| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- AngelaChen - 08 Nov 2009 | | | One of the most prominent American philosophers inspired by Beccaria was Benjamin Rush, M.D., from Pennsylvania. Aside from attempting to turn the religious arguments in favor of the death penalty on their head, he developed utilitarian reasoning against capital punishment further in 'On the Punishment of Murder by Death' (1793).. Of particular noteworthiness was his recommendation for the introduction of permanent prisons. It is probably useful at this juncture to point out that Rush - like others - were influenced by the thoughts of John Locke who proposed that "human life began as a blank slate and was written on by experience" ; hence, presumably, the possibility of salvaging human nature via positive influences in prison with the possible added benefit of 'compensating' the society which had been wronged. Thomas Jefferson, shortly before becoming Governor of Virginia, proposed a bill (defeated by one vote) to remove the death penalty for all crimes except treason and murder - looking into his reasoning, one sees that he too believed that criminals could be 'reformed' for the betterment of society. At the same time, it appears that prominent figures in the period were beginning to look at crime (and the imposition of punishment) with a more nuanced point of view and held it to be society's responsibility to educate the young so as to prevent them from embarking upon the path of vice. One of the prevailing aims of capital punishment, and one that reflected the circumstances at the start of the period which this inquiry addresses, was incapacitation. The need for a way to ensure that heinous wrongdoers did not repeat their crimes led inexorably (at least formally) to the death sentence until 1790 for the simple reason that before that year, there were no 'prisons' to speak of where offenders could be held long-term instead of simply 'in jail' pending sentencing. However, when the Walnut Street Jail was built in Philadelphia, for the first time in America offenders could be kept in theory more or less permanently incapacitated without being executed. Whether these prisons, or penitentiaries as they were sometimes called, were effective and cost-effective could be the subject of a whole separate inquiry, but the salient point here is that at last a "realistic alternative to hangings" existed. These developments also meant that another of the justifications which had previously been put forward for capital punishment (namely facilitation of criminals' repentance) was undermined, since wrongdoers could now repent at leisure in the penitentiaries. Given the increasing uncertainty present in the sentencing and carrying out of capital punishment due to unwillingness of juries to convict and frequent pardons (see further discussion in next section), prison may have been a more systematic and therefore effective method of punishment.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
| |
<
< | The discussion above has already touched on the second and perhaps most oft-touted aims of capital punishment; viz., deterrence. Much was written on the effect (or lack of) that the existence of capital punishment had on would-be criminals. As noted above, Beccaria had already expressed his views about why 'perpetual slavery' would be a better deterrent than an instantaneous death. Those such as Beccaria and Rush lauding imprisonment as a more effective deterrent than the possibility of death may have been correct: after Pennsylvania's pioneering 1786 abolition of capital punishment for 'robbery, burglary, sodomy and buggery', "two of the first robbers tried under the new statute pleaded to be tried under the old instead, preferring the chance of an acquittal or a pardon to the certainty of a long prison sentence". Caleb Lownes, in his report on the Pennsylvania penitentiary, expressed his opinion, amongst other things, that the new system was instrumental in helping to reform the minds of convicts and seemed to believe that the general safety of the community was enhanced by said system (though one must naturally take Lownes' account with a pinch of salt given that he was one of the penitentiary's inspectors). Thus there did seem to be some success with prison sentences as an alternative to the death penalty. However, success with prisons was certainly not universal. Since those sentenced to life imprisonment had nothing left to lose, so to speak, if the death penalty were abolished, they sometimes carried out acts of desperation such as murdering their guards or attempting escape. Indeed, Thomas Eddy, a supporter of the prison, was forced to put forth an account with respect to the 'Penitentiary House, in the City of New York' in an attempt to pacify those who were rapidly becoming impatient with the perceived failings of the novel system. This may have been one of the reasons why despite the agitations for reform or abolition of capital punishment, such agitations did not bear fruit in many instances and not every state hastened to adopt abolitionist measures even if their neighbors did.
