{"character_count": 4587, "word_count": 811, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9485999941825867], "ccnet_perplexity": [2075.89990234375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The Pirate GibbS.--In Speaking of the atrocities committed by this unhappy wretch, who is now un- der sentence of death, morning paper asks the question: "lf crimes like these committed, even with the penalty of death over the offender what would be the condition ol society if that penalty were to be remoyedl" We answer, ne aeorSe. The very fact that the punishment ot death has effect ID preventing the perpetraion ol murder, shows that such punishment should no longer be resored to- what stronger argument can be alleged against the proprety of any penalty than the fact of it's tRniity When law ceases to have force and to be obeyed Is it, il be- any thing less than dead letter? If the dread ol death be insufficient to deter from crime iohat foA1 We should be glad to know. The ques- ton quoted above, seems to imply that may, and do sometimes commit the most desperate and dread iul crimes, from mere wantonness. the mere love of crime He errs greatly in his estimate of human nature who thinks Ii the dread of death prove insufficient to deter from crime nothing wltve say emphaticaly, nothing ever will, or can. Where then. Is the use of the penalty if it does not answer Hs eadf Why not get rid of it, when by doing so you have nothing to lose but something to gain? Is there any qualification accrung to the vndictive pas sions of our nature, in depriving human being of existence? This Is done 1t is true, agreeably to the provisions Of criminal COde-Is the act the less san guinary or unchristianl Either men commit crime from the mere love of crime, there must be strong lnccntace to the commission of it. Where this incen tive, or inducement--no matter what its nature-ex- exists, we venture 10 assert (and the assertion is borne out by all criminal records (that no pendlty will deter from crime. Why, then, atlix to it q barbarous and bloody one2 Suppose that solitary confinement for life would be as much dreaded as death, as being next to 1t in seyery--if, indeed the one be not more dreadful punishment than the other-and yet should be found insufficient to deter from crime; would not human tribunals (were per petnal punishment, and not death the law) be spar ed the dreadful responsibility o taking life? There must be penalty--no one denies this-but there is q choice Ifneither the dread of death nor incarce ration be found sufciAent to deter from crime-if the one, indeed, be as little calculated--as exper- ence shows--to deter from crime as the other-if both be aSetcss cs puniShme,uS one at least Is inno cent in tS operation. Is this nothing .mistaken philanthropy" is charged upon those who are des- reas ot seeing the abolition of capital punishments

 We are sorry for the head (we say nothing Of the heart) winch dictated the charge. In just and en- lightened natures (and appeal to the LIVING sToN's of both worlds) the understanding and the feelings participate alike in the noble and humane efforts that are now making to yintlicate the Penal Code of nations, by expunging from it's pages those StGtutes of b0Od, at nexpedent in their opera ton and abhonent from the feelings of humanity lf the ground, then, of expediency fals--what re- malns2 We should say, mercy! Its Equality is not strained" The chief attribute of the Creator might well fill some place, in the bosom of the creature.- We all hope for this mercy hereaiter-do we show Il here? What must be the conscience ofthat man. who, while he prays and hopes for mercy himself, yet denies it to another} We ask these questions obnoxious as they may be to the charge of ''mis- taken philanthropy''- say the great ground of the exPedency of capital punishment has failed Dreadful as it would be, to be constrained to reason upon matter of life and death agteeaby to an alleged expediency, we might yet bring our selves to do so, did such expediency Gin the proper sense of the word) exist; but when this very expe diency--so much prized-is foundi in many instances to defeat itself, and in all to be inefcacons-what, we repeat, remains? Let those in whom manhood and humanity not alike extinct, answer. What was the testimony of the Prefectof Police, but the other day aI Parsl It was that an experience of upwards of thirty gears had conuinced him of the in- tttg of capital puaishments. Is he, too, mistaken philanthropist! The mistake must be somewhere else. But even were he in error, who, in whom the moral clements are not dead, would not rather side with the MatO er,ars of the poet7 We wodld rather err with the "philanthroplst" than come in for share of the wisdom of tbe heartless