Brenham weekly banner. [volume] (Brenham, Tex.) 1877-1907, 1879-10-10
THE DEATH PENALTY.

/ )hi Az " y 80 NAASAA W.
dom have seen fit to modify
the penalty for murder in the
first degree. Formerly the pen
atty was death, but under the
existing law it is optional with
the jury to say whether the
penalty shall be death or i'm
prisonment in the penitentiary
for life. AT the present term of
the Washington county district
court, there has already been
two convictions of murder in
the first degree, and in both i'll
stances, the juries have assessed
the punishment at life impris-
onment. In one Of the cases
the evidence was wholly Cir
cumstantial, but was conclusive.
We are among those who be-
lievc in the death penalty for
murder, but in the cases refer
red to, do not propose to take
issue with the juries, taking it
for granted that they done their
duty as they understood it. We
do think, however, that a seri-
Gus mistake was made in allow
ing tie juries to determine the
penalty as between death and
hanging where case of muir
der in the first degree is proven.
AS has been previously remark
ed juries are proverbially ten.
der-hearted, and many men are
inclined to the opinion that by
assessing murderer's punish
ment at death they, themselves,
are in some way directly re-
sponsible for his hanging. New
er was a.graver error made.
The law prescribes the penalty
and public policy and public
safety demand that the law be
executed. 1t is a matter that
concerns the welfare of every
citizen Of the state; the state
makes the law and the people
make the state; consequently
it is the people that demand the
punishment; the individuals
composing the jury and the Off
GERS of the court are not acting
in AN individual capacity, but
are simply executing the laws
of the land. If the law says
hang a man, let him be hanged;
if the law says send 4 man to
the penitentiary for five or ten
years, let him be sent. If a
man steals a COW or a horse ju-
ries have no sympathy for him,
giving the longest term in the
penitentiary allowed by law;
they have no conscientious
scruples and sometimes send
man up on general principles.
A case of this kind occurred
during the present term of our
district court; a negro was CIV
en- two years for the alleged
stealing of a COW. The court
at once set aside the verdict
and granted a new trial. We
merely cite this instance to show
the willingness that exists to
mete out extreme punishment
for minor offences.
We hazard nothing in max
ing the prediction that hereaf-
ter and until the discretionary
power of assessing the punish
ment for murder in the first de-
gree is taken away from juries,
that the death penalty will only
be assessed in the most aggra-
waited and outrageous case of
murder; cases wherein the
whole community is shocked
and outraged-the sentence of
life imprisonment will however
become common. The peni-
Tertiary has but little terror for
the average evil doer; it is true
that a life sentence is terrible
thing, but there is not a muir
derer in the world who would
not jump at it in preference to
the gallows. While there is
life there is hope, and a thou
sand and one contingencies may
arise by which a release can be
effected, consequently the life
sentence has but little terror to
the man who has been guilty of
Staying his fellow man. The
death penalty is, however, en-
tirely different, when the MUIR
derer is hanged, the world is rid
den of a monster and all pos
sibillty of his repeating his
crime is at an end. The muir
dercr who in cold blood Stays
his victim takes no thought of
the consequences and the jury
in sitting on his case should
have no more sympathy with
him than he had with the slain.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for
a tooth and a life for life is a,
sound doctrine. Any depart
ure from it is only sentimental
ty and should be abandoned.