The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1873-08-14

moro than modest remonstrance. The con-
sequence is that Jail bird is started again
to renew the swindling, robbery murder, or
Imprisonment.
We have been impressed with the fre-
uuency of these facts by reading the accounts
of the criminal trials which have lately taken
place. The judges are confronted by the
familiar features Of the rascals whom they
themselves 'sent up for yet unexpired terms
OF years, and have to renew their Sisyphean
labors. No sooner than, with immense effort,
the stone-rideiicit Bill Sykes or Jack
Shepard-is rolled up the hill of justice to
Sing Sing or WethersGeld or Charlestown,
than it comes jumping back along the ersy
path of crime into the courts at the foot of
the HILL fresh and lively as ever. Now,
that this is all wrong, need hardly be said.
It is truism which it proyokes one to
utter. -..
We contend that the pardoning power
should be vigorously limited. Punishment,
to mean anything, should mean just what it
says There ought to be no discretion what
soever TO forgive or remit any part of just
penalty, for this very simple reason, that in
al eases any remission weakens the force Of
the law The Legislature would shrink from
enacting that the penalty of any crime
should be diminished ten. twenty, or fifty per
cent But this they virtually do wherever
then pardon a criminal. Every rogue con-
sders the danger he uns'diminished to that
extent. He is sentenced to so many years
of imprisonment, less the possible pardon.
The only cases in which there should be any
interference, should be those of newly, dis
covered evidence, clearly indicating mistake.
For. under all ordinary cases Of criminal
jurisprudencence, guilt is all but certain. In
the first place, grand juries do not find true
bills, or State attorneys draw indictments,
without very strong grounds to 90 upon.
Any one conyersant with the business of a
prosecuting officer, will know that most district
attorneys satisfy themselves Of the guilt of
the accused before they ever stir, and then,
furthermore, require TO be reasonably sure
that they can prove it. before they risk the
odium of prosecuting the innocent The
,naxim Of the law is literally carried out Of
tentimes, and ten guilty escape in order to
afford the the one innocent his every chance
of fair play. Ana for this reason the judg
ment Of the newly discovered evidence ought
70 be committed to qualified hands. He
who grants a pardon should have the benefit
Of the best Judgment Of those conversant
with criminals, and matters Of crime. M
pardon should ever be given till the posi-
bllity and, furthermore, the probability OF
mistake is aifirmativcly shown. 1t aprlvi-
leee granted for the sake Of remedying oc-
casidnally human fallibility. We do not
think it should be given even to the execu-
tive without the advice and consent of the
ludges themselves. They are Cor should be-
above political influence and their consent
should be indispensable to the giving of par
dons. But legislature. by committee or
otherwise, are the most utterly unfit of all
pss.iblc bodies to care for this. Every
nuality which fits them for their Office stands
in the way of their adaptation to this work
They are exposed to oil sorts of subtle and