New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-03-22
The Death Penalty

proposed bill abolishing the death
penalty, at the recent public hearing
upon it at Albany. Only advocates
of the change appeared. These ad-
vocates were of two distinct kinds.
They were, first, the humanitarians
who argued for the bill on the
ground, sometimes termed sentimen-
tai, that the state has no right to
violate the sacredness of human life.
There were, second, hard-headed
practitioners Of the law who argued
on the totally different ground that
the death penalty made convictions
difficult and permitted the guilty to
escape. Thus, sentiment and hard
common sense joined hands in ad-
vocacy of the reform.
This agreement among divergent
classes of this community suggests
why the death penalty is in such dis
favor in this state to-day. What
ever ones personal line of thought,
the tendency Of minds everywhere is
to regard it as a survival from
period when judicial punishment
was regarded primarily as an act of
revenge. The newer theory, as car
ried to its full development in mod
ern prison reform, views sentence
as a punishment. Yes, but as
warning and preventive, not retail
alton to satisfy personal revenge:
and with the fact of punishment it
couples, wherever feasible, a plan of
constructive reformation of char
acter.
Is there an equally widespread be-
lief in the doctrine that the state
has in no case the right to take life?
Probably not. The war has hardly
increased respect for the sanctity of
human life. Probably on this broad
question of philosophy majority of
citizens would uphold the theoretical
right of the state to inhict the death
penalty. But when it comes to an ap-
plication of TIM theory there are
many hcsitations. We come back to
the practical question raised before,
of the difficulty of securing verdicts
involving the death penalty. Juries
are exceedingly loath to be con-
WINGED beyond a reasonable doubt"
when their decision involves the life
of fellow human. And rightly.
The death penalty is irrevocablc.
Once inflicted blunder can never
be repaired.
Memory is still fresh of the Stielow
case. There the State of New York
was within a few minutes of putting
to death an absolutely innocent man,
a poor, harmless soul whose only
crime had been stupidity. Thanks
10 the courage of Justice Guy, stay
was granted and Stielow was
snatched from the electric chair.
Never was the possibility of blum
der more clearly demonstrated, never
was the State of New York nearer to
Judicial murder that would have
stained Its court records for all time.
ms is the sort of blunder that
these practical reformers would end.
incidentally making the labor Of dis
trlct attorneys and juries easier and
ialrer to all concerned. The COM
plete abolition of the death penaltv
Is the change proposed in the bin
now pending at Albany. An alter
native has been resorted to in a
number Of states, Iowa among
others; the death penalty has not
been abolished, but it is left to the
jury to say whether life imprison-
ment or the death penalty shall be in
f1icted. Practically, this compromise
law ends the death penalty save in
the most horrible and fragrant muir
ders, where a mistaken verdict is I'M
possible and the crime shocking. The
Tribune would be glad to hear from
its readers upon this reform. 1t
seems to be on the road to passage at
Albany. 1t should ceNsainly be thor
oughly discussed and debated. We
conceive that the time is ripe for a
wise and considered advance along