This blog has a more serious tone than most of what I write, but the topic has been on my mind as of late so I'd like to share. I'm in Oklahoma as I write this, and a major Oklahoma news story this week is about a "botched execution." The lethal drugs used to execute a man convicted of murder were apparently inserted with a faulty IV several months ago, and the drugs took much longer to kill him than they were supposed to. The execution was halted 30 minutes after it started, and the convict/human being finally died after writhing and groaning for 45 minutes. He should have been dead after 10. A report on the incident concluded that there was "no formal training process involving the paramedic, the physician, or the executioners and their specific roles." Interesting.
I know that some of you reading this are pro-capital punishment and may even feel some sense of appreciation for the fact that he experienced pain as he died. He took another life, so it is only fair that his life was taken. Others will be appalled that we practice capital punishment in the United States. I sat on the fence for many years, unsure of my moral convictions regarding the matter. I'm no longer on the fence about it, but I won't share my stance with you here. What I'd like to share instead is an essay written by my great great great grandfather, Edmund G. Ross. He was an 1800s politician, abolitionist, journalist, and soldier who cast the deciding vote to keep President Andrew Johnson in office. I'll save that story for another day. The focus here is on an essay on capital punishment that he wrote when he was in high school. His argument offended some of the faculty at his school so much that they threatened to expel him if he continued to compose essays of this nature. In response to their threats, he dropped out of high school and had his paper published in a local newspaper in 1845. That's my kind of guy.
Here it is. I encourage you to read it with an open mind.
As the question of capital punishment is exciting considerable interest in our country, I propose on this occasion to review some of the arguments which have been advanced in substantiation of its practicability, and also advance some few considerations in favor of its abolition. I know it is argued by some that this punishment is necessary in order to prevent the commission of lawless characters who, it is contended, can be restrained by no other means--and some have even gone so far as to declare that the abolition of this penalty would be at once a virtual abolition of all law and government. But if this be the case, if this punishment processes the virtue of preventing crime, as is here alleged, then it follows, necessarily, that the more extensively it is exercised, the better it will be for the community; that it should be inflicted for all crimes as well as that of murder. But that it has not this effect has been fully demonstrated. In Belgium, Tuscany, Russia, and England, in the old world, and in the state of Vermont, in the new, where it has been either partially or totally abolished, the result has been the actual diminution of crime, as shown by the criminal statistics of those countries.
It may be laid down as an axiom that certainty of punishment is a surer preventive of crime than its severity; and as it is a well-known fact that there is a great and growing reluctance on the part of juries to convict one of murder so long as the penalty is death, it follows, necessarily, that under this code the punishment of crime is at least uncertain.
The frequent accounts which we have of the execution of innocent men, charged with murder, and convicted and sentenced upon false testimony, is of itself, I think, sufficient evidence that the repeal of this iniquitous institution should be demanded by every benevolent feeling of the human heart. But it is said, in answer to this, the innocent may still suffer if imprisonment should be substituted. Although this would undoubtedly be the case, to some extent, one thing is here forgotten; that is, that the accused person is deprived of nothing but his liberty, which can be easily restored when proved innocent.
Another argument in favor of its repeal, and one which should have great weight with every mind that reveres the doctrines of pure and undefiled religion, is that it teach, by example, the most faithful of all modes of teaching, the wicked principle of revenge: of taking an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth in opposition to the teaching of him who bade his disciples that they "resist not evil--but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." It seeks to repair an injury done to society by committing another of the same stamp; and it is calculated to lessen, in the minds of its upholders, the sacredness of human life.
It is probably admitted by all, that the paramount objects of lethal punishment should be the reformation of the offender and the protection of society. And how are these to be accomplished? Is it by condemning the criminal as an enemy to his race and unworthy of the enjoyment of society of men, and even life, and for that reason casting him out of the world? Certainly not. For that would be but aggravating the evil; as it would be placing the offender beyond all further influences, both good and evil, so far as this world is concerned and that it fails in the second mentioned object, is proved by the decrease of crime in those countries in which the death penalty has been abolished. And not only this, but it deprives society of the benefits, which it cannot be denied would, in many cases, result from the exercise of mercy and forbearance towards the criminal.
