Middletown transcript., 1917-02-24
LOCALIZED KILLING
A Very Important Question Is
Facing Delaware
OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

racing delaware
OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
! Delaware is facing to-day a most i'm
portant question for its progress as a
state-that of legalized killing. While
it is the right of each to use his reason.
and decide accordingly, still the average
man has given little thought to this
pivotal question, and it is wise to con-
slder in a scientific spirit the expert
ences OF other states, and profit by
what has been definitely proved by them
TO be true. We are side by side with
the struggle of Pennsylvania to decide
this same question, and we can but note
that the decision against legal death, as
1t IS called, is upheld by the overwhelm-
ing sentiment of the people CT the
state, the support and ardent advoca-
tlon OF the governor, the judges, law
yers, educators, ministers, bishops and
many reformative and economic organi-
cations. 1t is significant that it is the
trained minds, those of wide expert
| ence, the earnest, thoughtful, broad
minded men and women who are de-
manding the changing of the present
barbarous custom of capital punish
ment. This discussion has also brought
out the fact that in the past many
among the governors, judges, members
OF the Board of Pardons, and others
connected with the system of Justice
have long been strongly opposed to cap
ltal punishment, and have carried out
the law from sense of duty alone, in
flat contradiction to the dictates of rea-
son and conscience. The same is true
in Delaware. Some of our able jurists.
those connected with our prison system.
those who have had experience on
which to base their judgement-a do
ing the same. Do we need a Mottern
and HaineS case in Delaware to wake
the State to its reason and conscience.
or, will we now weigh in the balance
the mass Of evidence against legalized
killing, counter to which we can place
little except old custom and the desire
for revenge!
Jesus said, ''They of old time said an
eye for an eye and tooth for tooth.
but l say unto you resist not evil p" The
idea OF revenge, of punishment, is the
last stronghold of that old teaching
which is being overborne by the prac-
tice and teachings of the Christ. tits
understandable that the friends and
relatives of murdered man are apt to
be possessed by desire for revenge,
but common sense must also recognize
that they, while possessed by this spirit,
are incapable of impartial Judgment, a
sense of justice, or clear vision of
what is for the best interests of the
community. The strong personal feel
ing forbids it. We recognize that in
the impersonal, unprejudiced attitude
We demand in our jurors. A strong
personal feeling such as revenge has no
place in a legal system that aims to
protect and administer justice to each
and all members of its State.
An argument often brought forth is
that justice will not be done if the death
penalty is removed-that there will be
so much better chance for evading or
mitigating the penalty. AS a matter
of fact, justice is not done now. The
homicides of a year mount into the
thousands while the legal executions are
from one hundred to two hundred.
There are very many loopholes of es-
cape. 1t is a fact that criminals of
wealthy families are seldom executed.
The courts are 10th to inflict death on
an offender if there is the slightest
doubt of his guilt. and it is rather diff
cult to find cases in which there is alb
solutely no room for reasons why the
offenders should not be held account
able in the strictest sense. The fact
that it is impossible to definitely decide
upon the line between sanity and in
sanitv under given conditions, is often
taken advantage of. Then again, the
shadow of the awful, irrevocable conse-
quence of mistake, and the known fact
of the execution in the past of inno-
cent men, is deterrent whenever the
law calls for the death sentence. There
have been thousands who have died.
firm to the last in declaring their inno-
cence. The effect of these on the pub
lie mind IS to waken revulsion against
a system that imposes the most ex-
treme, irrevocable penalty possible, and
is not able to obtain absolute infallible
truth on which to base it. Justice
would be better served by the imposing
of life sentence WITHOUT PAROLE
in. the place of legal death. There
would be more just convictions, and the
of mistake would not be
wholly irremediable.
Another argument that history has
been refuting for two hundred years is
that the death penalty strikes terror to
the hearts of all possible offenders and
keeps them from murder. Let me quote
Samuel w Cooper, well-known Phila-
delphia lawyer:
Ii CHgldnu as late as 1913 death
was the penalty for more than $50 DIFF
ferent offences If you associated with
gypsies for month or wrote an anony-
nous letter demanding money or stole
goods to the value of a shilling or more
or maliciously marred Westminster
bridge-for these offences and many
others you might be hanged In eonse-
quence, hangings were of daily occur
renee. When Sir Samuel Romilly, Will
berforce and other reformers sought to