Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1883-04-03

l claim to have done 1t In self-defence.
Does the Court ask me il I considered
it expedient to take his life! No! /
must prove that it was necessary to pro-
tect my own life. So with society, it
cannot justly and rightly take the life Of
condemned murderer, except on the
ground Of actual necessity. Is there any
gentleman who will say that when the
criminal is safely confined in the State
prison, there exists any necessity that his
life should be taken: Is not society
fully protected if the condemned criminal
is placed where he cannot injure society.
The question is simply, one Of necessity.
1t is not a question Of economy, whether
it would not be cheaper for the State to
take his life. than to support him for the
rest of his days. The same rule would
apply in greater or less degree to every
case of imprisonment. 1t is not ques-
ton of conversion-although one Rev.
gentleman before the committee claimed
that murderers condemned to be hung
were more easily converted, as they were
more susceptible to religious influences
than those condemned to Imprisonment
for life. Granted for the sake Of argu-
ment. But would not the same reason
ing apply to all Of US ~
What should we think Of a church
that attempted to convert people by sem
fencing them to be hung that they might
be more susceptible to religious inhu-
ences: 1t will be seen that my position
is different from that Of some Of the OPP
poneRts Of capital punishment. con-
csde the right of society to take life when
necessary for its protection, or the protec-
ton of its members. Hence | am not
inconsistent, when | say, will vote to
enact some penalty, even the death PEN
atty II deemed necessary, for the punish
ment of murder committed by convict
imprisoned for life. The present agita-
ton Of this subject has originated in
great degree from the circumstances sur
rounding the State prison-and | am will
ing to yield them some protection. Gentle
men may say public sentiment favors the
restoration of the death penalty. deny
it. Where are the petitions for this act, such
as flooded the House on the great subject
Of Temperate, divorce and taxation : So
far as know, not one single petitioner
asked for it. Is there any of that rest
less feeling of apprehension abroad
among the people Of the State which the
advocates of capital punishment picture
in such glowing colors: 1t may be that
in the retired part Of the State where l
dwell, did not have the opportunity to
feel the public pulse throb as strongly as
did some of my honorable associates on
the Judiciary Committee. Yet | must
assert that the first intimstion had that
the matter was even to be discussed, was
the introduction of the order in the
House calling attention to the subject.
Still, am not one of those who claim
that the Legislature cannot pass reason
able laws without long petitions for their
enactment, and l only allude 10 the alb
sence Of petitions, as an evidence that
there was no great feeling Of insecurity
abroad in the land. Having thus shown
you my position, which is that nothing
but necessity will justify the taking of
human life, and that there exists at the
present time no such necessity as will
warrant return to the death penalty,
let me for moment step down from that
position and meet the advocates of this
measure on the ground Of expectancy.
In so doing, / do not for moment ad-
nit that we are justified in considering
it from that standpoint. The sanctity Of
human life should never be invaded on q
mere question of expediency, but I claim
their position is untenable on their own
ground. Their claim is that the death
penalty will deter more people from the
commission Of murder than imprisonment
for life. If it was a proposition suscept-
IDLE of mathematical demonstration,
would join issue with them on that point.
But it is simply an attempt to weigh and
snalyze the motive power in a mans
mind and deduce therefrom a certain
rule of action-a fair field Of argument,
but not of demonstration. The support
ers of capital punishment attempt to
prove by figures that murders increase
when the punishment is Imprisonment
for life, and will give you statistics.
which, from their standpoint, viewed
only with the limitations which they
throw about them, might seem to add
some force to their argument. On the
other hand the opponents of the measure
will substantiate the opposite of this by
equally convincing statistics, when view.
ed from their standpoint. Both claims
- s~,.JoJ IN tba avxonao,s asa,,r,o.;ox.