JAN 131925 
 
 dy 4 
 
 Secosreat sew 
 Division.  HVE6RU'r 
 Section © ae 347 [ | 
 
PE 
 te ae 4a ri ines 
 
 of 
 
 Ba eb Ne 
 
 eatin Pos 
 a ad 
 i ‘ 
 ¥ hgh aah y 
 
 if 
 Ahiy y') Ae 
 1d SO It 
 7 Tes } 
 
 hey ed) 
 van) 
 yor 
 Ply 
 if 
 
 ; ’ y a “iY 
 gop EE aN 
 i Lies te: 4 j 
 
 > 
 ‘ 
 
 Ses ait 
 ar i Ae 
 ony 4 
 
 
 
= 
 ek a 
 ee Sa ea 
 
 ae: 
 
 *, 
 
 — 
 Yue 
 > ae 
 
 on 
 = 
 fe 
 
 ivy 
 4 
 
 {we 
 
 aR 
 nye 
 Ad 
 4 i ral 
 
 Ys 
 
 
 
 ty 
 a> 
 they 
 5m 
 +* 
 
Man’s Judgment of 
 Death 
 
 An Analysis of the Operation and Effect 
 of Capital Punishment Based on 
 Facts, not on Sentiment 
 
 By 
 
 Lewis E. Lawes 
 
 Warden, Sing Sing Prison 
 President, American Prison Association, 1923 
 
 “I shall ask for the abolition of the Penalty of Death until I 
 have the infallibility of human judgment demonstrated to me.” 
 
 LAFAYETTE. 
 
 G.P. Putnam’s Sons 
 New York & London 
 The Rnickerbocker Drass 
 1924 
 
Copyright, 1924 
 by 
 Lewis E. Lawes 
 
 
 
 Made in the United States of America 
 
DEDICATED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE 
 COMMITTEE OF THE PRISON ASSOCIATION OF 
 NEw YORK, WHOSE INTEREST MADE 
 POSSIBLE THE PUBLICATION OF 
 THIS MANUSCRIPT 
 

 
FOREWORD 
 
 No vital problem in the world today has 
 been considered with so little accurate and 
 scientific knowledge as capital punishment. 
 We have always had this method of punish- 
 ment and we have always had widespread 
 capital crime. Because of inertia, conserva- 
 tism, timidity, people have clung to this pun- 
 ishment in the belief that it provided the only 
 effective deterrent. They have blindly ac- 
 cepted as facts, theories which this inertia, 
 conservatism and timidity have forced upon 
 public consciousness through generations. 
 This has been so because there has been 
 little actual knowledge and very little at- 
 tempt to secure more knowledge. For this 
 reason, I offer no apology for a presentation 
 
 - of facts and statistics without romance and 
 
 without emotional appeal. From twenty 
 years of work in closest contact with this 
 problem I could give many colorful experi- 
 ences, but they would not aid in solving the 
 
 Vv 
 
Vi FOREWORD 
 
 problem, as it must be solved, if our progress 
 in treatment of crime is to keep parallel with 
 our advance in other sciences. 
 
 Lewis E. LAWEs. 
 
 OssINING, NEw YORK. 
 February 25, 1924. 
 
Man’s Judgment of Death 
 

 
Man’s Judgment of Death 
 
 Futility of Capital Punishment 
 
 ry the Canadian Arctic, six hundred miles 
 
 from Dawson City, two Eskimos are hung 
 on the gallows by the Canadian Mounted 
 Police, pursuant to a sentence of death duly 
 and legally pronounced according to the law 
 of the Dominion Government. The men who 
 were executed had been in turn themselves 
 the executioners according to due tribal form 
 and ceremony (to them as legal and binding 
 as any white man’s law) of an Eskimo mur- 
 derer. But because their assumption of the 
 function of executioners was sanctioned by 
 tribal law, not by the Dominion law, they 
 paid the identical penalty which a few months 
 
 before they had meted out. 
 
