THE penalty of death has, for ages, been one of the most prominent features of the code of all Christendom. The free spirit of inquiry has at last attacked it, and philanthropy is denouncing, in unequivocal language, the barbarity of the custom. The law, in our opinion, sprang from the passion of revenge, and is based on the sentiment of terror. The source of it is, therefore, incompatible with the Christian religion; and the feelings which a public execution is intended to alarm are congenial only to the slaves of despotism."Virtue" says Montesquieu, "is the principle of a Republic, honor, of a monarchy, and terror, of a despotism." As an American citizen then, and as a man, I most ardently desire the abolition of this horrid penalty. Whether this desire is prompted by the mere disposition to innovate on established usages, or the suggestion of a sickly fastidiousness, my readers can judge without the loss of much time, for I will proceed to respectfully set forth, without further preliminary remarks, some of the reasons which have influenced my mind. I view the punishment of death as, in the first place, wrong in itself; for it at once deprives the State of a citizen while it, by no means, recompenses community for the perpetration of a crime. In political economy, the surest wealth of a country is held to consist in the number of its inhabitants. No Government is able, by mere enactment of a law, to supply itself with citizens, nor ought it, by arbitrary legislation, to bereave itself of them. If, indeed, a member of the commonwealth, manifest so violent a spirit as to disturb the public tranquillity, and transgresses the rules established by his own consent, it is then proper that the conservative power of society should be exerted to restrain his insubordination, and prevent the ills which must inevitably result from impurity. By his own act, the offender has demonstrated his incapacity to enjoy the rights and privileges of association with his fellows, and, like a child or a lunatic, he must be placed under a guardianship that will correct and control him. Imprisonment is just, because it certainly prevents a repetition of the offence and affords, at the same time, an opportunity of reformation to the criminal. The State, moreover, is not bereaved of a citizen, and can yet derive advantage from his industry: whereas, to punish an offender with death, destroys at once, both his life and his usefulness. Besides, the infliction of the penalty of death is an usurped power of Government. "The law of England," from which we derive our maxims of jurisprudence, "wisely and religiously considers," says Blackstone, (book 4, p. 139) "that no man hath a power to destroy life but by commission from God, the author of it." How the learned commentator, from such a postulate, can draw inferences in vindication of the bloody code of England, we cannot now stop to consider. We merely quote his authority as uncontroverted, and are willing to abide by the legitimate conclusion from such premises. Society is composed of individuals in collective form, and every man surrenders a portion of his personal rights the better to secure the enjoyment of the rest. All government, then, is constituted of derived power, and the extent of the rights surrendered must always define and limit its authority. "The suicide," continues Blackstone, "is guilty of a double offence; one spiritual, in evading the prerogative of the Almighty and rushing into his immediate presence uncalled for; the other temporal, against the king, who hath an interest in the preservation of all his subjects. The law has, therefore, ranked this amongst the highest crimes!" Hence, it appears, that the law recognizes no right of taking away his own life as belonging to any man, and therefore no power to inflict death could be possibly surrendered by any man nor delegated to any govern ment. The distinction drawn by our writer between the spiritual and temporal nature of the offence, by no means weakens our position, but strengthens it. We, in this country, recognize no spiritual jurisdiction in our courts, but we fully concur that every temporal motive prompts to the preservation" of life, and history must enforce on every liberal mind the conviction, that to the iniquitous connection of church and State, and the consequent assumption of spiritual powers by the secular Executive must be mainly if not exclusively attributed the sanguinary character of the code of Christendom. It is observable that the Greeks and Romans were lenient in their criminal jurisprudence: banishment being deemed the severest penalty. Death was sometimes decreed, but the instances are separated by centuries, and form but exceptions to the general rule. Livy says of the Romans, that "no people were ever more fond of moderation in punishments," and Cicero in one of his orations cries out-" far, far from us be the punishment of death; its ministers, its instruments! Remove them not only from their actual operation on our bodies, but banish them from our eyes, our ears, our thoughts, for not their infliction, but the apprehension, the existence of these things is disgraceful to a freeman and a Roman citizen." The people of Greece sometimes condemned a citizen to death, but dreading to execute their own decree bade the culprit administer to himself the fatal hemlock in the solitude of his cell. As civilization has advanced the sense of community has become shocked at judicial torture, and the barbarous penalties of that code which terrified the people of the middle ages into submission; and every century has been marked by the progressive and mild spirit of the Christian dispensation. Even under our own eyes and within our remembrance, the pillory and the whipping-post have been held disgraceful aids in the administration of justice, and the frequent discussion of the very question under consideration is a most signal evidence of a new and better spirit shed abroad in men's hearts. Public opinion is against the infliction of the penalty of death. This is manifest in every trial for a capital offence. The sympathies of community are almost invariably concentrated in behalf of the prisoner, and every legal subtlety is applauded or connived at, which can, in any manner, exculpate the criminal. No one can deny that a much longer time is spent on these occasions, in endeavors to empannel a jury than is required to adjudicate the case: and every man at all conversant with public prosecutions must acknowledge that the tribunal solemnly sworn to try the issue, seems to avail itself of not only "probable" but possible "doubts" of the guilt of the culprit, rather than exercise the awful responsibility of taking away the life of a fellow-creature. In this era of benevolence, it is somewhat remarkable that the advocates of capital punishment should be found, almost exclusively, amongst the avowed professors and official ministers of that religion, the advent of which was hailed by celestial choirs, as the beginning of peace on earth and good will to man. Unmindful of the precepts and examples of the blessed Saviour of mankind who came "not to destroy men's lives but to save them," heedless of the "spirit" and clinging rather to the "letter" of the law which "killeth," they go about breathing death without remedy to the transgressor. "Who-so sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed," is insisted on as the only sound maxim of criminal jurisprudence: as if a code, designed for an ignorant and degraded people three thousand years ago, were appropriate to this age of intelligence and Christianity! The abolition of capital punishment is not however, properly to be treated as a theological question. There is no necessity for making it a matter of scripture controversy, and our readers will accord a moment's indulgence while a single observation is thrown out to show how very inappositely the sacred records have been recommended as a legislative guide. The first case of murder occuring under the jurisdiction of Jehovah, as immediate Judge of mankind, was that of Abel. It is to be supposed that a precedent would then have been established for the adjudication of all future offences of that grade. Did then Jehovah put Cain, the murderer, to death? Far from it.— The sentence was banishment, and when the exile cried out that his pun ishment was greater than he could bear, and "feared lest every man who met him might slay him," Jehovah denounced "seven-fold vengeance" on his slayer and "set a mark upon Cain lest any finding him should slay him." Here was as deliberate, wilful and malicious a murder as the annals of turpitude exhibit, and if the matter is to be theologically considered, the example of Jehovah himself is, surely, the safest precedent. Precepts are liable to divers constructions, but example cannot be misunderstood, especially when the motives of action are avowed. In this case, the punishment of death was not only expressly forbidden, but actually provided against. If we present some apparent inconsistency between the example set by Jehovah and his precept in the Mosaic code; we have no irreverent intention. We merely wish to show the impropriety of mixing things sacred with profane. The kingdom of Heaven is not of this world, and the Puritans of New England have afforded a striking illustration of the absurdity as well as impossibility of re-enacting the Mosaic laws. On the disgusting horrors of a public execution we have no disposition to expatiate, and merely allude to it here as exhibiting the change taking place in public opinion; for such spectacles are daily becoming more repugnant to the public taste. In several States, executions are consummated privately, and thus, one of the strongest arguments in their favor, viz: the warning to spectators, has been yielded up. This is encouraging to philanthropy and to decency, and is a concession involving the absolute surrender, before a very distant day, of this vindictive prerogative. The fallibility of human testimony is another reason which has influenced our opinion. A volume might be collected of instances, where, on incorrect evidence, innocent men have been convicted, sentenced and executed. Crimes are not committed, as a general rule, except in secrecy. Testimony of a direct, unequivocal character, is so hard to be obtained, that courts have found themselves compelled to admit circumstantial or presumptive evidence. All men are, certainly, more or less influenced by their feelings, and their testimony must, more or less, be affected by prepossession or prejudice. If, indeed, there could be found a witness of entirely indifferent mind, it cannot be supposed that his memory can, always, be at his command. Some minute incident involving, perhaps, a critical point in the investigation, may escape his recollection, and a life be forfeited by the oversight. If the punishment of death be inflicted, how irreparable is the fatal mistake! There is no repentance when the victim is in the grave. A family may be, nay has been, left without a husband and a father; and, after years of destitution and grief, some accidental circumstance or death-bed confession establishes the fact that perjury or ignorance wrought his condemnation and execution. What help is there, then, for the disgraced widow and orphans? Of what avail to them is the repentant pity of the world? Shunned by friends and estranged for years from their kindred, can the wounded spirit and the broken heart be healed by the posthumous redress of "amending the records" of the court, and reversing the irretrievable sentence? The State has lost a citizen; and the "inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" have been sacrificed to a slavish veneration of despotic and atrocious usages. Had imprisonment been substituted for death, justice might have awarded some recompense to the innocent convict. We have thus, as briefly as practicable, disposed of the question which it was proposed to treat. We have not said all that might be said, or all that we wish to say on the subject. We have endeavored to restrict ourselves, as closely as we could, to the single inquiry "whether capital punishment ought to be abolished?" and have carefully avoided the discussion of the many topics incidental and correlative to it. Whatever arguments have been advanced are based on facts, but it was deemed unnecessary to occupy the pages of your valuable periodical by enumerating instances and copying statistics. In conclusion, however, let me exhort every one who loves justice and mercy to bear in remembrance that crime is frequently provoked by ignorance, poverty or passion; that neither imprisonment nor exile preclude industry, instruction and reformation; and that it is certainly more humane to enlighten the ignorant than suddenly to cut him off with all his imperfections on his head. Detroit, Michigan, July 27, 1844. NO IDOLS! BY MISS C. LOUISE M. BRAWNER. "I HAVE no idols-no not one; The miser dwelt all lonely where No sound disturb'd the quiet air Save clinking gold, vile, worthless gold, "I have no idols"-soft the words Floated around like music-chords Kiss'd by the breeze-a maiden spoke Of love which ne'er should know decay— |