Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1880-09-23
Should Prisoners be Punished for Es-
Gaping?

To escape FROM restraint is an instinct
I've impulse We see 1t in the smallest
children. Man but obeys his natural
prompting in breaking jail. Why shou d
ctely punish him for ilY Why should
an officer OF justice be justified in pound
ing TO a jelly or IN shooting to death al
escaping prisoner, charged with felony,
II he cannot otherwise prevail on him 10
siayf Why may not society just rs log.
lcally punish him for not having vOlun-
tarily given himself up to justice as for
trying 10 get away when justice has over
taken himl Ii q man cruelty whips a
runaway horse, or tortures squirrel re.
captured after escape from his revolving
cage, or a runaway dog which sees prep.
arations Tor putting him to churn, Mr..
Bergn will be on the track very quickly
Why punish a man for himself obeylng
the same instinctsY 1t may be said, be.
cause he knows better than to escape.
We would rather say, he knows better
than 10 stay and TO be caught or punished.
DR.. Wharton says: whether, in afhu.
name Jurisprudence, the unresisted escape
of prisoners from custody Is punishable
otiense may well be doubted. The later
Roman common law holds that ii is not.
jurists, is natural; the instinct for tree.
dom is irrepressble; if the law deter
III mes TO restrain this freedom, IL must do
50 by adequate meas; and II cannot be
considered an oiielse to break through
restraint when no restraint IS imposed
U1dou btedly 1t is nigh phase OF Socrat.
&c herolsm tor man condemned 10 death
or Imprisonment, 10 walk back, when let
loose, TO be executed or imprisoned. But
the law does not undertake to establish
SoCratic heroism by Indictment 1t
would not be good for society that the
natural instinct for selt-preservstion
should be made TO give way TO so roman
tic a sentiment as is here invoked and 1T
is a logical contradiction to say that the
scstiold and the cell are to be used to
prove that the scstfold aud the cell are OF
no use. II men voluntarily submit TO
punishment, then compulsory punish
ment is wrong. Beside this, b
jailer may argue that If We hold that
prisoner is under bonds as much when
he Is let loose as when he IS Locked up,
there is no reason for over careiulness IN
locking up. Following these views, the
conclusion has been reached that an unre-
sisted escape Is not per Sc an indlctaOle
offence, aud TINS view ass been adopted
by all modern Gcrm8n codes The Eng
iIsh decisions on this point may be too
firmly settled TO be now shaken; but con
slderatiuns such as those which have
been mentioned may not be without their
use in adjusting the punishment on con.
ylctIUns tor unges!sted escapes
II seems TO us more reasonable to re-
wsrd prisoner Tor staying quietly ana
obtdientiy IN jail, as some stats no" 90,
than to punish him Tor running away. II
II is cruel TO punish 3 man Tor breaking
Jail, what shall we ssy IT puuisning MS
wife for aiding himY
The law is guilty OF cruelty quite wof-
thy OF the inquisilion in this regard. For
example, an imprisoned convict ID
Connecticut case went by permission Of
his keeper about the land connected WIN
the jail, went to market and brought back
provisions for the inmates OF the jail,
cooked TODD for them Ia the kiCnen OF
the dwelling house attached 10 ~, went 10
the 40 jactnt barn aud there fed and milk.
ed the COW, and from the barn departed
and lett the State Held, criminal es-
cape. What q cstand mouse play doc
trlne is this! Even If the jail IS 50 IN
healthiul and filthy IS to endabger hls
lie, ne is punishable for breaking out.
"The necessity, to excuse" says The Ne
ysds1 court, must be real and urgent, and
not created BY the fault or carelessuess Of
him who pleads IT." lie should have
exhausted the legal means OF relief In
his power before attempting the course