CAPITAL OFFENSE - An offense punishable
by death. Crime for the punishment of which death
is inflicted, said punishment being called CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT.
The subject of capital punishment has occupied the
attention of enlightened men for a long time, particularly
since the middle of the last century; and none deserves
to be more carefully investigated. The right of punishing
its members by society cannot be denied; but how far
this right extends, by the laws of nature or of God,
has been much disputed by theoretical writers, although
it cannot be denied that most nations, ancient and
modern, have deemed capital punishment to be within
the scope of the legitimate powers of government.
Some contend with zeal that the punishment of death
ought not to be inflicted in times of peace nor at
other times, except in cases where the laws can be
maintained in no other way.
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.
The arguments used in favor of the abolition of capital
punishment are;
- 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.
- 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.
- 3d. That the infliction of the punishment does
not prevent crimes any more than other less severe
but longer punishments.
- 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.
- 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, it 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.
- 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.
- 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.
The arguments which have been urged on the other
side are:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Arguments on theological grounds have also been advanced
on both sides.
