The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1928-02-20
Editorial Comment
The Death Penalty and Hickman
(Minnean0liS Trihnno1

The imposition of the death penalty upon
Hickman was hardly more than a formality.
After the verdict brought in by the jury, al
most no one doubted that he would be sem
fenced to be hanged. The case was cut and
dried. If any crime ever merited the death
penalty, certainly Hickman's did.
None the less it is quite likely that some
good people will permit themselves to get all
worked up over the inhumanity Of capital pun
ishment. They will argue that Hickman was
not sane when he committed his atrocious
crime. They will say that the jurys verdict
that he was sane meant nothing because juries
are not qualified to pass on questions of sanity
To this the reply might be made that the more
society reverences human life the more it is
bound to exterminate the Hickmans. It makes
little practical difference to society whether
Hickman is sane or insane. The fact that he
is known killer is enough. The one supreme
ly important consideration faced by society is
that Of security. Society has a shade less Sc
curity when known killer is alive than when
he is dead. Even if he is confined to a peni-
tertiary or an institution for the insane, the
point still holds good. Confined to peniten-
tiary or an institution for the insane, there is
always the chance that he may be released or
that he may escape. But there is no chance
of his being released from the grave, or Of
breaking out of it. The particular menace to
social security implied by Hickman's contin-
ued existence is completely wiped out only
when his life is extinct.
Some sort of case can be made out against
the use of the death penalty in instances where
the evidence is circumstantial purely. Here
there is chance that society might err and
put the wrong man to death. If the death
penalty be compulsory, juries, quite naturally
fearful of making mistake, often acquit the
accused, even though the weight of the evil
dence be against him. This is surely not de-
H. rkok@ Is
that it is contrary to the best interests of pun-
lie security. Hence it is clear that the death
penalty should be used only with discretion,
and with the thought of mass security upper
most in mind. But il there is any one type Of
case the death penalty should cover, that type
is the known killer. The question of insanity
here simply obscures the issue. It can never
be satisfactorily settled because insanity is a
subject even experts know too little about.
Maybe all killers are insane. Maybe small
part Of them are. Maybe large part Of them
are. Nobody knows. The field is one of con-
lecture. But social security is not matter Of
conjecture. And we certainly have greater So
cial security with the known killers dead and
less social security with the known killers
alive. The person who advocates greater So
cial security is the person animated by genu-
inc regard for human life rather than the per
son who advocates less social security. Both
may be humane; but the first is more compre-
hensivey and intelligently humane. Leaving
known killers about, even with guards and at
tcndants, is not much to be commended. S.
ciety is safer with the killers permanently Oh,
OF the way. Why gamble with other lives? In
prison mutinies the killers are the first to
shoot the guards and turkeys. If they es
cape, they nearly always 60 back to killing
The death penalty best solves the problem of
the killer, whether we assume that he is right
in his mind or born with some sort Of com
pick. All other considerations are secondary
to the consideration Of mass security.