The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-05-17

ences and conclusions Of its own) does take
stand on one dogma Affirmation Stated
alphabetically, that position il ~ follows:
Capital punisbment 10 the best method Of SELF
defense.
The State has the right to employ the best
method OF self-defense.
Therefore, the State has the right to employ
capital punishment
The minor premise H. Of course. admitted.
If the major premise be established, the con-
OF this rather formidable-seeming syllosisIn is
this: That the said major premise is-as 1t
stands here, part Of the argument plain
case Of the Ietitio principi. 1t bluntly begs
the question. That ID the thing to be proved.
Affirming It is quite idle and improbable If al
hrmation be all. And, far regards argu-
ment in tho matter-the logical process Of dis
covering the truth on this subject-the onus
the case and await his demonstration-simply
denying and demanding proof. In previous
paragraph however The virginian endeavors
to shift the burden of proof by sheltering itself
under the aegs of tradition-hstory, custom,
established practice-indicating land not with
out forensic and logical force) that he who at
lacks existing institutions practices must
shoulder the burden and show good and SUM-
cient reasons for the proposed change But
here, let 1t be observed, The virginian slips
into serious inaccuracy when It says that the
greatest men in the history Of the world from
Moses down to the present time have approved
this practice" That sweeping statement Of
course. was penned in haste 1t should have
been soberly revised
The virginan inadvertently errs again when
it says that "Mr. Winfrey says that statistics
prove that ''the death penalty is not the best
method of self-defense." have not-inten-
tionally, nor acknowledgements any such claim
for statistics. The argument from statistics is,
of course and necessarily. inconclusive. But.
1t is suggestive, auxiliary, conhrmatory in its
tendencies. And In so far as the argument from
statistics may be fairly said to have any bearing
on this question that bearing Is clearly and un-
mistakabiy in favor OF the conclusion that the
abolition of the death penalty cannot be said
to have any effect whatever In the direction of
augmenting or increasing crime. An outstand-
Ing fact Is this, that for the most part where
there is no death penalty there is less Of that
class OF crimes for which in other States and
countries the death penalty is declared. 1t may
or may not be that abolition of the penalty
operated to diminish those crimes But 1t GER
tainly shuts the mouth OF him who would affirm
that abolition Of the penalty must certainly in
crease the number the magnitude Of those
crimes And. further, 1t at least emphasizes and
lifts into prominence the scientific and alto
gether reasonable inquiry whether abolition of
the penalty does not indicate and also assist
an advanced civilization larger and stronger
life-a nobler type OF character.
Ifthe burden of proof Is upon those who cha1-
lenge The Virginians major premise, positive
arguments are not wanting. And let me here
who challenge this proposition are not swayed
by mere sentiment We are not tho puppets
Of a shallow emotonalism. In far as he is
able to analyze his own mental exercises, one of
OF others of themt seeks only truth--loves JUS
tice and righteousness-is contending for moth
ing less nor more than absolute equity.
When that Is necessary. society has the right
to take life in selfdefense. Therefore. the State
may-even at the cost OF life-fepel armed and
invasion
mobs But let the necessity arise. Let the
exisency be evident and unquestionable.
But here we have nothing analogous to-
nothing in the field or class within
stances of personal. individual crime. That a
State-rich, resourceful, great, powerful-has
no other alternative as against a weak individual
here and there than to take his life is absurd.
Has our penoogy exhausted It's inventive pos
sibilities? Would it not be worth while to try
some other methods? In at least the majority
Of those guilty of the gravest crimes is there
nothing stronger, nothing more valuable, moth
ing more humanity responsive to disciplinary
and punitive measures than fear of the death
chair?
Let these propositions be considered:
l. The death penalty has not proved itself
to be the best method of protection In all Its
long history 1t has not shown itself to be ideally
effective protection to society
2. This penalty means economic and social
loss. Not always, perhaps but often. unques-
tionabiy
3. Every legal execution is public demoraliza-
ton. Who has not been shocked and grieved and
alarmed at the lowering of the tone of the pub
lie conscience in connection with these grue-
some and horrible occasions7 Here is loss in
fnitely worse than the economc-loss Of per-
sonal purity and loftiness and force.
4. Applying the principle consistently, the
State would execute her most powerful and most
hurtful Offenders against the rights and the
welfare of the people. But these she spares
and rightly. Why not also the less dangerous?
5. The appeal Of the death penalty be
only to the baser fears Of even the worst of
men, 1t speaks to nothing high. noble. hne in
the soul. Thus 1t tends rather to deaden and
harden and imbrute.
These considerations are suggested as against
and in answer to the claim that this penalty is
the best method Of self-defense-a claim with
which we have too long befogged and blind
folded our minds
AS The virginian takes its stand on this one
arguement-either ignoring all others or treat
ing them az incidental or auxiliary--T forbear
to address myself to them in this article.
e. w. WINFREY.
Culpeper. Va, May IS. 1918.