 “Vengeance again becomes decorous and legal and 
 there seems to be no higher power ready to swing the 
 British executors of the Eskimo executors off into the 
 Arctic darkness of eternity.’’* 
 
 The Nation: Editorial comment. 
 3 
 
4 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 Thus do we again see the illogical futility 
 of a method of punishment which is older 
 than civilization itself. 
 
 Growth of Sentiment against Death Penalty 
 
 Capital punishment has always been dis- 
 cussed and debated; pamphlets, articles and 
 books have been written, speeches have been 
 delivered on the subject; men prominent in 
 every walk of life have expressed their opin- 
 ions, until it seems as if no new thought could 
 be brought to bear on the problem, as if no 
 new contribution could be made that possesses 
 the merit of throwing clearer light upon the 
 topic. Far back in the early days of coloniza- 
 tion in this country this problem was dis- 
 cussed. And through this discussion and the 
 attendant agitation has come a gradual lessen- 
 ing in the number of capital offenses, a gradual 
 broadening of the territory where the death 
 penalty is entirely done away with or is 
 retained to a limited extent only. 
 
 In England in 1780, there were two hundred 
 and forty capital offenses; in the time of 
 Blackstone there were one hundred and sixty. 
 Blackstone himself says: 
 
 ‘So dreadful a list instead of diminishing, increases 
 the number of offenders. The injured through com- 
 
SENTIMENT ON DEATH PENALTY 5 
 
 passion will often forbear to prosecute; juries through 
 compassion will sometimes forget their oaths, and 
 either acquit the guilty or mitigate the nature of the 
 offense; and judges through compassion will respite 
 one half of the convicts and recommend them to the 
 Royal mercy. Among so many chances of escaping, 
 the needy and hardened offender overlooks the multi- 
 tude that suffer; he boldly engages in some desperate 
 attempt to relieve his wants or supply his vices; and 
 if, unexpectedly, the hand of justice overtakes him, 
 he deems himself peculiarly unfortunate in falling at 
 last a sacrifice to those laws which long impunity 
 had taught him to contemn.’’* 
 
 Changes of this character must come slowly. 
 The fact that innocent persons may occasion- 
 ally be executed does not affect the public 
 mind to a sufficient extent to result in a 
 popular demand for the abolition of the death 
 penalty. Such occurrences are too remote 
 from the lives of the vast majority. 
 
 But from those early times until today, 
 slowly but surely, the public sentiment against 
 capital punishment has grown. Occasionally, 
 and for a short period, this sentiment may 
 - swing in the opposite direction, but the vol- 
 ume, the strength of the movement increases, 
 and today we stand on the edge of a strong 
 sweep of popular feeling which eventually 
 
 t Blackstone’s Commentaries. 
 
6 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 will carry on to the complete and final aboli- 
 tion of capital punishment. This will come 
 partly from moral and ethical reasons, but 
 fundamentally because practical and scien- 
 tific research will reveal its utter uselessness; 
 and the process of all evolution, individual as 
 well as national, is to discard that which is 
 useless. 
 
 In spite of the centuries that have elapsed, 
 and the volumes that have been written on 
 the subject, there has been too little careful 
 scrutiny of facts. Many writers have assumed 
 that it is impossible to secure statistics. 
 The debates and arguments have been 
 based on sentiment, on the appeal to the 
 emotions, on religious and ethical founda- 
 tions, whereas the problem is one that 
 should have careful and scientific attention. 
 The appeal to the emotions, to ethical con- 
 siderations is right and proper, but it 
 should be secondary to a rigid examination of 
 facts, to scientific analysis of conditions and 
 results. For this reason the discussion which 
 I shall attempt to present may possess the 
 merit of a new, and I hope somewhat unique 
 contribution to the mass of material 
 which has been written and spoken on the 
 subject. 
 
