Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 May 1885 — WARTNER’S SENTENCE. [ARTICLE]

WARTNER’S SENTENCE.

“Whoever is convicted of murder in the Ist degree shall be imprisoned in the state prison during life, or suffer death, in the discretion of the jury.”—Sec. 1904 R. S. 1881. “The defendant with the assent of the court may submit the trial to the court, ‘except in capital cases.’ All other trials must be by jury.”—Sec. 1821 R. S. 1881. “The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation and not of vindictive justice.” —Art. 1, sec. 18. Constitution. It is a serious question of debate with good lawyers whether the Court, without the aid of a jury, could impose the death penalty.— The Court can exercise a full discretion in all pleas of guilty, ‘except in the four capital cases,’ under our statute; but for a capital crime the accused “shall suffer death only in the ‘discretion of a jury.’ ”—Sec. 1904. The law regards human life as too sacred to be taken at the hands of the public executioner without the concurrence of thirteen triers —twelve jurors and the Judge.— Many good lawyers are of the opinion that the legislature has wisely and tenderly shielded a man’s life from the legal hangman’s rope unless a jury of twelve honest men—judges of the facts and the law —in their disc retion so find, and that finding be embodied in the Court’s judgment. Had the Judge called a jury and admitted the defendant’s confession in evidence, the jury could have rightfully exercised that solemn discretion so wisely confided to it. The Judge called no jury, but “heard the evidence and passed sentence of death in a capital case.” —Sec. 1821. Under all the circumstances, we are inclined to the belief that civil death —a life sentence to the State prison—would be as well as an execution thus ordered. Wartner may have been ‘non com] os.’ Indeed, mu c has been shown since the trial to demonstrate that he is of unsound mind. The sacred action of a jury trial was not invoked. For want of it the judgment is probably void. — An execution under it is of more than doubtful propriety. The logic of commuting a void sentence, it must be admitted, is rather lame, but better by far than the taking of a life. We had better be guilty as false imprisonment than of homocide. There are some differences of opinion, arising partly from reason, and probably more from sentiment.

Passion and vengeance should have no place in the administration of criminal law. Society can not afford to be rash. Prudence, judgment and’ reason are always safe counselors. If the sentence shall be commuted, society will be protected. If the Supreme Court thinks the judgment unauthorized, we should be content to give the prisoner a lawful hearing, and execute him only when he has been lawfully convicted and sentenced. Simon P. Thompson, Mordecai F. Chilcote, Frank W. Babcock.