REASONS FOR ABOLISHING THE PENALTY OF DEATH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 2348, 4 August 1871, Page 3

REASONS FOR ABOLISHING THE PENALTY OF DEATH.

Last evening, at the Discission Class connected with the Young Men's Christian Association, Sir. F. G-. Ewington read a:i interesting and suggestive paper on this subject. lie hail systematically arranged it in short sections, and argued that capital punishment should bo abolished because it was (I.) unScriptural; (2.) inexpedient; (3.) morally wrong ; (i.) a barbarous custom, unworthy of civilised nations ; (5.) because human life is too sacred to be thus destroyed ; (G.) because the innocent sometimes suffer instead of thtf guilty; (7.) because, wherever it has been abolished the result was beneficial j anil lastly, because murder takes place in accordance with a natural law, over which society lias but little control. The theological argument for this penalty, he said, rested on a solitary passage, of doubtful meaning, in the Book of Genesis, and portions of the Jewish code. He first showed that some eminent theologians were of opinion that the words " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by ruan shall his blood bo shed," were nothing more than a prediction. lie then illustrated the impossibility of our carrying out those portions of the Jewish law on which many base the penalty of death. He thought they were given expressly for the Hebrew nation, and were only suitable in a peculiaretato of society. Ilia' death pemnltie< failed to protect society, and therefore did not answer the only purpose which could justifv them, he thought was clearly proved bv all history. He was of opinion that capital punishment is morally wrong, becauso it is opposed to the example of the Supreme Being, beside whern no one has a right to destroy human life. Notwithstanding its having been inflicted with divine sanction in the early history of the Jews, there is nothing to warrantour following their example. It was but a natural consequence of their fierce retaliative spirit which exacted an " eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." This characteristic of the law led Christ to repeal it, and hence it cannot be received as authority on this question. Ho contended that if death penalties were abolished, there would be fewer murders, and instanced some European and American States where the experiment had been tried. There murders decreased when the punishment was discontinued, ami those which occurred were more easily detected. The idea that murder took place in accordance with a natural law, over which society has but little control, elicited consideruble discussion. In support of his argument, he cited an eminent writer, who allirms, " that murder is committed with as much regularity, and bears ns uniform a relation to certain known circumstance?, as do the movements of the tides, and tho rotations of the seasons. Wo know from experience that every year there not only tako place nearly tho same number of murders, but that even the instruments by which they are committed are employed in the same proportion.'' He then proceeded to enquire whether the science of phrenology accounted for this singular phenomenon. Observing that whenever a man's auimal organs predominated over the moral and intellectual, he was addicted to certain vices, he fortified his position with a reference to the Phrenological Museum, Edinburgh. There is there a collection of the skulls of criminals from Europe, Asia, Africa, and America ; and in each instance the animal organs predominated over the intellectual. This led him to think that moral and religious training would be much more likely to deter men from murder than the fear of the gallows would. In his opinion, the scaffold was no terror to some men, for Jiev neither cared inucti for the present life nor believed in a future state, ilurder can never be entirely prevented, but wise legislation might remove many causes which lead to it, and only thus can society be properly protictci