Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1870-02-10
.......... [For the Herald,l
Punishment as a Kind of In
struction. .n


struction. f.
In taking up the discussion of
this subject we are led to inquire
what is meant by the term Punish
ment; and we can find no other
meaning than that punishment is
the penalty annexed to law Wher-
ever, therefore, punishment has
been inflicted, we naturally infer
that some law has been violated.
But the question which presents it.
self is, whether or not, the annex
ed penalties to certain laws (human
laws are productive of good, and
is not the infiction ofsome of those
penalties productive of evil rather
than gOod? a.t H"H
The writer of this article takes
the position that our laws author-
ize us to infict punishments which
are (though not so intended pro-
ductive of evil, and even 6Grbar Gus
in the e1treme Predominant
among these (and the one which it
is our intention 10 combat, is the
law whcih authorizes us to take the
life of our fellowman, because he
does the same. We believe this to !
be grievous error, and our first
reason isthat the power over human
life is the sole prerogative Of Him
who gave it. Human laws are,
therefore, in rebellion against this
prerogative when they transfer it to
human hands. TAis will appear
from Gods formation of the hu-
man family, He has SO formed
the human race that one mans true
interest or well being never clashes
with anothers, or in other words,
one man is never under the neces-
sity of diminishing the we'll being
of another to promote his own
happiness. If so, then pain Of any
kind which does not result in the
ultimate good of the individual suf-
fering it is an evil to him, and, of
course, cannot promote the well |
being of others and if inflicted by |
Others will diminish their happi-
ness, probably, more than it does
that of the individual on whom it is
inflicted. All punishment, there
fore, ought to be inflicted with the
intention of beneftting the individ-
ual punished, for if it results in di-
minishing the well being Of the in
dividual punished, it certainly will
diminish the well being of those
who inaict it-more especially if I
the punishment,ls inflicted without
any regard to the well being of the
sufferer
Punishments therefore to be just
and useful (and they cannot be use
full without they are just) should be !
prospective, and not retrospective
and it certainly contains a false and |
dangerous doctrine to say q man
ought to be punished for his trans.
gressios, if this form OF speech be |
understood literally. The truth is,
he ought to be punished for the |
sake Of reformation or discipline,
as this is the only mode in which
God ever Furnishes. The justice Of
punishment does not depend on
the fact that it was possible for the
individual punished to have avoid
ed the crime, but rather on the fact !
that the beng who is punished is
created with powers and capacities
which may be operated on by the
punishment itself, SO as to render it
possible, and even certain, that,
with the new motives introduced
by such punishment, he will be f.
nally taught to avoid crime in the
future. Unless an individual be so
created, all punishment would be
useless to him, and of course use
less to others.
From the foregoing 1t appears
that punishment is only a kind Of
instruction, (which all will admit |
then, why should the idea of retro
spective punishment ever enter our
minds any more than the idea of
retrospective obstruction?