Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-02-28
Dailp krnnetst 3ournal.
Remarks OF MP. Freeman
OF Cherry6eld, In the House Feb. o. in opposition
TO bill 10 restore the death pehaity.

fore the House asks for the repeal of this
law and to enact another, making the penalty
for premeditafed murder death by hanging
The reason should be very strong that would
influence us TO repeal the law nov existing
on our statute books. If capital punishment
was now the law of the State, we should not
repeal il without equally strong grounds and
reasons for doing so. If any member is in
doubt as to which penalty would conduce TO
the best interests OF the State, his duty is
plain; he should vote against the repeal of
the law now in force, and it is encumbent
upon those asking the change to prove its
necessity. The burden of proof rests upon
them. We should hesitate how we disturb
the present law unless we feel sure we can
put a better one in its place beyond any
reasonable doubt. do not hesitate to say
that have serious doubts as to whether the
death penalty will accomplish all the friends
Of the hangman accord to it. My belief,
amounting almost to a conviction, is that it
will not. No man can consistently vote for the
change until his mind is fully made up that
the bill proposed is a better one. We do not
make laws to punish1the criminal for the sake
of Furnishing him. The State bears no malice
or revenge against its offenders. We enact
laws to impose such penalties as will by their
wise execution, and the dread or terror which
they inspire. deter men of crime from the
commission of similar offences. and that will
best protect the people of the State.
We have no sympathy or pity for the mur-
derer. The man who in cold blood with
malice pretense murders his fellowman, de-
serves all the punishment that the State can
inflict upon him. even to death upon the scaf-
fold, or imprisonment for life, which is the
greater punishment. The thought, that the
State by its laws might launch the murderer
into eternity unrepentant does not for mo-
ment influence my decision or judgment in
the discharge of a stern duty. If by giving
the criminal time, even years to repent, it
would save one innocent life, deter one villain
from the commission of murder. be produc-
tive of no evil consequences, would vote
the delay and pray for his repentance. But
we are not here to decide the best methods
for reforming the criminal, we are not legis-
lating now, how we can best prepare the
murderer of wife, mother. children, or of
any human being, to meet his maker and
answer for his hideous life of crime and
horror, and make him repentant and for
given sinner. This is not our province.
Under this bill we are to settle what laws
will best protect the living. guard the sancti-
ty of home, and protect the State from the
murderers bloody hand, not to devise what is
best for the murderer's happiness in time or
eternity. We may feel sadness and sor-
row for the victim of the murderer. but we
cannot aid him; ; he is beyond our reach, sent
perhaps unprepared to his long home. 1t is
for us, unbiased by feelings of sympathy,
acting under stern and imperative duty, to
inquire what can we do to protect those the
victim leaves behind. from repe ttion of the
great crime that left them desolate? What
will best protect them and the whole com
munity, the State? and the question is now
put square to us Shall VS. repeal the present
law, and will capital punishment better pro-
tect society from the crime of murder? Will
your lives and those Of your little ones be
more secure as they lie peacefully slumber-
ing during the dark hours of night in your
own homes, when the scaffold rises stark
and grim to confront the vision of the assassin
or the would-be murderer Will the fear
and terror of that drea al sight appsll him.
stay the uplifted knifel Will the gallows
better protect the industrious citizens of our
State as unarmed and suspecting no evil or
danger they pursue their honest life work.
feeling safe under the protection Of our laws,
or will the present law be better protection?
(The strong argument of the friends of
capital punishment is that the death penalty
will } This is the question we should
seriously take home to us and decide above
and beyond all other considerations. IL it
was demonstrated beyond doubt. that the
death penalty for premeditated murder would
better protect the community, l would say
az once repeal the law. 1t is now my solemn
belief after mature consideration and such
careful investigation as have been able to
make that the gibbet is no surer safeguard or
barrier for the protection of society or the
State than imprisonment for life. l do not
hs Iiav tho Ua ltnws ia in tho svuo
dian of the sleeping mother and her babe as
was impressively asserted by the gentleman
from Rockland.
The law as it stands, properly executed. is
better and surer protection and far less de-
moralizing in its execution, and its effect
upon the criminal classes. 1t may be posi-
BILE that there are some who consider the evil
dence, adduced before US and which they have
obtained from other sources, balanced. and
that to vote either way would be q lottery to
them. In this case their duty is clear and
imperative. Let the Law stand as it is. until
they are better prepared to decide upon a
change. The great magnitude of the question,
its overpowering influence and effect upon
society demand that you do not hastily aid
without the most solemn and positive convic-
ton, strike from your statutes books law.
when your best and unprejudiced Judgment
cannot sanction the act.
II the evidence is balanced. then considera<
tions other than those 1 have named sho0ld
have weight. Then the danger of the 10
cent suffering for the guilty will come3n to
turn the scale. Then humasit1ffan<1dD sons
advanced by the philanthFOpist sd pious
would bear their weight All The many other
grounds and reasons slreadyz1iv by MEM
bers and others will helntn 6ence your deci-
sion. think the e1nrge hat the Law We