New-York tribune., 1869-04-08
RATIONALE or TIE DEATH-PENALTK

RATIONALE or TIE DEATHPEN1LTH
Human opinion once established in the right
direction rarely goes backward; but it some
times happens that, under the pressure OF cir
cumstances, it asserts itself in new FORMS ana
while apparently submitting to allegiance, Is
substantially as active as ever. Ihis we De-
lieve to be especially true of that hostility to
Capital Punishment which only few years
ago seemed to indicate its speedy erasure from
the catalogue of legal expiatiOns. But society,
being itself throughly concrete, seldom accepts
a reform which is based purely upon abstract
morality. The moral and religious argument
against Hanging is rs perfect as any logiclan
could desire. 1t is merely child's play to show
that it is condemned by Christianity ana
the statistics which prove that it does not
diminish crime bristle invulnerably and IRE
fragaby. But use wears out all things
mortal. Legislatures will no longer listen
to arguments against Judicial Killing, and
the opposition to it has taken a new turn.
What this turn is, We think is sufficiently in
dcated by the events of the last few days.
Men are constantly hung, but they are not
hung without protest. Courts of final jurisdic-
ton are appealed to. The Executive ante
chambers are thiclily haunted by clamorers for
reprieves, for combinations, and for pardons.
Judges are solicited to disavow their rulings,
witnesses to qualify their testimony jurors to
explain away their yerdcts. Every weapon
witch the humanity of the law puts into the
hands Of the accused is freely resorted to-
Rulings are canvassed, indictments are crti-
clsed, and the legal bearing of testimony care
fully examined. There is frequent recourse
TO technical objections, and even bubbles are
resorted TO with feeling that the desperate
importance of the case lends them dignity.
There is IN augmentation after conviction
which rivals that which preceded it. And the
battle for human life, reduced though Its
champions may be to fOrlorn hope, does not
cease until that life has been extinguished.
Illustrations of this fact may be found i'll the
cases of Twitchcll in PhiladeIphIa ana of Real
in this city,
The case of Twitchell is particularly to the
point because the whole theory Of Capital
Punishment assumes that the Jury, in convict
ing, acted inteligently and without bias or
external influence. Yet here is the statement
of Juror that he thought when the presiding
Judge at the trial told the Jury "he would
"wait half an hour for the verdict" that he
meant that the Jury must find verdict of
"Guilty," and substantially directed them to
do so Here was the life Of man depending
upon the intelligence and good judgment of
another man who could make q blunder like
this, and who supposed that the presiding
Judge had right to direct the Jury to stay
out just thirty minutes and then to bring in
verdict of "Guiltyn Such stupidity seems
incredible; yet here is another juror who joins
in the statement that lie labOred under the
same extraordinary delusion, although he
was originally in favor of verdict of
"Not Guilty" Neither of these men, to
whom duties of vital Importance had
been committed, knew that the Judge had no
right to direct them how long to stay out, or
what verdict to render. Still another juryman
is said to have been influenced by the same
opinion. To complicate matters, two of the
jurymen now deny that they have ever said
what several citizens declare that they have
heard them say Here is contradiction without
stint, and muddle apparently without clue;
and yet we talk of the infinite blessings of the
jury system, and of the almost certain accuracy
Of verdicts! We are not about to say a word
against that system, but it cannot be denied
that it is constantly furnishing fresh evidence
of the infrmity of human judgment.
Here, then, we take our stand Until it can
be shown Gas in the nature Of things it never
can be) that judges are infallible in Judgment
and that jurors cannot err in their finding, we
insist that the Law has no right, according to
its own theories, to SO dispose of any respond
ent as to put it out of It's own power to re-
dress an injury or to correct mistake. Hang
ing presupposes omnipotence and omniscience.
In all other human affairs, we trust to the dis
closures of time; and patiently or impatiently
wait for the development of circumstances. In
hanging, we assume that no new evidence can
be discovered that every witness has told the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, that the Court has made
no mistake in its law, that the jury has been
entirely faithful in the discharge of its duties,
that in all things it has acted intsligently, and
that legal science will never hereafter be able
10 find flaw in the indictment. We take is
sue here. We say that precision and certainty |
ike this are impossible, and. whatever may be |