The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1873-04-10
From Hearth and Home
Shall We Hang Our Murderers? ?

Do we mean to hang men for murder,
or do we not ? Here is a plain, blunt
question which we ought to be able to
answer definitely, positively, and without
further hesitation 1t is either right or
wrong to hang murderers, and it is also
either expedient or inexpedient to do So
Ii it is right and expedient to, we should
regard the point as settled, and proceed
ut once to hang every man who commits
q murder, with Just as little delay as
practicable in each case. If hanging be
wrong, or if it be, as many think, mex
pedient we should discover the fact and
abolish the gibbet wholly from our penal
system. These two questions of right
and expediency should be decided one
way or the other, and the decision, what
ever it be, should govern US in every
case. If hanging is wrong we commit a
crime every time we commit man to
the gallows. If it be inexpedient, we do
wrong every time a murderer is punished
with death If, on the other hand, hang
ing be both right and expedient, then We
do equally wrong to neglect this punish
ment in the case of any murderer. We
should either hang murderers, or quit
hanging them. In fact we do neither
the one thing nor tae other with any
steadiness of purpose. A year ago we all
accepted as true the ruffians boast that
hanging for murder is played out" but
just now we are keeping our gibbets
pretty steadily at work. Yet the law re
mains now precisely what it was year
ago. The difference lies wholly in the
temper of the people; and in so weighty
and terrible matter as that of putting
fellow being to an ignominious death, it
seems simply horrible that the temper of
the people, which is but another name
for popular impulse, should have any in
1uence at alk On question Of so much
moment-a question of life and death
we who have to decide it ought certainly
to know what we think. and the grounds
for our opinions. We have no right to
60 on in this desultory. vacillating, and
spasmodic way, hanging halfa-dozen men
here, letting off q dozen or two others
whose crimes are of a precisely similar
kind, and then hanging some more.
month or so ago we hanged Gaffney
in B uffalo, and another wretch in Brook
lyn. We all sat still and allowed the law
which we have made, to be enforced by
the public officers on whom we have i'm
posed the duty of enforcing it. We did
nothing to prevent the hanging. We all
consented to the death of these men,
and so gave our approval to the act, which
was done by our public servants under
our statutory command Then came
Fosters turn. He had committed MUIR
der in the coldest possible blood-a pc
cu1iarly unprovoked murder-a murder
which it was especially impossible for his
victim to avoid-a murder of which anv
gentleman getting into Il street car might
have been the victim. His guilt was GER
tainly no. smaller than that of the two
men whom we had just hanged But in
his case the public was strangely moved
to pity. C1ergymen made earnest and
a fnIa 7ko%1 1e
his sentence. Learned counsellors at
tackled the rulings of the court, and ar
gued their legal inaccuracy even after
the highest court in the State had pro-
nounced them correct. The very jury
men who gave the verdict of guilty Joined
in the earnest appeal, and for time it
seemed almost certain that Fosters SEN
tence would be modified by the execu-
tive, acting under the advice of so MANY
men whose positions and characters
made them in some sense representatives
of the people.
Against the appeal in Fosters case, or
the spirit debating it, we have nothing
whatever to say; but we do say that if it
was ri ght to hang any murderer that ever
was hanged, it was clearly right to hang
this man Foster also. If these excellent
people were right in working so hard to
save him from the gallows, then we were
all horribly wrong in hanging Gaffney
and the rest. For it is we, the people
we who vote and make laws, who hang
every man that is hanged. We do not
say that it was right to hang Foster, or
wrong to plead ealn estly for his life But
we should have only one rule of conduct
in such matters We have no right what,
ever to try one mans case by one rule
and another's by different one. The
only discoverable difference between
Foster and other murderers was that he
came of respectable family, and had re-
spectacle and wealthy friends But sure
! ly we are not prepared to say to the hab-
itually criminal class, "Respectability of
connection and the wealth of friends,
make decided difference in our dealings
with wrong-doers.' We are not prepared
to say that these things make crime less
criminal, or punishment less just
| We do not care at this time to discuss
the abstract questions of the htfulness
or Wrongfulness, the expediency or mex
pediency of hanging as a punishment for
murder but we do plead for q waking
up of the public mind. and the certain
infiction of whatever penalty the people
shall determine upon as the proper one
! for murder. As matters now stand the
question of punishment is left largely to
chance, and the result is seen in the daily
record of new murders. We 60 on vacil-
lating-punishing sometimes and omit
ting to punish at others-until the natu-
rally reckless class, from which most of
the crime comes makes up its mind to
run the chances of an uncertain and hes
itating public opinion. There are quar-
ters in every one of our large cities in
which it is dangerous for any peaceable
man to walk. There are men all around
us ready to do murder upon the smallest
! impulse, against whose homicidal anger
no amount of circumspection is any slfe-
guard and there can be little hope of an
improvement in either of these regards
so long as we shall continue to be thus
/ ignorant of our own minds, andl1ncertain
whether we mean to hang mur-
derers or not. The law, if it is to be
of any worth as protector of peaceable
citizens, must be correct expression of
the peoples convictions and purposes,
and it must be enforced with an equal
hand in every case.
ttrNl,o HooJr;oh ,o,,,pJa with a TiStOl