Daily Kennebec journal., 1883-03-02

and not as we should wish them to be. And
let us remember that by this bill we are leg
islating only for protection of society against
the wiifu, malicious murderer.
Ii has been said that the only object of pun
ishment is the protection of society and the
reformation OF the criminal l dissent from
that proposition as being not strictly true
legally, nor sound philosophicslly. l believe
the object of punishment is to punish, and TO
punish for the violation of law which is
made for the protection of society. Strict
Law knows no mercy, and its penalties are
not influenced by any considerations of ref
ormation. 1t is only as punishment that it
can have the effect to deter from the COM
mission of crime. All criminal laws are
based upon this principle. The language of
the constitution is ''aIl penalties and punish
ments shall he proporfioned TO the offence -
Then certainly for the highest offense should
be the extreme penalty. In discussing the
question of the death penalty deterring from
commission of crime, we must consider the
character OF those whom il is TO affect. They
are marked class, fortunately a small pro-
portion of the human race, of low and brutal
passions, educated in crime and not suscepti-
BILE OF the motives which influence OF restrain
the average of humanity. Ii is a well settled
fact that the lower and more degraded of
that death is most dreaded by them; "ihe
sting of death is sin 1t is said that in for
mer times and in England, death was
the punishment for many crimes of
the lower grade, and that il did
not deter from crime. We must not detach
that fact Of 1t be SOY from the circumstances
and conditions of society of that time, which
we know tn be very far below the present.
But as civilization and society improved,
England has set an example in the gradation
of punishment which il would be well for us
TO initiate. Commencing at the right end of
the scale and lessening the penalties for
lighter offences, but leaving for the highest
crime. that of wilful murder, the highest de-
gree of punishment, so that it can now be
shown that in no country so well as in Eng
lund. is society protected from that crime, or
murderers more sure to he convicted. But in
our own State we have begun at the wrong
end. or at both ends of the gradation. lessen
ing the penalty for the highest offence, so that
we have now 10 different crimes for which
the punishment is Imprisonment for life. and
the prison so full that new law is asked for
the protection of the warden; and those per
sons who can see nothing in imprisonment
except the reformation of the criminal, are
advising the Supreme Court to increase the
punishments for lighter crimes, and to SEN
tence no person for a less term than three
years, SO that they may be huddled together
in a prison with hardened criminals, in order
that the .'lesven of reform NAV operate on
the whole mass. For confirmation of this
fact see the reports of former wardens and of
the present teacher at the Maine State
Prison.
But punishment is also for the protection
of society. In the arguments of those who
hov tho nshn c;1 anil,
lection seems to be from the danger of a
repetition of the crime of the criminal, and
it is argued that imprisonment for life is suf-
fcient. But protection is something more
than this. 1t includes prevention of crime.
Every member of society has right to claim
this, and il is the duty of government, through
the agency law, to afford to every one the
highest possible degree of security of life.
We cannot restore the life of the innocent
victim, but We should so punish the murderer
as to deter others from the commits
sion of the crime. l have but little faith in
the reformation of the convicted murderer,
but | would both deter and if possible re-
form before the guilty act. 1t is not the Cain
who has the mark set upon him, who is the
most dangerous. but the Cain, who having
counted the cost, and weighed the penalty.
has not yet clincbed the hammer, and dealt
innocent mother, whose greatest misfortune
was to have given life to such a monster.
These are the persons against whom society
needs protection, and it can only be effected
by establishing such penalty as will most
eff.ctually control their debased and brutal
passion. would educate them in that branch
of instruction best adopted to their condition,
and in which manv of them are already quite
proficient, that is. the penalties affixed by Law
to different crimes, and would impress
indelliblv upon their minds the great
lesson, that the most atrocious crime of mur-
der merits, and will receive, the punishment
of death NV friend from Houlton, and also
the gentleman from Readfield. admit the in
crease of crime and also both admit that the
condition of society is far below what it has
been in years gone bv. and each Of them as
sign a cause for it. If this be so, no matter
from what cause, then seven years ago was
verv unwise time in which to abolish the
death penalty, and the facts officially brought
to our notice show it to be so.
One other consideration and close. If it
be true that the death penalty is best for So
ciety. that it gives the best protection, then
we are running fearful risk. Every mur-
derer has at least one victim, we know not
who it may be, but life once taken can never
be restored, and if by any neglect or miscon-
duct of ours. we fail to provide the best pos
sible remedy. another innocent victim may
be added TO the increasing catalogue Of crime.
On the other hand, if we should err in re-
storing the death penalty, we NAV know that
it has no terrors for the innocent and law
abiding and only for the punishment Of legal
ly convicted. wilful murderer.