ESSAY V.

OBJECTIONS.

Innovation-Claims of antiquity-Christ-Cheever's view of CainInhuman to abolish the law-Violence upon a maniac—The law a restraint upon the imprisoned-Conversation in a prison-Saves life-Expediency-Death of Christ-Experimenting-Anecdote Incident among the Hottentots-All sympathy for the criminalExample of Jesus-Adulteress-Suicide of Colt-Criminals beyond moral influences—Washingtonian movement.

'Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.'

BISHOP HORne.

OBJECTIONS have always been made to every reform. Human progress is very slow. Long-established laws and customs, however absurd and barbarous, are not easily changed. And he who ventures beyond the prejudices of his age must endure persecution, perhaps even to martyrdom. We expect reproach; but that shall not turn us aside from laboring for humanity. Our efforts may have a very limited influence; but if we reach a single mind, dry up a single tear, modify even one unjust law, or soften a single heart, something will be gained.

There is an unfairness in the objections that are urged against this reform. It is common to present highly colored pictures of atrocious crimes. We are referred to the unnatural wretch who has assassinated

his father; or the incarnate fiend who has set fire at midnight to the habitation of his enemy, and gloated over the destruction of a whole family. We are asked if such men should be allowed to enjoy the boon of life, of which they have pitilessly deprived the innocent and the virtuous.

But will the execution of the offender restore the murdered man to life? Will it again gather around him his ruined home, his massacred wife and children? The objection is based on vengeance. It was an admirable maxim of Bentham, Never do evil solely on the ground that it is deserved.' Unless some good purpose is gained, we have no right to inflict evil on the offender. We have shown that the existing law is subversive of all the ends of punishment.

Some persons seem to have a sort of morbid dread of the consequences that might ensue if Capital Punishment were abolished. They imagine that it is the only sure protection for their lives and their possessions. They seem to think the very foundations of society would be broken up. Such persons should remember that those countries have always been the most luxuriant in crime where blood has been spilled with the greatest freedom. We have shown the insecurity of property by the petitions of the bankers in England, who found the law so inefficacious that they prayed for its abolishment.* And such persons should remember that even after the experiment has been tried, society may go back and try again the efficacy of the scaffold. All we ask is the experiment. The friends of Capital Punishment have had their

*Part I., Essay III., p. 38.

autaake!!

turn for centuries. We beg of them to let us try ours

at least for a few years.

This We freely

We

I. The proposed reform is an innovation. objection has been urged in every age. admit that every innovation is not an improvement, though every improvement is an innovation. have no respect for antiquity when it conflicts with humanity. If general usage be a test, no improvement will ever be made. We may plead antiquity for every execution for heresy or witchcraft. On this ground, the most cruel tortures, and even human sacrifices, may be justified. But do those who urge this objection respect antiquity when it conflicts with a favorite theory? Christianity itself is the greatest innovation the world has ever seen. Jesus himself was an innovator. He invaded long-established cusHe came to invade a whole dispensation of rites and ceremonies. He came to establish sentiments that will eventually overthrow every idolatrous temple. He said, 'I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled?' This fire is still burning, and will continue till every species of violence is removed from the earth, till every passion is subdued, till 'the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ.'

toms.

But if the objector still urges antiquity, we would go with him to the most antiquated case on record, to the very first murderer! Was there a gibbet erected for him? The very first law in existence, respecting murder, was to preserve the life of the murderer himself! Surely, antiquity is in our favor. We know that the Rev. Mr. Cheever urges that this was an experiment on the part of the Deity; that, in consequence of 'the divine lenity, in the case of Cain, the

crime of murder had become frightfully common, and the earth was filled with violence !'* Indeed! what a sad mistake! So this advocate for blood would correct the errors of the Great Legislator of the universe. Would it not be well first to enlighten our own legislators? We shall be content if we can correct but a single human error. This would amply repay the labors of a whole life.

his work.

But we leave this divine to

II. The advocates of the abolition of the law are not the friends of humanity. This has been urged against philanthropists in every age. Wilberforce, Clarkson and Sharp had this to encounter, in their efforts to abolish the slave trade. It has even been urged against the peace enterprise. War, it is said, has carried forward civilization and the arts, and nations have become improved by conquest. Without assuming too much, we simply ask the community to judge in this matter. Is there not as tender a sentiment of love and kindness among those who oppose the Punishment of Death as among its advocates? Let there be a day appointed for an execution; and who are the most angry if a reprieve is announced? Is it the most refined and the most amiable? Who go to the gallows? Who indulge in coarse and vulgar expressions? Instances have been where the multitude were so eager for blood that they have rushed into the cell, torn off the chains of the prisoner, and dragged him to the scaffold! An instance is given by Mr. Livingston, where the poor victim was a maniac!+ And yet, when we plead for

*For a reply to this very profound argument, see p. 137. † See Part I., Essay V., p. 61.

the repeal of the law, we are not the friends of humanity! Tell it not in Gath! 'Tell it not in Gath! Publish it not in

the streets of Askelon!'

III. It is urged that Capital Punishment is necessary to restrain those who are imprisoned. What shall be done with those who are sentenced to imprisonment for life? Suppose the warden, or some other officer, is killed; then there is no heavier penalty, unless life can be taken. To meet this point, we present a conversation held in Thomaston prison, in Maine, with an officer. During a visit there, the writer was asked what could be done in such a case, alluding to the murder of Mr. Lincoln, warden of the Massachusetts State Prison, which had just occurred. Suppose,' we replied, 'that all the prisoners, (about two hundred and seventy,) had been engaged in that affray; would you hang the whole?' The officer hesitated. He never thought of that. We observed that the same principle that allowed the execution of one murderer, would admit that of ten, or five hundred, or any number that might be concerned. And where should we end? We may say this might never happen. True, but we should look out, in laying down principles, to see how far they may be carried. It will be seen that, in war, this very principle has been adopted. But, then, war justified any expedient. Let us be careful and not carry its principles into our codes.*

IV. Not wholly dissimilar to the last, is another objection. The execution of a criminal may save the lives of others. This is the doctrine of expediency—

* See a very interesting debate, held at the Windward Islands, on the Punishment of Death; page 153, of this work.