There remain the four other cases, which are not all of the same order.
27. The penalty of death.—The penalty of death in these days has been very much contested, and several States have tried to abolish it.[18]
The following arguments are brought to bear against it:
1. The inviolability of human life.—The State, it is said, should not give the example of what it proscribes and punishes. Now, it punishes homicide; then it should not itself commit homicide.
2. The possible mistakes, which in all other cases can be corrected, but which in this case alone are irreparable.
3. Experience, which, it is said, tells against it in certain countries by proving that the number of crimes has not been increased by the suppression of the penalty of death.
4. Finally, the refinement of manners, which can no longer bear the idea of capital punishment.
No one of these arguments is wholly decisive.
1. The inviolability of human life is not an absolute thing, at least not for those who admit the right of legitimate self-defense. We shall examine this presently.
2. Judiciary mistakes are very rare, and will become more and more so, as justice becomes more respectful towards the rights of the accused, and through greater publicity, by the intervention of a jury, etc.