Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1875-01-27
THE CEdTH PENALTY.

| To tie Editor Of the Journal.
Last Sunday evening, Rev. Mr.. Gage, Univor-
salst minister, delivered lecture on the death
penalty to large and appreciative audience, in
the Universalist church. Mr.. Gage spoke earnest
! ~ and is evidently able man; but while adj
mire his ability, and do not question his motive, l
do doubt his good Judgment and consider his ar
eument a failure. A failure, because he failed to
show just what the advocates OF capital punish
ment desire to see shown, namely that the death
penalty is unnecessary OR inerpedient.
Mr.. G. admitted that the Jewish law sanctioned
the death penalty, but thought it contrary to the
whole teachings of Christianity. sufficient reply
to tais is that the great Teacher did not come to
reform lars. His mission was with indioidaais
His was doctrine Of resistance, and any argu-
ment from Christ's teachings which will condemn
capital punishment, will with equal force condemn
Imprisonment for life, or in fact any punishment
whatever. Christ said "bless them that curse
you." Does this mean that there should be no
penal law for the protection of society," GAN eye
for an eye and tooth for a tooth" is the very
ideal OF penal law, and as lac Christ never con-
demned it. lie never said that the penalty was
too severe, if there to be any penalty; but the
fact that ne teaches that there ia to be no resis-
lance, plainly indicates that he was teaching rules
to regulate individual conduct and had no refer
ence to lar.
The speaker thought that he who believes in
future endless punishment was very inconsistent
to send a murderer there before giving him a
whole life to repent. Most such believers think
that year is ample time for repentance, and they
do not forget the fact that the murderer hurls his
victim into eternity without moment in which to
prepare and they also believe that cniency in the
law will render these sudden deaths from murder
more and more frequent. Therefore the best use
that society can make of the man who has forfeit
ed his right to live is to hang him restraint to
other would be murdercrs. But there was mis-
application Of the text, "Thou shall not kill.
The speaker admitted that certain Jewish laws
punished certain offences with death; but the ten
commandments from which he selects the text,
"Thou shall not kill" was the fundamental law Of
the nation 1t was ID the Jews what our consttu-
ton is to us.
Now if the command Thou shalt not kill /,
means that the State should not take the life of
criminal how does it happen that no Jewish law
yer was sharp enough to find out that the death
penalty was unconstitutional 1t is evident that
the text has reference to the taking Of life le-
gally The explanation ofthe passage she that
taketh the sword shall perish Nth the sword mot
By the sword) was equally erroneous. 1t means
that the sword is q carnal weapon; it will perish
and that he who takes it engages in carnal strife,
and shall not inherit eternal life, but shall perish
This, of course, has reference to him who
takes the sword in obedience to the law of his
country, but simply to the individual who voun-
tarily takes the sword to commit an illegal act So
also the fact that men will commit suicide, or fight
duels, or risk their life in battle no proof that
the death penalty is no terror. 1t is not deoth
alone, but death on the gaRlocs that terrifes.
The soldier fears death, but fears the name of
coward more. He fights for the defence Of his
country, his family, his home, all dear to him
life, and if he fall he dies covered with glory, but
the criminal dies ON the gallows covered with
shame and disgrace.
The old argument that the certainty of punish
ment, not the seuerity, is what prevents crime,
would amount to something were it not for the
significant fact that conviction will be no more
certain.
There will be the same sharp criminal lawyers,
the same technical loopholes, the same doubt in
the minds of jurymen as to guilt or innocence.
Honest and intelligent iurymen know that the
penalty is Of their business; that they are to
consider the accused innocent till proved guilty,
and are simply to decide whether there is suti-
cient evidence to prove guilt.
| believe that jurymen generally are intelligent
and honest enough to render verdict in accor-
dance with these rules. But grant for the argu-
ment sake that conviction will be much more GER
tain, does it occur to those who oppose hanging,
that this very certainty may send hundreds of in
nocent men to State Prison for life? Which is the
worse, to hang one innocent man, or to send ten
innocent men to State Prison for lifc' Judge ye
r. L. GRINpLE.