New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1891-10-28

u -
horror to an abhorrent scene. The state,
unquestionably, has no right to hang an
innocent man, which has many times
been done, and when it is done no man
can be found that will admit of having
innocent blood on his hands It is ex-
cused on the ground that it was mere
accident for which there is no ACCOUNT
ability, but it is an accident that could
De avoided by Furnishing criminals in a
way other than by putting them to
death. The policy of our law deems it
better that many guilty persons should
escape rather that one innocent person
should be punished. But it has been
said that if an innocent man. owing to
the infirmity in the judgment of the
court and jury, is convicted and put to
death he is patriot and deserves to be
( classed with the soldier who immolates
his life on the altar of his country. But
this is not true. No person whose life
is sacrificed, albeit for the good of his
country, for that reason deserves
the name of patriot or martyr. u-less
the sacrifice is by him voluntarily made,
The man who is suspended in Md air
for the crime of another has no volltion
in the matter. He loses his life be-
cause he is powerless to save it. Again
the severity of the penalty many times
causes guilty parties to escape deserved
punishment. Juries, as rule, are slow
to convict in capital cases, especially
where the evidence is circumstantial,
however convincing the testimony may
be. Jurors appreciate their respons1.
bility in such cases and must be con.
vinced of the defendants guilt almost
to demonstration before they will send
their fellow MANI ito the scafold. The
in1iction of the death penalty causes
people to place less value on human
life, and is brutalizing in its tendency.
Il feeds and strengthens the baser pas
sions and stints and dwarfs the more
ennobling qualities of the mind The
certainty of punishment is far more po-
tential to the prevention of crime than
the severity of the same. It has been
urged in favor of capital punishment
that its abrogation in several of the
states has been succeeded by an in
crease of crime. Admitting this to be
true, still it cannot be accepted as an
indubitable argument, The increase
of crime may have been due to other
causes. The increase in population by
immigration and the varying condition
OF the people as to prosperity should
always be taken into consideration. In
periods of great financial depression the
people are more restless than in seasons
OF prosperity and as rule are then
more prone to commit crime. Mime
sofa has been cited as an illustration.
When the James and Younger brothers
made their famous raid into this state
the law providing for the inAiction of
the death penalty was practicnally
dead letter. It was the circumstance of
the raid, and not an increase of crime
in the state that caused the people to
demand 3 change in the law. Nobody
is foolish enough to suppose the condi-
ton of our laws on this subject at that
time influenced those men in the least.
If they had been afrai3 of the death
penalty, why did they not 60 to Wis
consin or Iowa, where it did not then
exist? The audacious and reckless
spirit of those men would not have been
deferred from coming here if burrying
alive had been the punishment here
prescribed by law for murder. The
fact that the experience of all time still
leaves il an open question, as 1t is
claimed to be, whether this law repress-
es crime to a greater extent than any
other that can be adopted, is within
itself an argument against it; for if we
can get along as well, if not better, by
eliminating this barbarism from our
code, let us do it. How can we ea pect
to reach high plane of civilization by
deliberately fostering and perpetuating
the customs of the barbarians? would
suggest the abolition of the law in
question; take the pardoning power out
of the hands Of the governor, for the
one man power is always dangerous and
subject to abuse. Instead, I would es-
tablish pardoning board comprised Of
the governor and one man, not poll
tician, selected by the supreme court,
from each judiclal district in the state
with no power to pardon in any case
except upon evidence developed subse-
II 4 A.. Al y