SCOPE OF DISCUSSION 7 
 
 Scope of Discussion 
 
 The scope of this discussion, broadly speaking, 
 is threefold. Topresentacomprehensivestate- 
 ment of the present condition of capital punish- 
 ment in its legal aspect, showing where it is 
 retained, where it has been abolished, where 
 there exists a choice between its application and 
 life imprisonment as a punishment for murder; 
 showing what the changes have been within 
 the past decade ortwo. Toascertain from ex- 
 isting facts and conditions just how this method 
 of punishment works in actual operation. By 
 this is meant a careful scrutiny of the statistics 
 of death sentences, of sentences to life imprison- 
 ment, and of executions over a period of years 
 sufficiently long and covering a territory suffi- 
 ciently broad, geographically, to be compre- 
 hensive. Totry to discover from such statistics 
 as can be collected what effect the imposition 
 of the death penalty appears to have as a 
 deterrent of capital crime. In order to under- 
 stand and discuss this problem and to 
 arrive at a right conclusion regarding it, we 
 must know, first, exactly how the law exists 
 today, second, what the actual facts are as 
 to imposition and execution of death and 
 life sentences, third, what relation can be 
 observed between the existence or non-exist- 
 
8 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 ence of the death penalty and the number of 
 homicides. 
 
 It is my own very strong conviction that if 
 it appears that the death penalty has no value 
 as a deterrent of capital crime, the time has 
 arrived when we should discard this archaic 
 method of punishment and adopt in its place 
 a substitute more modern and more scientific. 
 This on the ground of expediency and regard- 
 less of the moral or ethical aspects of the 
 problem. Colonel Roosevelt, in his: auto- 
 biography, says: 
 
 “T am willing to listen to arguments in favor of 
 abolishing the death penalty so far as they are based 
 purely on grounds of public expediency although 
 these arguments have never convinced me.”’ 
 
 I have devoted my efforts entirely to this vital 
 phase of the question—the practical side. 
 Statistics at best are dry and uninteresting; 
 but this is one problem that cannot be com- 
 prehensively studied and analyzed without 
 resorting to their use. In any careful con- 
 sideration of the effect of capital punishment 
 as a deterrent of capital crime, not only does 
 there appear this necessity of statistical 
 research, but I am convinced that some of the 
 results will be so unexpected and so amazing 
 
THEORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 9 
 
 even to those with a vital interest in the sub- 
 ject, that a certain amount of glamour will be 
 discovered in the dry statistical table. 
 
 Theory of Capital Punishment 
 
 The fundamental theory of punishment is 
 that it is used for deterrence, for retribution 
 and for reformation, and in the case of capital 
 punishment there is a further basis urged for 
 its retention—the need of eliminating those 
 who menace the life and security of society. 
 Reformation, obviously, cannot be attributed 
 to the use of the death penalty. The argu- 
 ment that capital punishment is necessary as 
 a process of elimination is faulty; it is unscien- 
 tific in application. The idea of punishment 
 of any type solely as retribution is gradually 
 disappearing, together with other of the older 
 conceptions and theories of criminology. This 
 idea is yielding to the more modern, progres- 
 sive and scientific attitude, that retribution, 
 a more euphonious word for revenge, is not 
 justification for any system of punishment nor 
 are its results beneficial. It is repressive, not 
 reformative; it ignores social responsibility 
 and disregards all possibility of individualiza- 
 tion. 
 
 A very serious defect in our application of 
 
10 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 capital punishment is the inequality with 
 which it is applied to the rich and to the poor. 
 The defendant of wealth and position, of 
 influence, seldom goes to the electric chair. 
 Through good counsel, through legal techni- 
 calities and delay, through influence, he man- 
 ages to escape death while the man who is 
 friendless and destitute pays the extreme 
 penalty. This statement is borne out by an 
 examination of the data concerning the men 
 who have been executed in this state during 
 the past thirty years. It isa punishment, too, 
 that falls most severely on the family of the 
 offender. The mental and physical suffering 
 of the murderer himself is soon over. Many 
 are of the stoic type, or of such low intellec- 
 tual development that they are susceptible of 
 little feeling. The mothers, the wives, the 
 sisters are the ones who suffer and for them 
 this suffering continues for months before and 
 for months after the execution. I yield to no 
 one in acknowledging the duty we owe the 
 family of the murderer’s victim. But I have 
 very grave doubt whether we have the right 
 to inflict this terrible burden on the innocent 
 family of the murderer, believing as I do that 
 the punishment itself serves no useful purpose 
 either in its primary object of deterring others 
 
THEORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 11 
 
 or its secondary object of reformation or 
 expiation. 
 
