Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1876-02-17
NO. Al.
Remarks Of Mr.. HObson of Wiscasset,
IN House OF REPRESENTATIVES, Feb. Is, on the
capital pu Ms sinner nj uuestion.

Ne
capital punishment question:
Mr.. SPEAKAR The argument in opposition to
the death penalty is very strong indeed, but not
quite sufficient IN my judgment, to justify its en-
tire abolition. Perhaps the bill before the House,
containing as it does the provision prohibiting
pardons except on additional testimony and . re-
view of the case, is preferable to the present law
put think it can be so amended as to give all
the advantages of abolition, and retain the few
advantages of the death penalty.
Ihe suggestion made by the Governor in his
very able address to this legislature to substitute
law. Is good one. The California law empowers
the jury to ailix either the penalty Of death or i'm.
pilsonment for life in capital cases, and think
meets every reasonable demand of the friends Of
| capital punishment.
| 1he amendment that propose 10 this sugges.
ton OF the Governor applied to the bill before the
House. 1t strikes out the first section of the BILL
which section, If accepted without this amend
ment, will abolish the death penalty. 1t adds to
the second section as follows: "or the death pen.
atty, as the jury on rendering their verdict shall
decide is necessary for the protection Of society,"
making the whole section read as follows: "All
crimes now punishable with death shall hereafter
be punished by Imprisonment at hard labor for
life, or the death penalty. as the jury on render
ing their verdict shall decide is necessary for the
protection of society,""
The gentleman from Portland, who presented
Tue Uui accepts the AtQeQ'lIneDI nut tQlQkS some
slight change may be necessary which has been
prepared aud which l accept. With this amend.
ment, his bill meets every objection in my mind
to the great change proposed, and in my judg-
ment, is as far a, we should go in age fruitful
of crime as this, resulting probably from the evil
influences of the late war.
The great argument in favor of the abolition Of
capital punishment as proposed in this bill, is the
greater protection that 1T would give to society
1t will be admitted by all, that no question Of re-
yenge should ever be considered. The law ian
eye ior an eye, or tooth for TOOTH" has been
superseded by the teachings Of christianity. In
this age of the world, punishment whether com.
mcnsurate with the CRIME or not, is only for the
purpose OF protection, and should be just that de.
gree that will do most IN this direction, whether
it be the death penalty or imprisonment. There
fore the only to be considered, in deciding
upon the degree OF punishment, IS that Of protec-
ton to Society, and in this regret that must
disagree with the gentleman from Portland with
whom agree on the general principles Of the bill.
But if it can be shown that society is better pro-
tected by imprisonment for life than by the death
penalty, no one can hesitate for q moment as to
what is our duty as legislators; for protection is
clearly the great object to be obtained.
There are some who doubt even the right of the
State to take life; but cannot admit but what the
State has right, and is perfectly justified in
sorting to the death penalty if it is necessary. In
my Judgment 1t IS entirely question of necessity;
1t Is necessary Tor prou ction the State in duty
many objections to it, in the minds of men, and SO
much liability to in convictions that it should
not be resorted to.
Every advocate of capital punishment will ad-
NIT that it never should be enforced in Of auy
reasonable doubt and such is the state of public
sentiment on the question, that it is very difficult to
convict prisoner. Juries are very unwilling to
bring IN verdict Of guilty, fer they imagine that
they will almost be looked upon as murderers, and
knowing that they will be sustained in acquit-
pl oil Hal
they listen to the popular clamor rather than to
reason; or if offered a bribe. there are many in
ducements besides dishonesty that tempt them to
accept; and with the death penalty staring a Grim
inal IN the face, the jury is much more likely to
be offered bribe than il the penalty was mprison.
ment; for as the scripture says, "all that q man
hath will he give for his life" The consequence
Is, that perhaps one half of the really guilty escape
punishment, and are again turned loose on society,
successful IN evading the law, almost made to be-
lieye by their counsel, that they have been op-
pressed or nsused, and much more ready to risk
second crime than the first. more able by expert
ence to evade the law, consequently, ten-fold more
dangerous to society than before.
Now if it was optional with the jury to impose
imprisonment for life or the death penalty con-
viction would be much more certain; for when the
circumstances were not very aggravating, or there
was any doubt it would be the lighter punish
ment consequently, the jury would be more ready
TO convict, and less likely to be offered . bribe.
x
sometimes found iu second offence; for instance,
a prisoner for life commits q second murder.
Having received the extreme penalty Of the law,
he is beyond further punishment; if he murders 8
dozen oyerseers fellow prisoners, he can receive
no additional punishment This of course would
be wrong all will admit that q second offence
would require the enforcement of greater penal
V; prott cion would require it, therefore it would
be necessary. Again, there are some cases OF
murder wnen the circumstances are extremely ag-
gravating much so that society demands the ex
ecution of the criminal and protection requires it.
This California law provides for such cases. 1t in
fact provides for both sides of the question: it in
sures the conviction of the criminal in nearly all
cases; it provides for the extreme penalty of the
law in extreme cases, and it leaves a chance for
some reparalion in cases where there is the least
probability that farther testimony will ever be
found in favor of the prisoner. With the present
law in force the man who is a murderer at heart
sees that there are many chances for him to es
cape punishment, and he will risk the danger, but
with the proposed law, he would see that the
chances for escape were very much lessened, and
that the murderer would be almost sure of punish
ment, and as the bill before the House provides
that there shall be no pardon except on additional
testimony and a review Of the case, it would have
no hope of evading the law in that direction.
he great argument In favor of the change is
the very great additional protection that it would
give and to avoid the terribly abhorren. feeling
that exists in the mind of every good citizen,
against the conviction and execution of an inno-
cent man. This California law provides tor both
in my Judgment, and hope it will be adopted, and
thntt ls,h HI l,.,,n ta,.,