Wichita eagle., 1888-12-06
PUNISHMENT OF CRIME.
AN IRREGULARITY WHICH is THE
SEED OF INJUSTICE.

Should Not the Criminal and his Prom
erty BE Held Responsible for the Undo
ing of the wrong?-" in the
Criminal Courts.
The first object of the civil law is the main
tenance of the rights of individuals The
fact that the smallest personal right is ct
lacked. or even threatened, is enough to give
jurisdiction to some engine Of the law: and
The laws work is not done effectuaily until
the right, II 1t proves to be veritable right,
Is established and secured 1t is not enough
mat the attempting wrong door be stopped
at The point which he has reached, be pre-
vented from going further, OF even be pun
ished for the past; he and his property ara
neld RESPONSE bic for the Undoing of anv
wrong that has been done, and for the re-
establishment of the violated right in all its
original Vlgor and security. All this is
summed I'D in the convenient word dam
ages" Human imperfections very often
prevent law from reaching the full consI1n-
nation OF Its object, but any such result is
always felt to be reason for the law itself to
be discontinued with it's failure
w hen we turn to criminal law we seem to
have fallen upon an entirely different atmos-
phere. Criminal offenseS are primarily
against the state; and yet, with the excep-
tlon or such few general crimes as treason
ana rebellion, each Of them involves some
VOCATION OF an individuals rights The
murderer Is hanged because he has violated
the command of the state to refrain from
committing murder; but the crime has
wrongtully extinguished Some individuals
right 10 lie, as We'll as the right of his wife
chlIcren or other dependents to SUPPORT
Ell our criminal law, except in few minor
oHenseS, makes no effort whatever to yindi-
cate the violated personal rights or TO make
damages to the victim component part
of the offenders sentence.
The one object OF our criminal svstar,,
seems TO be the punishment Of the wrong
ooer; ana 1t seems to consider the restoration
or satisfaction of individual rights as a mere
incident, which may or may not occur. with
out affecting the success Of its legitimate
Work- Under such a system il is perhans
fortunate that the conventional and convent
ent blindness of Justice prevents her from
seeing the full measure of the wrongs which
her present theory passes complacentlv by
from day to day. She draws her sword
against the merchant or banker who. having
been piundered by forger or burglar ven
lures to compound the felony in order To rret
BACK part OF his property; but she does not
pretend to conceal from the victim her ha-
lief that the recovery Of the propertv in any
more Legitimate fashion is really no partirrI-
lar affair of hers. The barns and outbpiId
lngs OF an owner are fred again and ao-ain
by concealed enemy, until even insurance
becomes impossible; the criminal tnavat last
be caught, indicted and imprisoned. but tho
injured mans lost property is not BROUGHT
BACK to nm by such = punishment of crime
The civil law VIII see TO it that tho roiI7,-o,,
company whose servants, By caralessnaes
XII or mann passenger shall satisfy the
lost rights of life or locomotion bv q money
payment to the injured person or his ranra-
sentatlves; but, if the criminal law ca,
catch and punish the ruff1an who has killed
the father OF family, it seems to care moth
Ing for the children of the murdered man
VINO are starving or impoverished by the loss
OF their bread winner. Criminal courts
which are meant to be places wherein ms
tIce is JudiclaIly administered" do in sncb
ways become very commonly, as the scofrers
insist, places where injustice is iudiciallv
administered"
Why should It be necessary TINT sr,ch an
anomalous feature should mar the fair ont
lines Of human lawg Why should Justice ig-
more in criminal law that which is her con
trolling motive in civil law-the wrongs of
the injured party2 Is it not possible To
make the very punishment of the criminal
nearly as close an approximation to n salts
faction for tho violated individual rights as
Is usually obtained by the civil law? 1t may
be that such a change of the point of view
would alter some points Of the theory of law:
but would not the change be for the betterg
Very many persons believe intensely and
honestly that 1.-The worst use you can put a
man to is to hang him." would not the friends
and opponents of capital punishment unite
much more readily on life imprisonment
at hard labor for murder, with restrictions
on the pardonlng power, il the proceeds of
the hard labor were TO go to the murdered
persons representatives. For. after all the
essential injustice Of capital punishment is
not that it takes away the criminals forfeited
right 10 life, but that it does so in a wav
which extinguishes forever the source from
which the murdered mans dependents had a
moral right to look for recompense for the
rights which had been taken from them In
such cases the law, blind, furious and I'M
reasoning, destroys the life of the guilty
without stopping TO consider that it thereby
makes the injury TO the innocent hopeless.
irremedial, permanent injury. Electricity
may may not be good substitute for the
rope; perhaps common sense and even
handed justice might lind better substitute
for both
IL seems hardly necessary TO supplement- or
reinforce the case of murder; if the point
be well taken there, any number of criminal
offenses will suggest themselves 10 the reader
in which the proceeds OF the criminals hard
labor cculd be fairly, justly and wei as
signed by the sentencing court to the salts
faction Of the personal rights which had been
injured or destroyed by tire crime Thus the
state would still fulfill its function of pun
ishing crime. but would convert that function
into guardianship of the rights of the inno-
cent and the helpless. In very many classes
If crimes, the system itself would supply a
convenient and accurate measure Of punish
ment. How long shall the criminal servel
Until the gross proceeds Of his labor shall
make good the 'erisiMl injury TO the indi-
vIGuai Or the state, with interest.-Ine Con-
fury.
CARL DUNDER,