 Throughout the whole field of criminology 
 we are coming more and more to advocate 
 the theory of adapting the punishment to 
 fit the criminal rather than to fit the crime. 
 Capital punishment does not permit this. 
 Where it is applied at all, it is applied arbi- 
 trarily. We are apt to forget this truth: 
 
 “It is not the murderer but the murder, that is the 
 enemy. The primitive method of striking blindly in 
 impotent rage at the life of the offender has had its 
 
 day, but it still obscures our vision as to the real 
 nature of our problem.’’* 
 
 Satanentl 
 
 The remaining argument, the_ deterrent 
 theory of capital punishment, is the one in my 
 opinion which demands the most serious 
 consideration and it is the one to which I 
 propose to devote this paper. This theory 
 rests on the ground of its social necessity— 
 that it is the only effective deterrent of capital 
 crime. It is based on the supposition that 
 life is man’s most valued possession. But 
 how many there are who do not fear death, 
 or to whom its remote threat is less impressive, 
 less admonitory than the temptation of some 
 desperate exigency! 
 
 t George W. Kirchwey, The Death Penalty. 
 
a 
 
 12 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 ‘“‘Whether a man will commit crime depends upon 
 his power of resisting evil as compared with the 
 strength of the temptation he is called upon to resist.”’* 
 
 Consider how closely prisoners must be 
 watched lest they cheat the law and take their 
 own lives. How inconsistent we are! We 
 impose the death penalty upon the condemned 
 murderer as the severest and most deterrent 
 penalty we can devise, and then for months 
 until the moment of execution we are com- 
 pelled to watch that man day and night to be 
 sure that he does not inflict upon himself the 
 same penalty that the state prescribes. Recall 
 to your mind reports appearing in the news- 
 papers, not only of murders which appear 
 almost daily, but of numerous promiscuous 
 shootings. They are committed under most 
 trifling provocations, by bootleggers, trying 
 to get away with their wares, by traffickers 
 in drugs, by burglars. In one notorious case 
 two police officers were killed for no better 
 reason than because the offender feared to be 
 beaten up in the police station. 
 
 ‘In the latter part of the year 1915, Police Lieuten- 
 ant Becker and four gunmen, alleged to have been 
 
 t Aschaffenburg, German Psychologist and Criminologist, 
 quoted in article on ‘‘Parole,’’ Journal of Criminal Law, August, 
 1923. 
 
THEORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 13 
 
 hired by him, were electrocuted at Sing Sing. Yet, 
 when I was Warden at Sing Sing in the early months 
 of 1916, there were in the death house five men await- 
 ing execution for murders committed under precisely 
 similar circumstances only a few weeks subsequently 
 to the execution of the gunmen.’’* 
 
 English history tells us that crime is not 
 prevented because of the death penalty. 
 Pickpockets to whom detection meant death 
 plied their trade through the crowds at public 
 hangings. Do these instances which I have 
 cited show any effect of the fear of death as a 
 deterrent? As I write these words, there 
 comes to my mind the terrible tragedy of the 
 little kidnapped boy whose mutilated body 
 was discovered in New York’s East Side and I 
 cannot but wonder how much of a deterrent 
 the fear of the death chair was to the degen- 
 erate mind which carried out this crime. 
 
 More than a curious coincidence is the fact 
 that several counties in this state had no mur- 
 der convictions for a number of years, some of 
 them for long periods. Yet when the first con- 
 -viction for murder occurred, with the subse- 
 quent execution of the murderer at Sing Sing, 
 it was immediately followed by a number of 
 murders. As a matter of fact our theory of 
 
 George W. Kirchwey, The Death Penalty. 
 
14 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 capital punishment is both illogical and incon- 
 sistent. In this theory it is the severity upon 
 which emphasis is laid. Westress the fact that 
 no other punishment is severe enough to deter. 
 But many punishments have been devised in 
 the past that were more severe. To be strictly 
 logical, therefore, those who advocate a 
 punishment because of its severity should 
 abolish capital punishment because it is 
 grossly inadequate. 
 
