CHAPTER X.

FIFTH REASON FOR ABOLISHMENT.

THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT NECESSARY.

The Death Penalty not necessary to Personal or Social Security-Protection in life and property is what the good citizen asks-We have strong Prisons in every State in which to confine men of base passions-The Murderer is not secured by the present Law Difficulty to convict Facts from the Criminal Records in the United States and England-There is a repugnance to taking Human Life-If not convicted the Murderer returns to Society-With the Penalty of Imprisonment for Life he would be secured,

WE have now seen that the Christian Scriptures are not in favor of, but are positively opposed to the Death Penalty; and that for various other reasons which we have adduced, it should be abolished by all Christian communities and nations. Another important reason we have for abolishment is, that IT IS UTTERLY UNNEC

ESSARY TO PERSONAL OR SOCIAL PROTECTION.

What every good citizen desires is security. When traveling, whether it be by railroad or steamboat-in carriage or on foot-in the open country or crowded city -and when at home, about his lawful business, or reposing in slumber at night, he wishes to be protected, not from prowling, blood-thirsty beasts, but from men— the robber and assassin. Now a special object of penal law is to protect him; and what he asks is the law which will the most certainly secure this result. The Death Penalty is on the statute book of his State. The gallows drinks the blood of its victim every now and then. Still he does not feel secure. The law is not enough. Pis

13

(145)

tols and dirks are at his side, under his pillow or in his pocket. But, notwithstanding, he possesses great confidence in the moral power of sanguinary laws; so he exclaims: "Annihilate the gallows as a terror to evil doers -abolish all killing for crime, and thus say to a desperado that he may do his worst and he can escape the halter-and would not the result be an overwhelming increase of crime? Would not blood run like water, and all sense of individual and social security be banished?" This, he says, is the main question with him when considering the subject. It is the utility of the gallows. Just convince him that by abolishing the Death Penalty you do not lessen restraint and multiply crime—or, in other words, convince him that the gallows is not absolutely necessary to the protection of society-and he will gladly consent to a change.

If the reader occupies this position, we would respectfully invite his careful attention to the following thoughts and facts touching the subject, for we are not without hope that we shall be able to convince him not only that the law which requires the death of the offender affords no more security than imprisonment for life, but such is its practical operation, that it is positively less effectual in this respect than the latter penalty.

He desires to feel that society is protected from the depredations of the assassin. Now we can imagine conditions of communities where the necessity of killing the offender might be pleaded to secure such protection. Take, for instance, Moses and the Israelites, when in the wilderness, journeying from Egypt to the promised land, at the very time that the law of death was instituted. Where were their jails or prisons, and other means for securing the murderer against the possibility of escape? Or take the condition of our brothers, fathers, or hus

bands in California during the first year of emigration and effort for gold. There we behold thousands of men in a new, wilderness country, surrounded by savages, without even the form of civil government. No courts, judges, sheriffs, police, nor jails, and no means of selfprotection. If the assassin was caught and convicted where were the strong prison, the iron bars and bolts and trustworthy keepers to hold him securely? In such a condition of society, the necessity of "summary justice" and the punishment of death might be argued with some show of propriety. But with the people of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and other States where "law and order" prevail, the case is widely different. Here there are well organized governments, with a court and jail in every county, and police regulations in every town; so that the assassin or murderer can rarely escape detection after committing a crime, and if detected can be secured. If, in Ohio, our laws demanded imprisonment for life for the crime of murder, and the offender should be safely lodged in our penitentiary, would he not be secure? That institution is one of the most substantial edifices and faithfully guarded prisons in the world. It contains workshops for the criminal by day, and cells, constructed of stone and iron, for his safe keeping by night; the whole of which is under the watchful care of the most vigilant keepers. We again ask, if the murderer is not safe when once confined within the walls of that prison. Take the case of Arrison,* if you will. He is thought to be one of the most desperate men living. I appeal to my fellow citizens to know if they would entertain the least fear of his breaking through the walls, or

*W. H. Arrison, now confined in the Cincinnati jail, charged with the murder of Allison and his wife, at the Medical College in this City, during the summer of 1854, with a torpedo, a dreadful instrument which exploded and tore them in pieces on opening the box that contained it.

bars and bolts of that prison, and again returning upon society to engage in another work of blood, provided he were once placed there for life?

"Ah," says the objector, "we should have no apprehension of the man's breaking prison, but there are other means of escape. Influential friends, or money, sometimes possess a potent power. Prison doors will open at their nod. In plain words, we should fear the pardoning power." Then take the pardoning power from the Governor, where it is now lodged, and vest it in twelve men who shall constitute a court to examine and decide upon all appeals for pardons and commutations, subject to certain restrictions in the crime of murder.

I ask again, if this provision were instituted concerning the pardoning power, and the murderer were secure in the penitentiary, would not the people of Ohio feel that his depredations on society were at an end? You say you would have him executed, not because the Bible demands his life, nor yet from a spirit of retaliation to avenge the outrage he has committed against society, but simply as a matter of expediency, to render your own safety more certain. But are you not just as secure by his confinement in prison as by his execution? It is possible, we grant, that he may break away and escape: but not probable; and this possibility we must risk as we should were his destiny to be decided by us in our individual, instead of our social capacity. Suppose a robber should enter your house and attempt your life: he strikes at your heart with his glittering dagger. The first law of your nature is self-preservation or protection. Either your life or the life of an assassin must be destroyed; and no matter how powerfully your feelings may revolt at the thought of killing a man, you are not long in deciding it to be your duty to defend yourself

to the extent of your power. If you kill under such circumstances, you are justified. Why? Because you are driven by actual necessity to commit the act in order to preserve your own existence. And this is all that can justify you, or delegate to you the right to kill the man. No Christian will justify the taking of human life by an individual in self-defense, on any other ground. Suppose it is a mere child who attempts to rob and murder you-one whom you are certain you can seize and bind securely-but, instead, you kill him; will society justify the act? Or, further, having bound him with cords so that he can move neither hand nor foot, and thus relieved yourself of all fear of farther injury, you take a club and deliberately beat out his brains; would society justify the act? Certainly not. Why not? Plainly because the deed is not committed in self-defense. You are safe. He cannot injure you. The officers of justice can take him into custody, and place him beyond the possibility of again outraging society.

I am now writing for the minds and hearts of Christians, as well as others. Is the reader a Christian? If so, permit me to ask, would you thus deliberately kill the murderer after you had securely bound him? Would it be necessary? What would you think of your neighbor-a brother in Christ-a member of the same Church

for instance, the pastor of your society, and your spiritual teacher—if, having surprised a robber in his house, and securely bound him to a post with manacles, cords and chains, should call you and other members of his flock to see him cut his throat, or strangle him with a halter? Would you not be astonished beyond measure? And if he should commit the deed, would not the whole Church, yea, the whole community, be struck dumb with