CAPITAL CRIME. One for the punishment of which death is inflicted, which punishment is called capital punishment. Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/26aee/26aee8bbb53ab9f22fc7a360e94e1f3ce3852ebc" alt=""
3. It is not within the plan of this work to examine the question,
whether the punishment is allowed by the natural law. The principal
arguments for and against it are here given.
4.- 1. The arguments used in favor of the abolition of capital punishment, are;
5. - 1st. That existence is a right which men hold from God, and which
society in body can, no more than a member of that society, deprive them
of, because society is governed by the immutable laws of humanity.
6. - 2d. That, even should the right be admitted, this is a restraint
badly selected, which does not attain its end, death being less dreaded
than either solitary confinement for life, or the performance of hard
labor and disgrace for life.
7. - 3d. That the infliction of the punishment does not prevent crimes, any more thau, other less severe but longer punishments.
8. - 4th. That as a public example, this punishment is only a barbarous
show, better calculated to accustom mankind to the contemplation of
bloodshed, than to restrain them.
9. - 5th. That the law by taking life, when it is unnecessary for the
safety of society, must act by some other motive this can be no other
than revenge. To the extent the law punishes an individual beyond what
is requisite for the preservation of society, and the restoration of the
offender, is cruel and barbarous. The law) to prevent a barbarous act,
commits one of the same kind,; it kills one of the members of society,
to convince the others that killing is unlawful.
10. - 6th. That by depriving a man of life, society is deprived of the
benefits which he is able to confer upon it; for, according to the
vulgar phrase, a man hanged is good for nothing.
11. - 7th. That experience has proved that offences which were formerly
punished with death, have not increased since the punishment has been
changed to a milder one.
12. - 2. The arguments which have been urged on the other side, are,
13. - 1st. That all that humanity commands to legislators is, that they
should inflict only necessary and useful punishments; and that if they
keep within these bounds, the law may permit an extreme remedy, even the
punishment of death, when it is requisite for the safety of society.
14. - 2d. That, whatever be said to the contrary, this punishment is
more repulsive than any other, as life is esteemed above all things, and
death is considered as the greatest of evils, particularly when it is
accompanied by infamy.
15. - 3d. That restrained, as this punishment ought to be, to the
greatest crimes, it can never lose its efficacy as an example, nor
harden the multitude by the frequency of executions.
16. - 4th. That unless this punishment be placed at the top of the scale
of punishment, criminals will always kill, when they can, while
committing an inferior crime, as the punishment will be increased only
by a more protracted imprisonment, where they still will hope for a
pardon or an escape.
17th. - 5th. The essays which have been made by two countries at least;
Russia, under the reign of Elizabeth, and Tuscany, under the reign of
Leopold, where the punishment of death was abolished, have proved
unsuccessful, as that punishment has been restored in both.
18. Arguments on theological grounds have also been advanced on both
sides. See Candlish's Contributions towards the Exposition of the Book
of Genesis, pp. 203-7. Vide Beccaria on Crimes and Punishments;
Voltaire, h. t.; Livingston's Report on a Plan of a Penal Code; Liv.
Syst. Pen. Law, 22; Bentham on Legislation, part 3, c. 9; Report to the
N. Y. Legislature; 18 Am. Jur. 334.
No comments:
Write comments