 “Tf the efficacy of punishment be found in its 
 severity such severity must be increased until it results 
 in minimizing crime. We exhibit no faith in our 
 advocacy of severity if we stop short of its limits.’’* 
 
 Admission of Weakness as Deterrent 
 
 Capital punishment is intended to protect 
 society from murder by its deterring influence. 
 Why weaken this by making it the most 
 humane affair possible under the circum- 
 stances—by selecting the quickest and most 
 painless method? Why use the electric chair, 
 or permit the prisoner, if he chooses, to face a 
 firing squad as is done in at least one state? 
 If the deterrent principle of capital punish- 
 ment is the prime consideration, why not give 
 
 t Julian P. Alexander, ‘‘ Philosophy of Punishment.’’ Journal 
 of Criminal Law, August, 1922. 
 
ADMISSION OF WEAKNESS 15 
 
 to the execution of the condemned the char- 
 acter of a public function, urging the populace 
 to witness the death scene that the spectacle 
 may, perhaps, save them from a crime which 
 otherwise they might be led to commit? The 
 fact that we do not do this, that we make the 
 executions as private and as humane as pos- 
 sible, is an admission that if any influence at 
 all is exerted it must be debasing or positively 
 harmful. If on the other hand it has no 
 influence, then its justification as an example 
 is untenable. I cannot help but think of the 
 story which comes from French Guiana, of 
 Hespel, who was assigned as executioner of 
 the Colony. When convicts were to be put to 
 death, his was the duty of guillotining them. 
 It would seem that he of all men should have 
 felt the deterrent effect, if any existed. Yet 
 he, himself, committed murder and was tried 
 and convicted. 
 
 It may be interesting to know that one 
 hundred and thirty-five years ago in Phila- 
 delphia, a young physician was advocating 
 some of these theories of penology which we 
 are inclined to regard as of modern origin. 
 Dr. Benjamin Rush opposed publicity of 
 punishment. His tenet was that all public 
 punishment operated to make bad men worse 
 
16 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 and to increase crime by the noxious influence 
 of such punishment upon society. Today we 
 endorse this theory only half-heartedly. We 
 make executions as secret as possible, yet we 
 expect them to have a deterrent effect. 
 
 I shall pass without further discussion the 
 question whether deterrence is a proper object 
 of punishment and the question of the logic 
 of capital punishment itself, for I am con- 
 vinced that the death penalty can be defend- 
 ed and justified as a deterrent measure only 
 if it is proven to be necessary and if it is found 
 to be effective. This, I believe, is the crux of 
 the problem. In order to meet this question 
 with intelligence, statistics must be studied 
 with the object of ascertaining whether capital 
 punishment really is a deterrent—whether or 
 not we have been deceiving ourselves with an 
 illusion founded not on facts but on a theory, 
 whether a careful and dispassionate analysis 
 of the evidence will not reveal that we have 
 been blindly following a chimera. This may 
 be because everyone is instinctively horrified 
 by the crime of murder, and because this 
 instinctive feeling, regarding justice as de- 
 manding an eye for an eye—the old concep- 
 tion of retaliation—has developed the belief 
 that nothing short of legalized murder by the 
 
COLLECTING STATISTICS 17 
 
 state will prevent zllegal murder by the in- 
 dividual. This feeling is well illustrated by a 
 statement in a letter which I have received 
 from a prominent westerner, needless to say 
 an advocate of capital punishment; the italics 
 are mine. 
 
 “I am quite firm in my belief that when a person 
 deliberately commits a murder in the first degree, 
 he should forfeit his life—a just and righteous punish- 
 ment for an inexcusable crime.”’ 
 
 Then too, we have to contend with the 
 natural conservatism of the legal profession. 
 Lawyers have a great deal to do with our law 
 making, and of course the functioning of legal 
 processes is entirely in their hands. By train- 
 ing they are led to follow precedent. New 
 methods, new departures, experiments in 
 governmental forms and processes are natural- 
 ly abhorrent to their mental conceptions. As 
 a class they are loath to try anything new, 
 anything that has not the sanction of long 
 usage. 
 
