"" 7i
irv
tf
"f. rr-wTji
,1fW3F5PWCr,
The Commoner.
FEBRUARY 28, 1S13
AV v'
An Old Question in a New Form
John O. Yeisor, one of the three members of
the Nebraska state pardon board, recently sent
to the governor ot Nebraska an interesting brief
upon the subject of abolition of capital punish
ment. In a letter to the governor, Mr.Yolser says:
"Herewith I submit recommendation for
Albert Prince, condemned for execution on
March 23; his trial being finally concluded by
the supreme court. The opinion was submitted
to the other members of the pardon board who
at this time decline to join in any recommenda
tion. Consulting my own official standing in
volved before the legislature now in session, I
hesitate in filing this opinion, but duty demands
the filing of the same immediately for the fol
lowing reasons: First The legislature should
think on this subject now while in session re
gardless of what they may do with the pardon
board. Second The people should think in
time to advise the governor; and the legislators.
Third The governor should think it over sixty
days before the man can be hung. Fourth
If my conclusions aTo shown to be clearly in
error I do not want this execution to be delayed.
It should take place while the legislature is in
session. Fifth Because any further delay
would prevent a proper consideration of this
matter."
Because of the general Interest in this ques
tion The Commoner prints Mr. Yeiser's brief
in full:
BEFORE THE ADVISORY BOARD OF
PARDONS
In re Albert Prince. Opinion and recommen
dation by John O. Yeiser. To the Hon. John H.
Morehead, governor of Nebraska:
In this case the murder was premeditated
and heartless. I have nothing to recommend in
behalf of the condemned man. But I desire to
ask the governor of this state to seek light upon
the question of whether it would be beneficial
or detrimental for all the people if the state
should take this human life.
It is my purpose and desire to urge the
governor to stay this execution six months or
one year that the following reasons against the
death penalty may be given to the public for
consideration urging all who favor arbitrary
state executions to present thejr reasons and
views for the further consideration of this case.
The basis for this recommendation is as
follows:
The voluntary taking of a human life is a
tremendous responsibility. I have been unable
to find in literature, history or law any satis
factory justification for death imposed by any
man or set of men upon another excepting for
self defense.
Once before I urged many of these reasons
in the defense of a murder trial. From a hur
ried study of the subject I absorbed and helped
myself to anything in harmony with my judg
ment of what seems to be right and best in such
cases. In the same way because of a busy life
I am compelled to repeat much of what I have
previously used.
As a preliminary approach to the subject let
us inquire what the people of the world have
done about legal executions:
The death penalty has been abolished in
France, Switzerland, Holland, Norway, Finland,
Russia (except political crimes) Argentine Re
public, Belgium, Venezuela, Guatemala, Costa
Rica and Italy.
The death penalty is retained in China and
Japan, leading many other countries of the
world in placing no value or reverence for the
work of God impressed in a human soul.
No other country of the world looks so cheap
ly upon human life as does China with its long
list Qf crimes punishable by death. Our mother
country is a close second, having a record of
everlasting shame for Its human sacrifices.
In this country a few years ago of forty
eight states, twenty-four still retained the man
datory death penalty. Twenty-four threw the
subject open as a philosophical question for
each case giving some form of alternative. The
alternative is for the jury in Nebraska, Iowa,
Colorado, South Dakota, Kansas, Minnesota,
Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Alabama, Georgia, Ken
tucky and Oklahoma. This discretion is vested
in the judge of North Dakota, Texas and New
Mexico. Four states have absolutely abolished
the death penalty, viz: Michigan, Wisconsin,
Rhode Island and Maine. Possibly, also,' the
same may be said of Minnesota and Vermont,
so far as the offect Is concerned. Likewiso
Kansas may be said to have abolished capital
punishment because of a law providing that
no execution may take place until the governor
signs a warrant directing the execution. Gover
nors of Kansas for years havo taken the oath of
office and retired without ever having signed
such a document, although the condemned and
guilty were being held in the penitentiary under
sentence of death. There is less crimo in Kansas
I venture to predict, without statistics, than in
surrounding states. At least wo do not read
of numerous crimes reported from that great
state of this union.
The public is rapidly coming to a realization
that tho death penalty causes more harm than
good aB shown by tho difficulty of drawing
jurors who have not already changed their
minds upon the question.
These examples of other countries and states
and of our state and our citizens are cited to
show tho growth and development of this ques
tion in spite of the contrary Influence of the
strangling custom of ages. Thero must have
been powerful reasons working against the death
penalty to move such radical changes. These
reaspns must have been as convincing as a re
ligious conviction of tho aged to overcome tho
influence of a custom of centuries, although
there is nothing back of the institution but its
antiquity, cruel revenge, and monarchial safety.
Habit, however, or custom, are parts of the
corporal man and have to be broken or ampu
tated like a deformity of the body when
objectionable.
I do not desire to say anything as an abstract
proposition against the death penalty in every
possible case but I do contend that it is and
Bhould be the very rarest cases of absolute and
not theoretical necessity in which the death
penalty should be inflicted.
Although a murder may be committed for re
taliation or revenge no state will ever admit
any such reasons as a basis for legal execur
tions. In general transactions civilization coun
tenances no such barbarous motives to stand as
a basis of either- law or judicial decision. Our
laws and acts are supposed to be based upon
justice and reasons and have no place for the
consideration of the inherited revenge of a
savage society. However, many prosecuting
attorneys take advantage of such motives In
appealing to juries. Climax upon climax is re
sorted to in picturing the mutilated victim and
his family for the purpose of wringing the death
penalty as a glorious addition to the fame and
renown of a brilliant prosecutor. They touch
the sentiments of savagery for the extreme
penalty by awakening a reflected revenge. They
appeal to revenge instead of reason as a motive
for the verdict, which motive is not recognized
in political economy, law or moral philosophy.
