THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
THE
ABOLITION
OF
CAPITAL
359
PUNISHMENT
By James H. Vahey NO question, aside from economic ones, has received as much attention, or been so thoroughly discussed in Massachu setts in the last twenty-five years or more as the abolition of the death penalty. The prejudice against a change in the law, which now permits the punishment by death, arises from a variety of reasons. One is lack of information on the subject; another is the old theory that capital pun ishment is Bible inspired; and a third is an unreasoning fear that the abolition of the death penalty will increase the crime of murder. On the other hand a large number of people believe: first, that the state has no right to take life; second, that not only is capital punishment not Bible inspired, but is directly contrary to all the teachings of that great Book. If we were to adopt the old Mosaic law in all its severity, and to invoke those passages of the Bible which seem to breathe a spirit of vengeance, we would again have a code of blood. No one would now contend that we again go back to the Mosaic code, with all its harshness and its rigor, for the punishment of offenses which existed at that time. In the time of George II of England, two hundred and twenty-three crimes were punishable by death. Cursing one's par ents, Sabbath breaking, blasphemy, and picking pockets, were all capital offenses. It has not yet been contended by anyone that the abolition of the death penalty for these crimes has increased them. In pro portion to the increase in population, it is gratifying to note that crimes of this char acter are decreasing. I am one of those who believe that the commonwealth has no right to take life. I assert that an irrevocable decree requires an infallible tribunal; that, so long as mankind is liable to err, and human processes to fail,
society has no right to put itself beyond the power of rectifying any wrong which it commits. Measured by human tests, many a man has suffered the punishment of death when a large number of the community believed in his innocence. Robert Rantoul said, in his great report to the legislature of 1837, that all govern ment, at best, was a necessary evil. In a pure form of democracy, no government would be necessary. Any submission to a higher human authority is an admission of weakness, proneness to err, and inability to refrain from committing crime. I am aware, however, that it is not of much service, practically, to urge this belief at the present time, although I hope we may look into a future not far distant when this will be the accepted view of the commonwealth. Neither can the advocates of capital pun ishment urge that there is any reason for the infliction of the death penalty because of vengeance. The logical argument, if this were true, would be that those nearest to the victim of a murder should themselves have the power to revenge the wrong, the result of which would be an absence of law and order, and anarchy would reign. The only practical way in which the death penalty can now be discussed is its value as a deterring influence upon those who are criminally inclined and might not otherwise refrain from committing the crime of murder. What deters men from com mitting murder? Is it the certainty of punishment, or the severity of it? Does not every criminal believe that he will escape the consequences of the law, no matter what they are? Is not every man who takes the life of another so overcome by the passion that is upon him at the precise moment of killing, whether it be anger, envy, malice, jealousy, lust, or the desire
