The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1872-1881, 1873-04-25

1t is admitted on all sides that the true
object of punishment is to prevent crime.
1t is equally admitted that . penalty
tends to prevent the crime against which
it is levelled in proportion to its severity
and the certainty and dispatch with
which its infiction will follow the CON-
mission of the crime. We say dispatch,
for severity and certainty alone are not
enough to exhaust the deterring force Of
a penalty, but, on the coutrary. are them
selves gradually exhausted by the proc
pect of delay, as we may learn from the
deplorable inefficiency of that supreme
penalty denounced by christianity against
impenitents, the the certainty of which
relatively few deny, but the infliction of
which no one apprehends ere the conclus-
ion of life which may be long. The
explanatiod Of this effect is for the phi
losophers. but the effect itself recognized
by criminalists and will ue disputed by
nobody. So far all parties to this mo-
mentous question have agreed.
At this point, however. the opponents
of capital punishment take their stand,
contending that the penalty of death is
too severe for either certainty or dispatch,
whilst the penalty of imprisonment for
life admits Of both. Does it? Does it,
in fact, admit of eithers II certainly
admits of the chance Of escape, by break
ing out of prison with or without the
murder Of the keepers--a chance rang
ing through the whole period of life
and OF the chance of release by executive
pardon.-o chance renewable with every
fresh executive throughout the same Pc
riod two chances which, as likely to be
calculated by the criminal in though, and
when super-added to the ordinary chance
of equittal by fair means or foul would
go far, we may safely say. to outweigh
all other chances in the case, leaving the
penalty at least as uncertain as the sever
err one now is, if not, in the estimation
Of the average miscreant, decidedly more
uncertain. Owing TO this uncertainty
and the chronic nature Of the penalty,
moreover imprisonment for life. ss an in.
tegral penalty. would scarcely present IT,
self at all the minds of persons premedi-
taiing crime. who at most would see ht-
tie more than Imprisonment for q longer
or shorter term Of years so that the pen
atty, besides it uncertainty, would be in
effect penalty indefinitely deferred. Its
aspect would be hidden. first.
by the chance that the infection would
never begin secondly, by the chance
that If il ever began it would soon end,
and finally. by the chance that the GER
tsinty of the iull inaiction would be rea-
Iized. if ever. only in q distant future.
by this three-iold chance the
of the penalty would strike the evil
minded with bus little terror On the
'ther hand, the penalty Of death, with
ts Gorgon head unshorn. stares them
Idll in the face at the very outset. As
respects certainty and proximity. there
ore the opponents Of capital punishment
night well cry quits with its advocates,
md be glad to have the cry accepted.
For the purposes Of this brief argument
We will accept il.
But If the two penalties are equally
Uncertain what becomes Of their equal
'ficiency' If penalty is Efficient in
proportion TO its severity and the GER
ainty Of speedy infiictioe, the sevsrer
he penalty is the more Efficient itmust
e. The death penalty Is thus shswn to
,e the more efcient one. and the capital
,gainst il stands oonfuted.-N y. World.