Communications: Capital Punishment: For The Signal Of Libert...

Aitcüsta Micu., } Nov. 15. 1844. Messrs. Editors: - I noticed in the last Signa!, a petiticn to the Legislature of the State, for circulation, for the aboiition of capita] punishment. I fecl that the objccts of this petition, and the reasons that it gives, requiro examination. I shall now look at the reasons. 1. The restriction of the righis and powers of the Legislatura. "No Legislativo body can have power, which is not granted unto thetn by the people." - This the signers oí the petition assume. - I have cnlirely a different view of civil government. as one of God's instituiions. i eníreat thoso wjjo believe the lïible to examine care ful] y before they sign that petition, which I believe founded on infidelily. The author of the petition may ifét bc un infidel. I hope he is nof, and vi 11 compare his principies with iheBible. We will examine Romans xm., at the beghminc;: "Lot every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is lio power but of God: tho powers lluitbe, are ordained of God. Whosoover resisteth the power, resiitcth the ordinance of God. For rülers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." This shows the meaning of power to be civil goyernment. Verse 4. "He (the rulcr) is the minister of God to thee for good." Verse G. 'For this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers, nttending continually upon this very thing." Here is stated ihe origin of civil government. It is ordaincd of God - a complete Bible inslitulion. It is lelt for nations, according to the bcsi of their judgment, to frame a constitution, prescribing! the form of government, and according to the' constitution, appoint iis officers. - VVhere these officers are clothed by the voice of the people, it is a true republican government. But when thus appointed, and inducted into office, the rulershave their autliority primarily from God's own institution. They are under him, over the people, and amenable to him for all their conduct, infinitely more thanto their subjects. Leading them lo feel otherwise, disqualifies thetn for their office, and strikes at the foundation of our free institutions. Let our miers realize that God sits on a throne as high above thetn as heaven is; and that he bcrulinizesry speech, and every aetion of theirs, public, as well as private; nml is to sit in judgment himself on thewhole; then and not till tlien,have we a safe government - a government that will not dare to trample on any right. Ho.w pluinly does God speak on this point: II. Samuel, xxm. 3. "The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." Psalm n. 1012. "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings, be instructed, yc judges of the earlh. Serve the Lord with fear, and, rejoice with trernbling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye peri.sh from the way, when his vvrath is kindled but a little." ' These are the true principies of government - the onl}' principies, which are safe for rulers. Let evcry ruler know that Godholdshim boundto these principies. If he violates one of them; it "is at the peril of his soul - he must meet the consequences in the world to come. No man should sign a petition, which accords not with these eternal principies. Teil them not, then, that they t:have no power, butwhat is granted them by the people," but that their power is from God, through tte people, and make thern feel their responsibility to God, for the government of the people. The inference drawn from the aboveassumption, in the pelition is. that "as no individual has the right to takc lr- own life, therefore, he cannot delégate to any association this power, from the fact that he cannot yield up to another. that which does not belong to him.:! I confess myself too weak to see this as an nfcrence; also, that I nm not certain what the meaning is. If it means to say that as a man may not murder hi niself, he may not yield himself up to have any one else do.it, or "any association of men,' very well. I demand such laws, and so" rigidly entoreed, that no men, or "assouiation of men" will dare to peril their livea by murdering me. And when we have such lawa by urging their abolition, and thesubstitution of others less rigorous. I assume a right against my life, that I have no -power to assume - tUe right of letting others murder me without pcrilmg iheir lives by doing it. Does the pelition mean this? Then let it be put in proper language, and I will go it. Is it the meaning, that I cannot delégate to the government the power of taking my life, in case I become a murderer1? Be it so. I, as a murderer, have nothing to do with this power. By the supposiiioa, I am a culprJt, under condemnation, and by my act of murder, have forfeited every right that I ever might have had in the case.- If it be the meaning that the people have not the authority to delégate of taking the rnurderer's life, that is to be proved. 1 admit that, in most cases, the murderer's life is in the hands of the people, only through the constituí ted authority oC the State. They may not forceopen thejáil. and murder him. But i{ he break jail, and threaten to murder the pursuers, and they connot arrest him without, they may put him to death. There is not in all this assumption a single proof that God has not through the people, or otherwise, delcgated to the rulers, the right of taking His life. And this is the point that the petitioners are bound to prove, in order to have their petitions regarded. 