Notes
:
:
:
| >
> | The discussion above has already touched on the second and perhaps most oft-touted aims of capital punishment; viz., deterrence. Much was written on the effect (or lack of) that the existence of capital punishment had on would-be criminals. As noted above, Beccaria had already expressed his views about why 'perpetual slavery' would be a better deterrent than an instantaneous death. Those such as Beccaria and Rush lauding imprisonment as a more effective deterrent than the possibility of death may have been correct: after Pennsylvania's pioneering 1786 abolition of capital punishment for 'robbery, burglary, sodomy and buggery', "two of the first robbers tried under the new statute pleaded to be tried under the old instead, preferring the chance of an acquittal or a pardon to the certainty of a long prison sentence". Caleb Lownes, in his report on the Pennsylvania penitentiary, expressed his opinion, amongst other things, that the new system was instrumental in helping to reform the minds of convicts and seemed to believe that the general safety of the community was enhanced by said system (though one must naturally take Lownes' account with a pinch of salt given that he was one of the penitentiary's inspectors). Thus there did seem to be some success with prison sentences as an alternative to the death penalty. However, success with prisons was certainly not across the board. Since those sentenced to life imprisonment had nothing left to lose, so to speak, if the death penalty were abolished, they sometimes carried out acts of desperation such as murdering their guards or attempting escape. Indeed, Thomas Eddy, a supporter of the prison, was forced to put forth an account with respect to the 'Penitentiary House, in the City of New York' in an attempt to pacify those who were rapidly becoming impatient with the perceived failings of the novel system. This may have been one of the reasons why despite the agitations for reform or abolition of capital punishment, such agitations did not bear fruit in many instances and not every state hastened to adopt abolitionist measures even if their neighbors did. | | |
In addition to these overarching changes, Steelwater notes that given the rapidly growing population, the wide usage of capital punishment would soon lead to administrative unworkability in actually implementing executions. Rush was of the opinion that 'capital punishments [were] the natural offspring of monarchical governments' - an opinion that probably resonated especially well given the not-too-distant reminder of the 'American Revolution'. Whilst Rush voiced his views in Pennsylvania, Robert Rantoul echoed elements of Beccaria and Rush in Massachusetts but added the Age of Enlightenment belief that society had the power of improvement and therefore could and must strive for its general progress; this again underlined the preferability of penitentiaries over executions.
Notes
:
| | | The first of these was ‘benefit of clergy’. Taken from English law, it was intended to allow clergymen to use their status as a bar to prosecution in the common courts (as opposed to ecclesiastical courts) – for efficiency purposes, this came to be done by requiring the defendant to prove that he could read. This may have been a useful indicator in early times, but as time went on laymen began to learn how to read. Thus, ‘benefit of clergy’ was extended to laypeople and soon the literacy test farce was abolished altogether – ‘benefit of clergy’ became a system of leniency for first time offenders for the less serious crimes (some of which nevertheless formally invoked the death penalty, especially in the South).
Notes
:
| |
<
< | Another device used to mitigate the severity of the law was clemency. A large number of those sentenced to death never in fact reached the gallows. Whether or not an offender would be pardoned depended on many circumstances, all of which ultimately were decided by the governors who had sole discretion regarding clemency. Connections in high places (to the governors themselves or to the judges, for instance), mildness of the offence or lack of prior criminal record were all relevant factors. Importantly, clemency also provided a method of correcting legal errors at trial since unlike in modern times there was no criminal appeal system in the 17th and 18th centuries. . Of particular note were the ‘last minute pardons’ given to offenders who were already standing upon the platform waiting to be executed. These pardons were mostly kept secret from everyone except for the government officials – the stated purpose of this practice was to achieve the effect of a real execution (the severity of the law serving as a deterrent and the creation of angst) and also showcase the “kindness of the individuals administering [the law]” .
Notes
:
:
| >
> | Another device used to mitigate the severity of the law was clemency. A large number of those sentenced to death never in fact reached the gallows. Whether or not an offender would be pardoned depended on many circumstances, all of which ultimately were decided by the governors who had sole discretion regarding clemency. Connections in high places (to the governors themselves or to the judges, for instance), mildness of the offence or lack of prior criminal record were all relevant factors. Importantly, clemency also provided a method of correcting legal errors at trial since unlike in modern times there was no universal criminal appeal system in the 17th and 18th centuries. . Of particular note were the ‘last minute pardons’ given to offenders who were already standing upon the platform waiting to be executed. These pardons were mostly kept secret from everyone except for the government officials – the stated purpose of this practice was to achieve the effect of a real execution (the severity of the law serving as a deterrent and the creation of angst) and also showcase the “kindness of the individuals administering [the law]” . | | | | |
<
< | Given the above institutions, one can see how many of the reasons for having the death penalty no longer held water. The possibility (and proliferation of) pardons, particularly last-minute pardons, raised the expectations of the condemned, “thereby causing them to be too cavalier during their final days” . Thus, the goal of encouraging penitence (recall that the death penalty was meant to stimulate repentance during the criminals’ last days) was much diminished, and of course where a pardon was granted, the aim of incapacitation via execution was not met. Similarly, after benefit of clergy became almost a ‘carte blanche’ for first-time offenders to obtain reprieves, the goal of deterrence must have been substantially frustrated since potential criminals could take comfort in the fact that they were ‘immune’ for first-time offences.
