Evening star., 1901-02-16
A Salutary Measure in Furnishing Ger
tain Grimes.
As An ANFIDOTE FOR LYNCHING
Present Punitive Methods Are
Often Inadequate.
OPINION OF A JURIST

Ing. Instances Of it are common in the
south and occasional at the north. 1t is
disgrace to our civilization and a reproach
to our laws. There must be some deep
cause for it or it would not be supported,
as it too often is, by the public sentiment
of the community In which the crime oc-
ours. Cannot this cause be discovered and
removed?
The man lynched is put to DEATH in the
great majority of cases, because it is be-
lieved that he has been guilty of the crime
of rape, and that no sufficient retribution
for the offense will be inflicted upon him in
the ordinary course Of law.
What ground is there for this distrust of
our system Of criminal justice? 1t rests
partly on the delays of the law, but more
on a popular conviction that the penalty
which is provided is an Inadequate one.
This penalty Is generally Imprisonment
for term Of years in the penftentiary,
with possibility Of release during the
term on parole or by pardon and GER
tainty Of a considerable reduction of time
In case of good conduct while in confine-
ment
Inadequate Punishment.
The Imprisonment ought not to be for
life nor should capital punishment be al
lowed. If it were, rape would generally be
followed by murder. But is mere imprison-
ment. even for a long period of years. an
adequate punishment for such an offense?
1t gives the guilty party comfortable shell
ter, board and clothes at public expense,
insure him against ennui without at all
overburdening his strength. If. as is gem
orally the case, he is poor man. he is not
unlikely to be better housed and fed than
he otherwise would have been and no
harder worked. All anxiety as to his means
of support is removed, and during his spare
hours he is given some opportunity for
reading by prison library.
Is the father or brother Of the unhappy
woman whom this mans superior strength
has enabled him to make his unwilling
victim likely to think that this manner
Of dealing with him is a due measure Of
retributive Justice?
This brings us to q question Of fun
damental character. Is retributive justice
the main motive and end Of criminal prose-
cutions? Philosophers like Kant have de-
clared that 1t is. Those Of a different
school have denied it and asserted that
the only legitimate object of legal punish
ment is to protect society by preventing
repetitions Of the offense and to reform the
offender.
Rights of Society.
Is 1t true that human government has no
right to make a criminal smart for his
crime? The common people will never be-
lieye that. They never ought to believe it.
The instructive sense of natural justice
cries out against such doctrine. Organ
lied society is a divine agency for adminis-
tering to wrongdoers their deserts so far
as 1t can be done by human judgment and
human power.
In the last encyclical of Leo XIII he says
that the world has heard quite enough of
the rights of man. What it needs is to
hear more of the rights of God. May it not
need, also, to look with greater care into
the rights of society?
The progress Of civilization tends to sof-
ten manners to lessen occasions for the
exertfon of physical force, to develop SEN
timents of compassion and charity. These
results are sure to show themselves in the
administration OF criminal justice. It is
right that they should; but here, as with
everything else, reform is something that
may be pushed too far Criminal procedure
may be smoothed down and polished away
to point at which it seems to the mass Of
men to content itself with remedies insuffi-
to oppose. If so. there will be reaction
1t may be a reaction in the law. 1t may be
q reaction against the law.
Should he Painful.
Lynchfng is an expression of the latter.
1t should be met by an expression of the
former. The ordinary course Of nature
would seem to indicate that aggravated Of
lenses, committed by physical force and
causing pain, ought to be punished by an
exertion OF physical force which causes
pain. This pain ought not to be cruel
one. but it should justify its name. It
should be painful. 1t should be some form
Of corporal punishment which the offender
will find disagreeable. Whipping is q pun
ishment Of this kind.
During the last century the number Of
offenses for which It may be inflicted has
been very greatly decreased throughout the
civilized world. This has been due to three
main causes. One Is the feeling that such
q mode Of punishment is barbarous An
other Is the claim that 1t degrades and bru-
talizes. Another Is the proposition that
It is only justifable as a mode Of retribu-
ton and that retributive justice belongs to
God alone.
The objection of cruelty Is one that ap-
which 1t is done. There is no cruelty in a
father 9 whipping his child. He means to
have 1t hurt, and 1t does, but 1t leaves no
scars.
ICES, again, may depend much on the man
ner Of its tnflictfon. The public whipping
post in the jail yard ought not to be re-
stored. A cat-o-nine tails or knout ought
to be used. A leather strap well laid on in
the presence of physician in the convict's
own cell, or some other place equally pri-
vate, would be enough.
Deserves Degradation.
But a ravisher has shown himself a
brute. He has degraded his victim. His
demands his own degradation In
the ranks Of society. This Is necessary
of his conviction. That, prob
Rb1y, under the law, will deprive him OF
his right to vote or hold office and be al
ways receivable in court to discredit his
If he is offered as a witness or
appears as a Etigant. He Is known, also,
and always will be, as ''jailbird.' These
things degrade more than private fiogging
can.
The third objection-that it is an attempt
10 punish rather than to reform-is its best
defense The ravisher ought to be pun
shed. and punished SO severely that such
crimes will be less apt to recur than they
otherwise might be. He ought to be pun
shed because he has done wrong. and the
aw which forbids the woman's relatives to
lake summary vengeance into their own
hands comes under an obligation to them
20 deal out retributive justice.
It has good warrant to assume this obli-
cation. This is denied by the sentimental
school Of sociologists. Their arguments
have been recently reviewed and put In
form by Prof. Willoughby of Johns
Hopkins University in his Social Justice"
he argues, cannot be justly
retributive because judges and juries are
not omniscient. They cannot read the mind.
They cannot allow for temptation. They
cannot know the whole Of the criminals
history and training and defects Of Inherit
ance. Only God can punish by way Of