 Difficulties of Collecting Statistics 
 
 Before entering upon a discussion of the 
 statistical data, it seems to me most import- 
 ant that we should consider for a moment the 
 
18 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 difficulties in the path of one who seeks crim- 
 inological statistics in this country. For 
 without comprehensive data as to what has 
 happened and is happening, how can we 
 come to a true realization of how great a 
 deterrent the death penalty has been in the 
 past and is today? Many writers have 
 assumed that we have no trustworthy sta- 
 tistics. This is not the fact although the task 
 of collecting and tabulating what we have is 
 wearisome and difficult. It was not a source 
 of pride in the thoroughness of our American 
 methods to discover that it was possible to 
 secure with greater celerity and accuracy 
 complete homicide rate statistics from the 
 twenty-five cantons of Switzerland than from 
 our own states or even from a selected two- 
 thirds. The Swiss data covered a period of 
 forty years and the noteworthy fact is that they 
 were ready compiled, whereas in this country 
 such work is, to say the least, spasmodic. 
 
 It is most deplorable that this condition 
 exists. But that it does exist everyone who 
 has made the effort will agree. It is most 
 unfortunate that there are no uniform judicial 
 statistics for the country as a whole, statistics 
 which present comprehensive and accurate 
 information, state by state, regarding the 
 
BUREAU OF STATISTICS 19 
 
 number of homicides, of indictments, of judi- 
 cial proceedings, convictions, acquittals and 
 sentences. Last June I addressed to the 
 Attorney-General of each state a brief ques- 
 tionnaire covering these points of information. 
 From fourteen states no reply at all was 
 received, and although I followed this with a 
 subsequent inquiry only three finally respond- 
 ed. Half a dozen states replied that it was 
 impossible to give any information. Twelve 
 either referred the inquiry to other depart- 
 ments or suggested other sources. Unfor- 
 tunately however, no information was forth- 
 coming from any of the suggested sources. 
 The remaining states furnished some of the 
 facts requested in varying degrees of com- 
 prehensiveness, but except in a few cases they 
 were so incomplete that no useful tabulation 
 could be made. In attempts to secure this 
 data hundreds of letters have been written, 
 yet the results have been very incomplete; at 
 best a little information from a few states that 
 may be counted on one’s fingers. 
 
 Centralized Bureau of Statistics 
 
 Until information of this nature is collected 
 and tabulated, so that the results may be 
 studied and analyzed, how can we expect any 
 
20 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 real progress in our penological methods? We 
 need to secure uniform and complete statis- 
 tics covering the number of murders com- 
 mitted in each state; how many were judicially 
 acted upon and resulted in indictments; how 
 many were brought to trial and with what 
 results. After sentence is imposed, I am glad 
 to say that the records of the state prisons 
 in many of the states can supply information 
 as to the subsequent disposal of the prisoner, 
 although even data of this character are far 
 from being complete. In some of the states 
 executions are held in counties and no state- 
 wide records have ever been kept. We need 
 at once and urgently a complete and compre- 
 hensive survey of the whole field to secure 
 the data which I have outlined. In addition 
 there should be installed a centralized federal 
 bureau by which these data in the future may 
 be collected from the various states, classified, 
 tabulated and issued for the use and education 
 of the public. Mr. William Draper Lewis, 
 secretary of the American Law Institute, 
 emphasizes this need and indicates the remedy: 
 
 ‘What is really needed is a scientific survey of the 
 operation of the administrative agencies charged with 
 the enforcement of law, the detection of wrong-doers, 
 their prosecution and the results of the punishment 
 
BUREAU OF STATISTICS 21 
 
 inflicted. Scientific investigation of what we may 
 call these social conditions involves time, the expen- 
 diture of a great deal of money and the employment 
 of trained persons, and yet is there any other method 
 by which results of value may be had?”’ * 
 
