of insanity; which inculcates
compassion for the guilty, at the expense of
the innocent; and which regards nothing as
pity for the convict, unless it takes the form