There are but two prominent reasons for the
support of capital punishment which may bo
stated in various phraBes:
First To get rid of a criminal to keep him
from killing others a sort of national self
defense justification.
Second As an example to keep others from
killing.
Penitentiaries are reasonably safe in their
construction If under modern regulation and
engineering. The abuse of the pardoning power
is the greatest weakness in penitentiaries. If
we should repeal our maudlin Fourth of July
pardon law, passed to release men hopelessly
condemned on sentiment and keep cold blooded
common law first degree murderers in confine
ment for real life instead of nominal life the
death penalty brigade would lose half its ad
herents. Throughout all nature we find, extremes which
are usually dangerous. We want it neither too
hot nor too cold too radical nor" too conserva
tive too pious nor too liberal. A soft-hearted
executive too generous with the pardoning
power may bo indirectly responsible for the
other extreme of "thirst for blood too often re
flected from the public in tho judicial branch
of government as was the case with Pontius
Pilate. A firm and rational punishjient be
tween extremes just but sure will satisfy the
reasoning body of our present civilization and
would thereby make the penitentiary a safe place
of confinement for men guilty of premeditated
murders whom we have been accustomed to
hang. The proper answer for the abuse of the
pardon power argument In favor of tho death
penalty is not to concede the unholy demand,
but rather watch with oaro that no abuse of the
pardon may bo usod as a justification for the
hanging of men.
If wo hang a man because we think some
governor of tho future will pardor&hlm we are
not hanging him for his erf r fior to help
socioty but because wo think some' 'governor of
tho future would commit the error of lotting
him loose. If a futuro govornor should commit
such an error even that would u be as harm
ful as tho act of socioty by clinging to tho Idea
and instructing our citizens from tho cradlo to
old age that a human life which man cau not
recall may bo destroyed by law.
Tho state does not kill people merely because
they aro worthless and to bo rid of them. In
sauo asylums aro built at great oxpenso for the
incurable upon whom relatives can not bear to
look who personally may be better off dead.
Tho state tenderly cares for all such cases. This
is done because the oxamplo of kindness and
humanity to tho unfortunate is of an Inestimable
benefit to society. A man would bo a brute
lowor than tho dogs that devoured tho body of
Jezebel who would say kill them to be rid of
these imbecile burdens. It Is not posslblo to
imagino the effect socioty would feel if we were
to destroy all imbeciles and tho incurable in
sane. What a horrible example would be set
for the people of tho state to follow. No calcu
lation could be made of the injury to the morals
of tho state by countenancing such conduct.
Ono of tho greatest advantages to the slato from
tho preservation and tender carojand treatment
of tho hopeless insane is this exanj7l of humane
treatment and of the tender consideration of a
human life however useless and l).lriblc It may
seem. Our citizens are taught tcv. be kind and
gentle to tho unfortunate by this example of tho
state. . May I ask your excellency''ftl the people
of the state If you believe any . boy any
mother's son, black or white, howUifl" depravod,
should bo hung killed Just to gel rid of him?
Can wo afford to do it?
What is tho theory of providing a punishment
for cruelty to animals? It is not to protect tho
millions of animals or give to them a standing
or right in court, but It Is done to deter men
from cultivating brutal natures and thus in
directly it furnishes protection for human life
from those having tendencies toward ungovern
able tempers. Punishment In such cases Is not
so much for what is done to the animal as for
what is done to the offender's nature. It is to
prevent the development of an abnormal desire
to inflict pain and suffering or a disregard for
pain and suffering. The state intercedes to dis
courage and check thoughts and ideas in this
respect concerning animals to obtain better re
sults of fellowship with man. Why then, should
such a noble state reverse this policy by demand
ing judicial murder thereby counteracting all
of the good of the humane treatment of animals
and tenderness for the insane?
The policy of the state should be to increase
every man's estimate of human life as something
too sacred for either a man or the state to take.
If the whole world would refrain from "killing
men by law for only one gendration, the chil
dren of the next would experience a marvelous
reduction in the thoughts of death as an ideal
of governmental punishment. Consequently in
fits of anger they would not be mi likely to adopt
the state's punishment for grevlous private
wrongs or reasons. It should seem clear if tho
state kills for punishment, its citizens blazing
with anger would naturally bo disposed to think
of killing.
A principle or right is not discounted when
combined as commercial commodities are sold
at wholesale. A hundred or a thousand people
havo no different moral rights than one person
has. They may combine but they can not by
numbers change principles from wrong to right.
A state in this respect is only a large collection
-of Individuals and should not In principle kill
for any reason which it does not permit in Its
citizens. If It is true that our government
exempt from tho encumbrance of the divine
right of kings Is for, of, and by the people tho
right to deliberately kill on the part of the
state must have been in theory at least, con
ferred by tho people. Did the people ever have
a right to kill which they could, in the forum
of morals, convey or give to a government?
Conceding a man has the right under natural In
stinct and divine and statutory laws to kill an
other in self defense (that Is always when there
is no chance of escape), could he establish self
defense by shooting another who was known to
be as helpless as If handcuffed? It is no better
in principle for the state to do this than it is
for a citizen. Society has no more right than
a person to trifle with the most sacred work of
.
ti
J
K, Jfi
