Year: 1873

TO the Editor OF The Tribune.


SIR: 1t has been complained at of late that
no murderer can be convicted Of that crime, although


the person had undoubtedly been 10 say the least the
indirect cause OF the victims DEATH and In TINS non
conviction OF murderers various pleas, Is not the
iustce society demands. Now, why Is this To my
mind IL s that no I2 be chosen who can listen
10 the details Of murder trial. and have shown the
various provOeations for which murder Is committed.
without feeling that at least there some little paia-
ton for the crime committed, and that under those
circumstances the prisoner justified to some extent
in redressing his wrongs Under these circumstances
very few honest can willingly say, "thou shalt
die" because the law of the people says death is the
penalty for murder. without regard TO small provo
cations


In order TO secure Justice we alter the penalty for
murder In the first degree" Society has no right to
take life for life taken. Society is never benefited
by taking life for life taken. The penalty for


murder in the first degree should be Imprisonment
for e and should be taken from the power of the State
and be an amendment the Constitution Of the United


States and so worded that the pardoning power should
either the hands Of the people OF tho United


States or their representatives in Congress assembled
and that not less than twO-thirds vote sh0uid be
necessary to procure q pardon; and lastly, under
the present punishment the prisoners welfare
IA not at all to be taken into consideration.
1t is hardly necessary TO say that prisoner with
money at his back layishy expended, is very rarely
convicted OF murder In the first degree; an acqual Is
more frequent That is one reason why Justice IS rarely
ever secured. Again. with some men the penalty Is 100
severe to obtain q conviction. There are thousands
upon thousands OF in the City OF New-fork that
would hesitate convict Of murder in first degree
under the existing penalty attached to that verdict who
would not hesitate were the penalty anything short OF
DEATH and the ends Of justice not secured lt
Is this hesitancy Of taking life which prompts more
honest jurymen to either against conviction or for


o%l,a f1araf af niOht IA
offered 1t noble emotion ana should not be deeried


DO man or set Of have right to take life which
they cannot resuscitae, when the end which they wish
to accomplish be reached without the taxing OF tnat
of the sixteenth century and not the enlightenment OF
the nineteenth. We talk OF cruelty to animals, &c. but
never OF the cruelty OF men to men IN TINS hanging
business. Every juryman who freely convicts man OF
murder in the first degree WITH tne penalty Sf se
crime. Every murderer who 10 brought 70 triai
ace how many murders have been committed since the
Stokes murder and since the Rogers execution III Brook
lyn How many murderers in the Tombs, and since
what time did they come therel Now this murder
business is like some OF the ladies' fosh0ns mas run
SO with crime. One time murder and murderers are
kent before the people, and at that time murderous
crime follows in routine OF fashion Men get
seshness by the firearms then they resorted
TO- and If 1t is not fashionable the matter generally
on and like passions beget like, society can never be
benefited by PUBLIC trials anu ppva'e V
at the hands of an execntionerf Is ne elevated spirit
ually morally by such punishment ms rear a o. une
existence with excessive feeling at parting with iends
and dear to hun while IN Inc pooh Oi nn ne a ap e
ask ALL does society have the right TO take LIE where IL
car protect se a % shs ao and
ness Of disposition by giving him chance under proper
restrictions 70 reform and prepare 10 leave TINS existence
TSis hanging system should be abolished, and a
tional punishment OF imprisonment for life take its
nace CHAs Z. GRIsw0LD, 81. ID.


Brooklyn, March 49, 1873.