Abolish the Death Penalty. wrong. No one will seriously contend that the taking of the life of the criminal by the State is the only means by which society can be protected from his crimes. If, as I believe, self-defence is the principal justifi cation of criminal legislation and of its en forcement, capital punishment cannot be defended upon that ground, as the life im prisonment of the malefactor will accomplish the desired object as effectually as will his execution. If, therefore, the latter mode of punishment is unnecessary for the purposes just specified, whenever the Government resorts thereto, it is guilty of deliberate murder, and, as I think, is far more deserv ing of censure than is its victim; for the latter may plead extenuating or palliating circumstances as an excuse for the commis sion of his crime, which the former cannot do. As cool deliberation and premeditation constitute the essence of all crime, what can be more criminal than a public execution, which is always the result of a deliberate and premeditated purpose to perform it? I contend that whatever is wrong for one person to do to another is equally wrong for the State to do to that other or to any one else; and as no man has the right to murder his neighbor, so no Government has the right to murder him. Another fatal objection to capital punish ment is this : There are numerous cases on record in which persons have been convicted of the crime of murder on purely circum stantial evidence and executed therefor, whose innocence thereof has afterwards been most conclusively demonstrated. There have also been several instances in which the alleged criminal, whose life has. been taken in this manner, has afterwards been proven to have been insane, and therefore not responsible for his acts. The latest case of the latter kind to which my attention has been called is that of John Henry Barker, a half-breed negro, who, on Tuesday, July 6, at Sing Sing prison, N. Y., was exe cuted by electricity for the alleged crime
93
of murdering his wife at White Plains, on August 30, 1895. I learned from the New York World of Wednesday, the seventh of the same month, that immediately after the execution of this man, an autopsy by the attending physicians, Drs. Goodwin and Sheehan, revealed the fact that the victim of this judicial murder was the possessor of a diseased brain; and although not a violent lunatic, he was nevertheless not in his right mind, and therefore not responsible for his conduct. Thus it appears that the great State of New York has deliberately taken the life of a poor negro, who, in the opinion of competent physicians, ought to have been made a subject for medical care and treat ment, rather than an object of the vengeance of the law. The conclusion necessarily fol lowing from these disgraceful facts is that, in the punishment of crime, no political community has the right to take from the convict that which it cannot restore to him after his innocence of the crime of which he shall have been convicted may have been clearly established, or after he may have been shown to have been an irresponsible person. So that whatever may be said either in favor or in defence of capital pun ishment, I consider this objection to it to be a decisive one, which ought to justify and to require its immediate abolition wherever it is now practiced. One of the most common arguments in favor of the death penalty is that it constitutes the most effectual deterrent to the commis sion of the crime of murder which can pos sibly be devised. Before considering whether or not this argument is in accordance with the truth, I will suggest that no man ought to be punished for any crime which he has committed simply for the purpose of deter ring others from doing likewise, although his punishment may or may not produce that effect upon them. If any criminal deserves such treatment at all, it must be solely on his own account and not on that of others who have not yet committed any