Notes
:
| >
> | Given the above institutions, one can see how many of the reasons for having the death penalty no longer held water. The possibility (and proliferation of) pardons, particularly last-minute pardons, raised the expectations of the condemned, “thereby causing them to be too cavalier during their final days” . Thus, the goal of encouraging penitence (recall that the death penalty was meant to stimulate repentance during the criminals’ last days) was much diminished, and of course where a pardon was granted, the aim of incapacitation via execution was not met. Similarly, after benefit of clergy became almost a ‘carte blanche’ for first-time offenders (except murder, et cetera) to obtain reprieves, the goal of deterrence must have been substantially frustrated since potential criminals could take comfort in the fact that they were ‘immune’ for first-time offences. | | | There had emerged yet another problem: “the difficulty…of convicting persons who are guilty” . Because we have seen that juries often had to either acquit or find someone guilty with the consequence of putting him or her to death, they became unwilling to convict even a clearly guilty person when they did not think that the crime or individual deserved capital punishment. In addition, whilst the development of more stringent due process for capital defendants later on (in Massachusetts at any rate) may have been good for said defendants, it probably resulted in even fewer people being ultimately convicted. Those in favour of retention postulated that this factor actually militated in favour of the death penalty but whatever the merits of their arguments, “a rarely enforced death penalty could scarcely serve as a deterrent”
Notes
:
:
:
:
| | | As noted above, attending public executions was in the beginning seen as a salutary activity for people from all sectors and classes, particularly whilst religious beliefs still held sway over the masses and ministers played a pronounced role in the ceremony. However, by the start of the 19th century, elites and also the middle class began to distinguish themselves from what they now viewed as the ‘mobs’ who gathered at these executions (recall that crowds at executions were getting much less reverential and increasingly rowdy).
Notes
:
| |
<
< | Increasing overall wealth of society led to more ‘respectable’ people who started to take notice of sensibilities which had formerly been relegated to the rich upper class. An important development of this “genteel sensibility was an aversion to the sight of death” ) and a concurrent feeling of contempt for those who still wished to witness death in a public forum. A prominent advocate of abolishing executions in general was Edward Livingston. Amongst other things he argued that seeing executions had the effect of encouraging 'depravity' on the part of the public. Charles Spear seems to have had similar views: “Those who become witnesses of sanguinary punishments only want for provocations of poverty or anger to perpetrate the same crime for which the capital offender is punished”. It is interesting to look at Lydia Maria Child's 'Letters to New York' as an example of a woman's point of view on capital punishment (she was decidedly against the idea, and in her text outlines a number of reasons for her viewpoint, including the danger of convicting the innocent, and arguments against religious justifications of the proponents of the death penalty). As a consequence of these changing tastes and perceptions, states began abolishing public executions and transplanting them into the prison yard (thus, even though Livingston’s aim of banning executions outright was not achieved, the ‘main act’ of capital punishment – i.e. the public hangings – was whittled away), with Connecticut being the first state to do so in 1830. Several other states followed suit. Another result that arose from increased wealth was that governments were now able to realistically sustain long-term prisons with all their collateral costs (including feeding, housing, clothing prisoners etc.)
Notes
,:
:
:
:
:
| >
> | Increasing overall wealth of society led to more ‘respectable’ people who started to take notice of sensibilities which had formerly been relegated to the rich upper class. An important development of this “genteel sensibility was an aversion to the sight of death” and a concurrent feeling of contempt for those who still wished to witness death in a public forum. A prominent advocate of abolishing executions in general was Edward Livingston. Amongst other things he argued that seeing executions had the effect of encouraging 'depravity' on the part of the public. Charles Spear seems to have had similar views: “Those who become witnesses of sanguinary punishments only want for provocations of poverty or anger to perpetrate the same crime for which the capital offender is punished”. It is interesting to look at Lydia Maria Child's 'Letters to New York' as an example of a woman's point of view on capital punishment (she was decidedly against the idea, and in her text outlines a number of reasons for her viewpoint, including the danger of convicting the innocent, and arguments against religious justifications of the proponents of the death penalty). As a consequence of these changing tastes and perceptions, states began abolishing public executions and transplanting them into the prison yard (thus, even though Livingston’s aim of banning executions outright was not achieved, the ‘main act’ of capital punishment – i.e. the public hangings – was whittled away), with Connecticut being the first state to do so in 1830. Several other states followed suit. Another result that arose from increased wealth was that governments were now able to realistically sustain long-term prisons with all their collateral costs (including feeding, housing, clothing prisoners etc.) | | | In his Commentaries, Blackstone expressed his opinion that it would “do honor to the English law, to compare it with the shocking apparatus of death…in the criminal codes of almost every other nation in Europe” . By the end of the 18th century, those in favour of banning capital punishment in America were similarly beginning to compare America with England and saw abolition as a “mark of the new nation’s progress”. They saw the retention of the death penalty especially for lesser felonies as a mark of barbarism of earlier times. The role of sympathy was changing too in the late 18th century: whilst the crowd watching at executions had always felt sympathy for those soon to be hanged, it was only now that spectators would “translate their sympathy for the condemned prisoners into opposition to capital punishment generally” .
Notes
:
:
:
|
|