To Abolish the Death Penalty: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures 91-2, on S. 1760, March 20, 21, and July 2, 1968
1970 - 239 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Common terms and phrases
_do_ abolished abolition abolitionists American Angeles Appeal argue argument asked Attorney Bedau believe bill California capital punishment carried Church Commission committed Committee Congress convicted correct court crime criminal death penalty defendant deterrent effect evidence executed fact favor Federal feel going Government Governor guilty hanging hearings homicide House human imposed imprisonment increase indicated issue James Jefferson John judge July June jury justice Kidnaping killing lives majority means ment Michigan murder Name offenses officer Ohio PAISLEY parole period person police possible present prison problem protection question Rape reason recommend record responsibility retain Robert San Quentin Sellin Senator HART sentence Sept serving social society statement statistics statute Thank tion trial United victim witnesses York
Page 162 - The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted criminal against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry...
Page 136 - ... shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnaped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if the death penalty is not imposed.
Page 196 - So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are : for blood it defileth the land : and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Page 143 - no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.
Page 184 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.
Page 196 - Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Page 142 - Our problem is to decide whether the Constitution permits the establishment of such a death penalty, applicable only to those defendants who assert the right to contest their guilt before a jury.
Page 162 - ... find it, in the heart of every man; these are the symbols which, in the treatment of crime and criminal, mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it.
Page 172 - It seems reasonable to assume that if the death penalty exercises a deterrent or preventive effect on prospective murderers, the following propositions would be true: \(a) Murders should be less frequent in states that have the death penalty than in those that have abolished it, other factors being equal. Comparisons of this nature must be made among states that are as alike as possible in all other respects— character of population, social and economic condition...
Page 172 - Murders should increase when the death penalty is abolished and should decline when it is restored. "(c) The deterrent effect should be greatest and should therefore affect murder rates most powerfully in those communities where the crime occurred and its consequences are most strongly brought home to the population. "(d) Law enforcement officers would be safer from murderous attacks in states that have the death penalty than in those without it.