The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1915-03-05
Moral Basis for
Capital Punishment

1t is contended by some that because
an individual has no moral right to
take the life of a murderer the State
has no right to do SO after an impartial
trial and conviction of such criminal.
But let us examine, as closely as we
may, the moral foundation upon which
rests, not only the lawful, but the nat
ural right OF the State to execute cap
ital punishment.
The primary object of all organiza-
ton of human society under civil gov
eminent is the protection of the life and
property of its individual members, and
it is only by such organization that
human society and individual life may
be protected, Hence certain laws are
wisely formulated, with certain penal
ties attached thereto for their violation,
for the especial protection of the lives
of the citizens. And such laws are but
| the concrete expression of the natural
impulse of man to promote his own
self-preservation. Such laws are the
natural, therefore the moral, and | may
say the divine outgrowth of the instinct
or impulse for self-protection.
Therefore we must see that the Gov
eminent, or State, has natural and
moral right to make any law and attach
thereto any penalty and execute the
same with irmness and judgment on
the laws violators that is necessary or
effective for the protection of the life
of the individual members. More than
that, the State is under positive moral
obligation to the people, based on the
on the most sacred of all human rights
the right of the protection of life
to make and impartially execute such
laws. Yea, the State, as I see it, COM
mits positive, rather than negative,
crime against the people if, through
cowardice, weakness, indifference or
perverted sympathy, it willingly fails to
make and firmly and impartially exc
cute such laws as in its wisdom it deems
most effective in staying the murderer's
hand, and consequently in protecting
from the tragic fate of being murdered,
the law-abiding citizens of the social
body.
So it must logically follow, if capital
punishment is more effective than any
other mode of punishment in protect
ing the life of citizens from murder,
and is so deemed by the State, that the
State has moral right, is under
moral obligation to the people, to make
and execute such penalty on duly
convicted capital offenders, and that it
commits crime against the people if
it deliberately fails to do so.
And the man or individual who will
fully violates such law, taking pre-
meditatedly the life of citizen, incurs
the capital penalty on himself of his
own deliberate will, and, in way, pro-
poses his own execution by deliberately
laying himself liable to such penalty;
and by taking the life of another, not
only under the law, but under simple
moral justice to the peoples safety, he
forfeits his own natural right to live,
since his life has proved, and may still
prove, an utterly indefensible means of
destruction to the life of another. And
to allow enough such characters to live
in any society would mean the destruc-
ton of that society by murder; and for
society to weakly allow such casualty
would be indirect suicide and crime
against itself. And to willfully or de-
liberately allow one such character to
live in any society would, as l see it,
be an indefensible neglect of justice and
of simple protection due the people.
And the State would execute the cap
ltal penalty on capital offenders, not as
a means or act of revenge on the GRIM
inal. but as mere act of moral justice
which the common safety of the peo-
pie demands--it would take the life of
a guilty, life-destroying character to the
more insure the protection of the life
of the people who, under the law, and
under all natural, moral and divine JUS