But there is another consideration, which, with me, had more weight than anything else. I contend that man has no right to deprive a fellow human being of that life which he gave not, and which he cannot restore, or to inflict upon him any pain whatever, as punishment merely; and for this reason, that he is incapable of exercising that strict and equal justice which the punishment of crime requires. If the rights of society are invaded, what more can be reasonable than to be defended from further depredations of the offending member, by placing him in such a situation and under such influences as are calculated to secure his reformation and restoration to virtue? I ask which best comports with the dictates of reason and benevolence? Which most strongly commends itself to the sympathies of the human heart--this method, or the rigorous and cruel one now pursued? but it is argued in opposition, that this penalty must be executed, or our Maker disobeyed. The language of the Apostle is quoted--"The powers that be are ordained of God." Hence, it is argued, we must be obedient unto those powers, or incur the Divine displeasure. But it is only necessary to observe, in answer to this, that the same argument might have been urged with equal propriety and with equal force in favor of the continuance of the Mosaic dispensation, or the Roman Church in its balmiest days, or any other state of things which has ever existed. But says one, would you inflict no punishment?--would you allow the vile murderer to go "unwhipt of justice?" In the infliction of pain for the purpose of causing suffering on the part of the criminal, is here meant by punishment? I answer, I would; for what is the effect of such course, but to aggravate the evil? As it is well-known by everyone who has any knowledge of human nature, that it is calculated rather to confirm the transgressor in his ways than otherwise.
And again, I would ask if those penalties attached to the physical and moral laws which the Governor of the Universe has established, are not enough so far as the abstract matter of punishment is concerned.
I am aware that this is an unpopular sentiment--that theologians and statesmen have combined in denouncing it--but I ask, is it not in accordance with the express declarations of sacred writ, that 'God is a God that judgeth in the earth," that he and the righteous are recompensed in the earth, much more than the wicked and the sinner; and also in accordance with the well-known fact that pain, physical and mental, is the necessary result of disobedience to the laws which govern our existence.
It is proposed by many of the opposers of this institution that solitary confinement for life be substituted; but this, it appears to me, would be little of any improvement, as the result would be nearly the same as the immediate infliction of death.
The criminal, although he might become a reformed man, could still be of no further use either to himself or to the world, and thus life itself would be rendered a curse to him; and by an experiment made in the state prison of New York in the year 1821, in the solitary confinement of 80 criminals, it is proved that this mode of punishment has a strong tendency to produce insanity, and is also destructive of life, so that the crime of murder would still rest upon society, as much in one case as the other, as it matters not whether you kill a man suddenly or by inches; it is alike murder in both cases.
But what appears to me to be truly astonishing is that the advocates of this institution have attempted to sustain it by arguments drawn by the sacred Scriptures. The words "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," are quoted. Now by the same mode of reasoning, it may be proved equally conclusive that it is a violation of God's law to take the life or eat the flesh of any animal, as it is written, in immediate connection with the verse already quoted. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall not eat." Now, in order to be consistent, those who attempt to sustain capital punishment by Scripture arguments must, it appears to me, refrain from the use of animal food. But this they do not do: esteeming their appetites, it would seem, paramount in authority to the Bible command.
But it is argued, on the other hand, that this command "Whoso sheddeth man's blood," etc., was in force before the Jews had a national existence, and was not, therefore, peculiar to that dispensation but merely incorporated into it. But this does not alter the case; for it cannot be denied that it did constitute a part of the Mosaic law, and as it was not recognized by Christ as the introduction of the new, or Christian dispensation, it cannot be made obligatory upon us.
It is contended, again, that, as man was created in the image of his Maker, the murder of him, by his fellow man, is the most heinous of all crimes and demands, consequently, the severest penalty which can be inflicted. But the same argument, if it has any weight, might be urged with equal propriety and with equal force in favor of the execution of every hangman in the land.
It may not perhaps be generally known that in some parts of our country, this punishment is more extensively exercised than in others. In the state of South Carolina, for instance, the crime of theft, however paltry the sum purloined, is punishable with death. In the District of Columbia, also, the crime of arson, unless a reformation has been effected within four or five years, when committed by a person whom God, in his wisdom, has seen proper to clothe with a sable skin, and whom man, in his wickedness, has deprived of his natural rights and compelled to ignominious servitude, is punished by the beheading of the offender. And as if this were not enough, as if the lifeless form could still be made to feel the effects of that savage, brutal, and disgusting spirit which delights in the misery of its victims, he is quartered and placed in the most public parts of the district. This too, in a territory under the immediate supervision of what has been frequently and boastingly termed the most free and enlightened government on earth. But this is not to be wondered. It is but one of the legitimate effects of that spirit which prompts the legal murder of our erring brethren; and may the time soon come when this relic of barbarity shall lease to disgrace our statutes.
I was pretty floored that a high school student wrote this. The article was published in the Sandusky Mirror, and a copy of the article is included in the biography, Edmund G. Ross: A Man of Courage, written by my great uncle, Arthur Harrington. I hope it gives you something to ponder.
No comments:
Post a Comment