The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1876-09-07
punishment of murder in the first de-

punishment of murder in the first de-
gree"
'.Sub>dir. }. Whoever shall be con-
victed of murder in the first degree, it
the jury upon whose conviction the PEN
atty is inflicted shall not bv their verdict
prescribe the penalty of death, shall be
punished by Imprisonment at hard labor
in the state prison during the remainder
of the term Of his natural life," etc.
Now, as we understand this statute,
1.-The penalty for murder in the first de-
gree, shall be rs prescribed" in the
foregoing sub divisions two and three.
to wit, the penalty shall be declared by
the jury. We cannot see anything here
which authorizes the judge to fix the
penalty. 1t is for the jury to say, upon
hearing the evidence, whetaer the cir
cumstances of the murder were such as
to Justify the death penalty or not. For
instance murder in the first degree is
defined by our statute to be, 1.-The killing
of a human being. perpetrated with
premeditated design to effect the death
OF the person killed." Now man might
prcmeditatedly murder one who int1lct-
cd upon him some great wrong. and the
jury, taking the provocation into view.
might decide that Imprisonment tor lite
was a sufficient punishment in his case.
Hence we think it was the intention OF
the statute to leave the penalty In the
hands OF the jury and not in the hands OF
the Judge. But it is now pretended that
If the party pleads guilty he can escape
the greater punishment and the judge
!, can only inflict upon him sentence OF
Imprisonment for life Where do you
find any authority for the judge to de-
i clare such penaltyp The statute says
: ..the penalty shall be prescribed" by the
jury.
The law is no doubt a ''bungle." 1t
was compromise. gotten up to meet
the demands of the fanatical Bovee of
: Wisconsin, who visited this state in 1868,
to secure the abolition OF the death PEN
$ atty in all cases. 1t should have pro-
8 yided, what was CLEARLY its intent, that If
: a party plead guilty the jury should pro-
: ceed to hear the evidence to determine
= to what subdivision Of murder in tho
y first degree the otfense belonged TO
n wit, whether it was SO atrocious as to
,. merit death, q or tar extcnuated az to de-
8, serve only imprisonment tor life. The
IS Legislature clearly never intended that .
is party should, after committing hideous
At and brutal murder for money, and find
.r ing the proof against him conclusive,
t. come in to court and plead guilty, and
d. walk out of court with his tongue in his
IS cheek, exulting in the trick by which he
had saved his miserable. .liie.o
It. II this is what the law meant then it.is
ds simply net through which the most
X guilty can escape while the least guilty
i. or perhaps the innocent, are caught and
Ill punished.
in And what are the terrors Of imprison-
nd ment for liieo The st. Paul Dispatch
- says:
IL 1t is said that only one lite convict has diet
"a. in the State prison in saltwater and he had
lIy fatal disease when received there. Withil
,ts three years past fv. life prisoners have beer
ar pardoned aud anoth rs sentence was eonmute'
=. to ten years. Practically, though not theoreti
'rh cally. the death penalty has been abolished j
I'd. this State. The laws should certainly be re
am vised. Either restore the death penalty 0
,rn make the imprisonment sure. There ought I
,ad bs no privilege OF pardon in cases where III
- crime shows the criminal unfit to be at Iarg'
~ and the chances Of pardon leave an element 9
od. uncertainty to the punishment upon whic
on deliberate criminals-that Is the worst OF al
ark will calculate.
r. Five lite prisoners pardoned in thre
re- years! Really, this is offering alpremiuI
ire. murder industrious citizens.
orn We regret to learn that Judge Crosh
,or. proposes to hold special term of tn
led. district court to try these murderers |
wet once. This is 4 mistake. They are in no
,od prison If they are simply to be senten
D in ed TO Imprisonment why the need
in haste?
not We ask the iud1e To defer action uni
Us q the regular term Of court. next Januar'
and we promise TO introduce in the Sc
ate bill in the first week OF Janual
TO so amend the law that these men sh
not escape the doom they merit. '
eak- will not do this through any sentime
han. OF revenge, but simply because We
dor not think the lives OF our citizens "
,h be safe if such horrible murder as u
wrought upon Thomas Callahan j.
'ious meet no punishment save few years
am the penetentiary.
have the murder was even more terril
than we depicted ii in our last'is-uc. /
9 to assassins claim that it was not prcme,
.a,ed, that they only intended in the D
utes. instance to rob their victim; but It
pun now asccrtained that during the
ed in they stole wasn-Dason anu uIiea ~ !"
-ided water. so as to wash the blood, VIII
tiOn, AAcJ itcHucu ~ Sn1usiA"n ~
.r in and faces It was also ascertained,
ribed the inquest, that TO make sure 0I ~
this victim, they fired four pistol bullets
his mead, one through the middle Of
trial forehead and two through his left Z
4 for and two through the side ofthe head;
shall sides gashing him With knife and bra
lty Of ing ms Skull WIN ciuo.
letter. il will be disgrace to our civilIza
per fthese men escape death. The |
d by regret will Be thas they have not
shall dred live, for = hundred Of their wO
nd in II la0lIve would not b an equivalent
dali the single exisfence ol tho good, virtz
"a " land wsn1y nan thsy - cTuelly slso