Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1897-04-10
aetistellaneuus 8eading.
THE DEATH PENALTY.
from the Indianapolis News.

~
And this suggests the reflection that
our administration of the criminal law
is itself responsible for most of the
scruples about capital punishment.
Instead of trying the man-slayer
promptly and executing him, if he is
found guilty, as soon as possible after
his crime, we allow matters to drag
along month after month, grant new
trials on the merest technicalities, al
low appeals in cases where there is no
doubt of the righteousness Of the YER
dict, and are fortunate if we get the
criminal hanged within year. And
during all this time he is treated as a
public character, if not as hero, is
permitted to hold receptions and to
talk freely to the newspapers, until
finally there is aroused in his behalf
an artificial and maudlin sympathy,
and then, having forgotten all about
his victim, we begin to entertain
doubts about the propriety Of the death
penalty. AS one bright woman in In
dianapolis said the other day, Ameri-
cans either lynch their criminals or
treat them as heroes.
Thus the element Of vengeance is en-
tirely lost sight of. We look upon
punishment for crime as merely re-
formatory or preventive. 1t ought,
when practicable, to have both these
elements, but it is possible to make too
much of the reformatory element.
The modern and much overworked
theory that the criminal is mere
ly the product of antecedent circum-
stances and of his environment has
led to many good results in the way
of prison reform, but in its extreme
development it is full of danger. There
are certain acts which must bring with
them a legal penalty, and it will be a
sad day for the world when people
look upon crime simply as disease.
No matter how much we may argue
against human responsibility, society
could not exist one hour if we should
cease to act upon the principle that
men are responsible for their own
deeds. We must continue to punish
men, not only for the sake of reform
ing them, or of deterring others from
crime, but also for the punishment's
sake. In a word, punishment must be
punitive.
The argument against capital pun.
ishment has two branches. 1t is in
sisted in the first place by some wri-
ters that the state has no right to take
human life, because it is the gift Of
God and ought to be inviolable. 1t is
urged that the criminal, of all persons,
stands in greatest need of the opportu-
nifty for repentance, and it is mon
strous thing for one man, or even for
society, to deprive another of this op-
portunity. Such arguments as these
certainly have much weight and are
entitled to respect. There are proba-
bly, few people who have not been pro-
foundly Influenced by them. Yet it
requires little. consideration to show
that they prove too much. To admit
their validity would be to deny the
right of self:defense, to forbid a SOL
dier to kill his enemy, and to leave the
peaceful and innocent citizen to the
mercy of the burglar or the footpad. In
all these cases we recognize the right
of the individual to take life in defense
of his own. Can it be said that socie.
ty has not the same right?
We are not arguing as to the neces-
sity of capital punishment, but are
simply trying to show that human life
is no more inviolable as against society
than it is against the individual. Many
of the most intelligent opponents Of
the death penalty have abandoned this
ground altogether, and have based
their arguments upon the proposition
that it is not necessary, and that it
accomplishes no good purpose, one OF
them going so far as to admit that it
is necessary when there is no other
way of deterring from crime. Here
there is at least room for argument and
some difference of opinion. If the
death penalty does not contribute to
the greater safety of society most peo-
pie would admit that it ought not to
be inflicted.
And here we are face to face with a
question of fact. Admitting, as we
think we must, that the state has a
clear right to inflict the death penalty,
if it can be shown that this form Of
punishment is necessary to the we'll
being of society, we still have to
inquire whether it is necessary. And
here it must be acknowledged no one
has right to speak with authority.
In very few parts of the civilized world
has the experiment of doing away with
the death penalty been tried, and no.
where has it been tried long enough to
Justify one in drawing definite conclu-
sions. In Italy, since the abolition of
capital punishment in 1875, murders
have greatly increased in the Neither
lands they have somewhat declined in
frequency. In the states of the Union
where the death penalty has been
abandoned the facts do not justify in
ferences one way or the other. In
Michigan people have agitated for its
restoration. This much, however,
may be fairly said: The general
judgment and experience of mankind
should have great weight. The law
makers of the most enlightened nations
of the world do not feel that the time
is yet come when the death penalty
can he safely abolished. Social chan
ges are made, and ought to be made,
slowly. Until it can be proved that
the safety of society will not be jeop-
ardized by the abolition of the death
penalty it will be wise to retain it.