The Brookhaven leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1883-1891, 1889-03-28
WHY DO WE PUNISH GRIM
INALS +?
COMMUNICATED.

are eSuaOllSHeu sOlcly loI tHc ituiOSo
of private grievances. While this is
partly true in civil cases, it is wholly
untrue of criminal proceedings. In
the penalty prescribed for theft it is
no part of the purpose of law to pun
ish the thief for the private satis(ac-
ton of the party whose property has
been stolen, but the law means by
this example to say to others that eff
you do likewise you shall be likewise
punished" and the fear of the law
operating in this way is the pro-
| lection of the honest against the dis
honest. SO in the penalty for muir
| der. The law does not undertake to
avenge the friends of the murdered
against the murderer, but to protect
the innocent against the guilty.
Hence the parties most aggrieved
may freely forgive the murderer, but
this does not relax or altar the claim
of the law, which claim is based upon
the broad proposition that by the re-
lease of such character his crime is
condOned, and the lives of the conf
munity endangered, not only at the
hand of the criminal thus set at large,
but by the example and license it
gives to others to do likewise.
A good man cannot contemplate the
sentence of death hanging over his
greatest enemy without having the
human side of his nature awakened to
the deepest sympathy and compass
sion, but in his Judgment these do
not meet the demands of justice, nor
answer the just claim of the COM
munity that the innocent and law
abiding should be protected against
crime. Reason and history concur in
showing that just i'll proportion as
criminal executions are rare or fire.
quent, in the same proportion is
murder rare or frequent. Release
a murderer and in a little while we
have lost several of our best citizens
by murder. This is the common and
perfectly natural result. The more
prominent the parties the wider
spreads the upas poison of the eX-
ample. The release of party who
has been convicted in the popu-
lar mind of Il particular crime, is in
followed by unusual repeti-
tons of the same, or like offenses.
Any mans observation will confirm
this, but what do these facts show?-
clearly that we have at all times I'M
initiated criminals who want only OPP
portunity, and their courage strength
ened by the hope of escape or i'm
to develop the worst of their
natures. Then if the law fails to in
spire fear, it fails to protect the citi-
zen, and crime reigns.
Society has no option. 1t is by
force of circumstances driven into a
solution of this problem: Shall we
execute the criminal who deserves it,
or release him, and by so doing give
him the power and others the license
to repeat his crime? But with the
situation thus clearly confronting them
we find good men who as jurors too
often give the verdict of their feelings
rather than their of judgments. These
counted with those that are bribed
are directly and personally respon-
sible for the crimes under which our
country is grooming. To turn con-
victed criminal loose is itself crime
against society, and every jury trying
such case should be so instructed;
and those in authority who use too
freely the pardoning power, should be
advised that they be actuated by
Judgment rather than compassion,
lest they too become criminally hui
name.
Another almost universal, but
wholly erroneous impression is that
the jury decides whether the offender
shall or shall not be punished. The
law gives no such power to a jury.
Under the law the murderer forfeits
his claim to life by the same act and in
the same instant thathe takes the life of
another; for the law argues that aman
can not justly claim for himself that
which without cause he has denied to
another, and that therefore no injus-
tice will be done in his execution, but
rather that injustice would be done
to the community by his release; thus
is indicated capital punishment as the
remedy which society must apply
for its protection.
The only Office of a jury is to
say whether the evidence shows that
the accused party did the act as
charged. Ifhe did itfor just cause heis
not guilty as charged. If for no just
cause he is guilty, and this only is it
the jury's duty to decide. Then the
law and not the jury, condemns the
deed and prescribes the penalty. In
our State, punishment for murder has
become so infrequent, or when adj
miristered at all, so frivolous, that the
suggestion that one guilty of murder