Litchfield enquirer., 1864-05-05
The Crime of Murder,

The Crime of Murder,
 That human life is daily becoming more and more cheapeued in this State, by the issue of the trials for murder and homicide, is evident enough to everybody. The grent difficulty of convicting man charged with the crime of taking the life of another, and the fact that for long series of years, criminals who are con victsd are punished only by confinement for a longer or shorter term in the State Prison, tends to render human life still more insecure, and affords guaranty to murderers, that they cSE give loose to all the baser passions which tend to culminate in tie commission of the heinous crime, and can commit with an almost certain impunitY to themselves tie crime for which they slould justly forfeit their own lives.
 In the case of homicide tried before our su perior Court in this County, last week there may and may not have been sufficient proof positive to convict the prisoner at the Bar of what is called murder in the first degree. There seems to have been some reason to sup pose that the murdered man himself cherished strong feelings of resentment and anger against the prisoner, on what, as he supposed at least, were sufficiently reasonable grounds. And there may or may not have been sufficient roa- son to doubt whether the prisoner did, with malice aforethought, strike the fatal blow. This was evidently the view which the Court took of the case. and the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt; and yet, with a logic inexplicable to us, it charged the jury to bring in verdict against the prisoner of Guilty of Manslaughter. for which it inflicted the highest penalty. namely, ten years impris. onm ent in the State Prison.
 Now, from careful hearing and review of the testimony, (which will be found in full elsewhere in this, paper it seems to us that ei- ther the prisoner was guilty of one of the most cold. blooded and fendish murders eyer committed, Gncited, undoubtedly, thereto, by llquor,) or that he was entirely innocent of the actual blow by which the deceased was killed. If he pas guilty, he ought to have been con- victed of murder in the first degree, and exc cuted by hanging. If he was not guilty, he ought to have been acquitted of the charge. The verdict of manslaughter in his case, does net answer the demands of justice, in our opinion, either to the public or the prisoner Burritt either was guilty of murder, or was guilty of nothing.
 1T he was not guilty of the murder of Brink the question then recurs, who was ;? We can. not answer this, nor do we heed to. Our on. ly purpose in these remarks is to illustrate one more case in which we conceive justice has not been meted out, and human life has been cheapened. Another of long series of mur. ders has been committed in this County the suspected murderer has been brought to trial :: links in tho chain of circumstances are want- ing, or are thought wanting there is state ment, bat no proof positive, of selfdefence and the prisoner is convicted simply of man. slaughter. If there uas proof of selfde. fence, ought he not to have been acquitted If there was no proof of such, beyond his own assertions, ought he not to have been hung?