3. It is said that "innocent persons are &the guilty areset at liberty." Ifsoit is the fault,not of thelaw.butof the court. If the argument has any weight, it is against all pnnishment for murder An innocent man may be punished, instead of the guilty, and so the murderer must be acquitted; for after all the evidence that can be advanced; lie may be innocent and sufFer uhjustíy. Murder is such a tearful crime, that it must not be punished. 4. The petitionnrs declare their belief, that "reformation and happiness should be the main objects in all punishments." - And were this the only didiculty. I would not sign the petition. I belicve no such thing. 1 believe that the main object of pu.nishment, in every ease, human nnd divine, is, or should be to sustain. the lam The grand object of kuv is protection - defence of rights, and every law which does not this sliould be repealed, and every one which does it sustained. Without penalty, it is not law. Our legisla! tors removing penalty would take a.way the very thing, which constituios law; and would not be any more legisJators, but advisers, Now I say that the main object of punishmeni in êvery case is to sustain the law, and 'never tbc reformation of theoflender. His relbrmation is seldom, if ever, a result of human or divine punishment, and never is the main objer-t ol government in punishing, e.tcepüng in parental Government. The object of punishment in every case, whether inflicted by God or man, is to enforce the law, and make the subjects fear to break it. Prohibitory laws are always enacted for prevention and not reformation- ;to k'cep'tho subject. s from doirig and notclaiming those who sliaU do the things forbidden. Thoso who break the law must be made examples to deter others from breaking il. The reclairmng of offenders is not contcmplatcd as a principie in fíxing tho penalty to n law. - ' Therefure. in every wise and good law, the penalty is just in proportion to the value of the rights, that are guarded by' the law, and the aggravations of the violaior's oöence. This is a great immutable principie of law - it sweeps away thef Universalists' argument, about the intention of legal punishmentsbeing to reclaim the oiïenrier, by vhich that cla&s of men attempt to set tfside the most important portion of the' Iaws of God and man. The principie is, that oflenders are to be treated so, that others will not irample on the rights, vvhich are guarded by the law - to make the penalty so, as if practicable to overeóme the temptation to transgress. Messrs. Editors, I, as a sjjbscriber tbr the SignaL wish youto publish these strictures on the petition, which you have countenanced by inserting it, with arequest that it may bo circulated, and sent Lip lo the Legislature. 1 have been pained at discovering an apparent leaning iil the Signal towards the abolition of all capital punishment. I saw a synopsis of the arguments of O'Sullivan in New York City, last winter; but nothing of the masterly arguments of Cheever on the other side, which in the estimation of the best judges, as far as I can learn were more than an answer - ra complete refutatittn of the argumeiits of Mr O'Sullivan - a vindication of capital punishment. I have these arguments on hand. I endose a short article in the Family Christian Almanac, on the subject, which will teil you the views of a large body ofchristians, who are lully competent tojudge. I shall remonstrate, and do all I can agninst the petition. Many of your subscribers, I am confident, will óo the same Ifyour paper is open to both sides on the subject, I may perhaps find time, to furnish something. With kfudness and respect you rsReharks. The form of petition for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, to which our correspondent lakes except'on, was published by ns, not hecause we approved its positione, büt because we approved its object. We could not consistently eign such a petition, b ut oíhers mighí íhiiik very different from us.- ; As a mere matter of expediency, we are in favor of eubstiiuting imprisonment at labor for rtaning. We do not Ihink the Sible argument melts the case on either 6ide. We' suppose the whole matter resta properly with the Leg-islatiire of Michigan, to determine, in Uieir wisdom, what purushment is beat to fee' aijrninistereil for Murder, Theft, or any other' crime, tnking into view the condition of society, the, state of public sentiment, and all other circumstances. We are not aware that the" Creatorof the Universo has forestolled, interdicted, or supersedcd, all human legislátioii respecüngr the punishment of Murder, througfr all coming oges, in Michigan or elsewhere, by any one out of supreme legislation. The arücle forwarded by our correspondent is a mere expression ofopmion of the merita, of Mr. Ci)ecver"s discussion with O'Sullivau. Opposite views of the reualt of lhat discussion were eniertained and published by óthers who iiad an opportunity to judge of the rnerits of it. Imparliality wonld require the pabllca-' 'ionofboih. Jf our correspondent wil! write out and tbruard usa synopsis of Mr. Cheévei's nrgument, jor Capital PunUhment,no longer than Ihal whicl) we gave !ust winter of Mr. O'Sullivan's p!ea ogainsl it, we will publish it with pfeasyre. A position of mere neutrality of opinión orí nny polhical question of general interest, ia nol doáircb'.e. Every intelligent citizen will have on opinión upon onc side or the other o 'such qnestiona. lts avo wal on proper occ sions, with a spirit of moderation and frankness, shoulil not s'ibject any or.e to censure" or proscription. Fair, ful), discusión on every subject of interest to mankind, should not only be tolcnted, bot should be commendectand promoted.