About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 W.R. Staples & Samuel Y. Atwell, Report of the Committee on the Abolishment of Capital Punishments [1] (1838)

handle is hein.death/recabpun0001 and id is 1 raw text is: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ABOLISHMENT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. TO THE HONORABLE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: JANUARY SESSION, A. D. 1838. THE subscribers, two of the Committee appointed to revise the Penal Code, RESPECTFULLY REPRESENT, That it will appear by the Report of said Committee, which accompanies the bill presented by them, that they were divided equally on the abolition of capital punishments, and that it was agreed to report a bill that should not provide for their infliction in any case, that the point might be brought directly before the Legis- lature. In the report afore refered to, the committee have given their reasons for many of the alterations which they propose, in the laws now in force, but it does not and could not rightfully contain a single word for or against the abolition of capital punishment. Hence, the subscribers, in this separate report, propose to lay before the Assembly some of the reasons why they think such punishments ought to be abolished in this State. The severity of such punishments favors the escape of the guilty. There are many persons in our commu- nity who will not complain or prosecute for a crime punishable with death. No man willingly takes a part in a capital trial against the prisoner. Many men summoned as jurors in such cases refuse to appear, and some who do appear, resort to unwarantable expedients to create a bias in their minds for or against the prisoner, that they may be challenged for cause. When a, jury is empanelled in such a case, how often is it, that having reference to the consequbnces of a verdict of guilty, they adopt a bare, naked possibility of innocence as the legal reasona- ble doubt of guilt, and so acquit the prisoner. But if a verdict of guilty be rendered, and judgment of death passed, it is the settled practice to postpone the day of execution until after one, if not two sessions of the As- sembly, that the convict may petition for pardon or commutation of sentence. How readily such petitions are granted, the records of the Assembly will show. When the life of any individual rests solely on the votes of the members of this Assembly, they can tell with what reluctance they pronounce the irrevocable doom, and how readily and gladly they seize upon every circumstance which seems to justify them in showing mercy. He who proposes to commit a capital crime is as well aware of these circumstances as we are. They enter into his calcu- lation of chances of escape. He takes every means to escape detection. If detected he leans on the mercy of a jury, and if convicted relies with almost perfect security on the exercise of the pardoning power in his favor. The severity of the punishment which the law has affixed to his crime, is outweighed in his mind by the greater chances of escape from that punishment which that very severity creates. It is not the severity, but the cer- tainty of punishment which deters men from the commission of crime. Such punishments are unequal. The crimes punishable with death by our law are murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and petit treason. Some of these remotely affect property, some endanger life, and some are the destruction of life. Yet the same punishment awaits them all. He who willfully and maliciously poisons a whole family or assassinates his father, and he who raises a window in a dwelling-house in the night and puts in a finger with intent to steal, though he steal nothing, are hung on the same gallows. They are also unequal as regards the criminals themselves. Can it be pretended that he to whom life has become a burden, who has out- lived friends and connections, and even hope itself, suffers equally with him who is surrounded with every thing to make life desirable ? Does he who looks on death as the end of his existence, or as the end of all suffering, and he who has learned from reason and revelation a future existence of rewards and punishments, suffer equally ? But the inequality of such punishments is conclusively shown f! om the fact, that they are frequently remitted, from the peculiar circumstances that attend either the crime or the criminal, or both. Nothing but a sense of their injustice, in certain cases, can justify the granting of a pardon, or even commutation of punishment. Such punishments are considered peculiarly appropriate for murder and petit treason. This we apprehend arises from a mistaken idea of the design of punishments. Society has no revenge to seek against its delinquent members. The State deals out no vengeance to those who offend against its laws. Penal laws always look to the future.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most