The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-01-26
THE Law OF HOMICIDE
Il the Edltor q 90 Herald:

To the Editor Of The Herald:
IN your editorial OF Sunday commenting
on the Mills case you imply that the pres
ent law in regard 10 homicide in such
cases is satisfactory. Very many people.
on the contrary. think that the statute is
barbarous and a disgrace 10 the state. Il
must be the universal opinion Of those
who uphold the present law that he who
is guilty Of adultery should suffer the
death penalty. This being SO. why not
make It a capital offense2 II IS
the doctrine of our law. as wen
as the law Of the civilized world
Except for this one section in
our statute) that no person shan take
personal vengeance upon another for
crime committed against him. but that all
crimes shall be punished by the state.
This principle distinguishes the civilized
and enlightened nations from the bar
barous. I need rot go into the reasons
which led our savage Angio-Saxon an
cestors to advance by. slow degrees from
the practice Of allowing private ven
geanee to the punishment Of crime by the
state It IS sufficient for my purpose to
say that Ii was a necessary concomitant
Of civilization. Why should we depart
instance2
Make this a capital crime, with execu-
ton by the state, and the accused has a
fair trial. How was It in this ease2 I
only know Of the case in the most general
way and can have no settled opinion as
to whether O'Meiveney was innocent or
guilty Of the crime for which he was 50
summarily executed. Had the law made
the offense a capital one and had he been
tried for it, the state would have been
obliged to prove the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. If he could have been
present and could have confronted every
witness and witnesses would have been
sworn they would have been sharply
cross-examined, perhaps, by the able
counsel who procured his conviction. He
would have had a hundred opportunities
to prove his innocence.
You may say that he was not convict
ed. But he was convicted of being sus-
pected. by a man who. under the law as
laid down by the court q do not cridoise
the ruling of the COURT has been consti-
tuted prosecutor Witnesses, judge. jury
and executioner. O'Melveney had none
Of these safeguards. There was no legal
testimony against him. The only pres
tige Of testimony was a statement. made
by a person who admitted herself TO he
partieeps criminis, statement which. if
it had been necessary to enable your
grocer to collect pay for a sack of -four
could never have been admitted for that
purpose, for the reason that it was rot
sworn TO- anC no opportunity was given
the defendant to crOss-examine the wit
ness.
There are. aside from the question Of
private vengeance, other objections 10 the
statute For many centuries in English
speaking countries it has never been the
law to hang a man for the crime and try
him afterwards. All trials should be
public and held. before executing the ac-
cused. before a cool. impartial tribunal
and all executions should be had under
public authority and proper records kept
of the same.
Under our law as it now stands the
foulest crimes may be committed. the
greatest wrongs perpetrated Our pres
ent law puts the life OF every man, no
matter how pure his life may have been,
into the hands Of the worst desperate in
the community. who has a femals Tela-
tive. If he can induce that relative or
any person to relate a seemingly prob
able accusation OF Illicit intercourse
against him and can at the same time
work himself into a whirlwind Of passion.
In the foregoing observations I have
not sought to criticise the conduct Of this
particular trial, but the statute under
which it took place. using this trial as
an illustration. But I must condemn a
statute which violates every principle
upon which our whole system of law aid
Jurisprudence is founded. as well every
maxim of justice and humanity.
EUGENE LEWIS
January % ION