The first may be dismissed with a word
or two. In civilised countries torture is for ever
abrogated; and with it, let us hope, the idea of judicial
vengeance.
The LEX TALIONIS - the Levitic law - 'Eye for eye, tooth for
tooth,' is befitting only for savages. Unfortunately the
Christian religion still promulgates and passionately clings
to the belief in Hell as a place or state of everlasting
torment - that is to say, of eternal torture inflicted for no
ultimate end save that of implacable vengeance. Of all the
miserable superstitions ever hatched by the brain of man
this, as indicative of its barbarous origin, is the most
degrading. As an ordinance ascribed to a Being worshipped as
just and beneficent, it is blasphemous.
The Sentimental argument, like all arguments based upon
feeling rather than reason, though not without merit, is
fraught with mischief which far outweighs it. There are
always a number of people in the world who refer to their
feelings as the highest human tribunal. When the reasoning
faculty is not very strong, the process of ratiocination
irksome, and the issue perhaps unacceptable, this course
affords a convenient solution to many a complicated problem.
It commends itself, moreover, to those who adopt it, by the
sense of chivalry which it involves. There is something
generous and noble, albeit quixotic, in siding with the weak,
even if they be in the wrong. There is something charitable
in the judgment, 'Oh! poor creature, think of his adverse
circumstances, his ignorance, his temptation. Let us be
merciful and forgiving.' In practice, however, this often
leads astray. Thus in most cases, even where premeditated
murder is proved to the hilt, the sympathy of the
sentimentalist is invariably with the murderer, to the
complete oblivion of the victim's family.
Bentham, speaking of the humanity plea, thus words its
argument: 'Attend not to the sophistries of reason, which
often deceive, but be governed by your hearts, which will
always lead you right. I reject without hesitation the
punishment you propose: it violates natural feelings, it
harrows up the susceptible mind, it is tyrannical and cruel.'
Such is the language of your sentimental orators.
'But abolish any one penal law merely because it is repugnant
to the feelings of a humane heart, and, if consistent, you
abolish the whole penal code. There is not one of its
provisions that does not, in a more or less painful degree,
wound the sensibility.'
As this writer elsewhere observes: 'It is only a virtue when
justice has done its work, &c. Before this, to forgive
injuries is to invite their perpetration - is to be, not the
friend, but the enemy of society. What could wickedness
desire more than an arrangement by which offences should be
always followed by pardon?'
Sentiment is the ULTIMA RATIO FEMINARUM, and of men whose
natures are of the epicene gender.