 However, efforts have not been entirely un- 
 productive; in spite of difficulties and limita- 
 tions much accurate statistical information has 
 been obtained, and while I do not affirm that 
 any particular group of figures considered by 
 itself offers conclusive proof that capital pun- 
 ishment is a failure as a deterrent, yet I do 
 maintain that the combined weight of evi- 
 dence presented by the data secured from 
 many independent sources, each corroborating 
 the other, inclines the scale so strongly that the 
 reflective man is bound to conclude that the 
 death penalty has no apparent effect as a de- 
 terrent. This bears out the assertion so often 
 made and which I believe to be true, that the 
 murderer, committing his crime in the heat 
 of passion, gives no thought to the future 
 penalty. 
 
 *‘Most crimes are committed by persons who (1) 
 either expect to evade detection and escape all punish- 
 ment, or (2) who, upon the spur of the moment, are 
 
 t Letter printed in Report of Committee on Law Enforcement, 
 American Bar Association, 1923. 
 
 —_ 
 
22 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 regardless of all punishment, or (3) who are governed 
 by one or more cosmic, social and individual factors 
 which the utmost rigor cannot remove, and which 
 render the prospect or possibility of punishment 
 wholly inoperative at the time of the commission 
 of the crime.”’ * 
 
 During the past thirty-four years nearly sixty 
 percent of all the murderers received in Sing 
 Sing under sentence of death were under the 
 age of mature thinking which scientists place 
 at thirty. They were young men who had not 
 stopped to think of the penalty. 
 
 Capital Punishment as it Exists Today 
 
 Let us consider the actual situation with 
 respect to the imposition of this penalty in the 
 United States today. When we say that 
 capital punishment is the law in forty of our 
 states, which literally is true, we think of it 
 as in general practice and use in those states. 
 Most of us do not realize how infrequently 
 this punishment is actually employed. In 
 thirty-two of these forty states which nomi- 
 nally retain capital punishment on the stat- 
 ute books, the court or the jury has the 
 right to choose between the death penalty 
 and life imprisonment in all cases of convic- 
 
 * Thomas Speed Mosby, Causes and Cure of Crime. 
 
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS IT EXISTS 23 
 
 tion of murder in the first degree. Table I 
 presents the states grouped according to their 
 use of the death penalty together with the 
 changes which have occurred since Mr. Bye 
 in his essay showed the comparative situation 
 in 1918.* It will be observed that four states, 
 one in the middle west, Missouri, and three in 
 the far west, Washington, Oregon and Arizona, 
 have deserted the abolition column. ‘Their 
 re-adoption of the death penalty occurred 
 soon after the close of the war, and was un- 
 doubtedly due partly to its influence, partly 
 to local and temporary conditions which had 
 their effect on public sentiment. As a matter 
 of fact the period of abolition in each case was 
 too short to have presented a fair test; as 
 will be discussed at a later point it appears 
 from such data as I have been able to gather 
 that the restoration of the death penalty had 
 no greater effect as a deterrent, and further that 
 no noticeable increase in homicidal crime 
 occurred during the abolition period (See Table 
 XIII and Chart III). The group of states 
 ~where the choice is exercised has grown since 
 1918, eight states having been added, so that 
 we have left today only eight states where the 
 imposition of death is made absolute upon 
 
 Raymond T. Bye, Capital Punishment in the United States. 
 
24 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 conviction of murder in the first degree. 
 Geographically, the practice of permitting the 
 court or jury to choose between death and life 
 imprisonment is very wide spread, except for 
 that small solid group of reactionary, conser- 
 vative states of which we are the center, 
 Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
 York and Pennsylvania. These states and a 
 few others still cling to the old traditions in 
 this as in so many other lines of progress. 
 
 Choice between Capital Punishment and Life Im- 
 prisonment 
 
 That so many states (80% of those which 
 retain capital punishment) allow the court or 
 jury to select either life imprisonment or the 
 death penalty, is proof of the fact that the 
 sentiment of the vast majority of our people 
 recognizes the existence of a distinction in 
 degree even in premeditated murder; that 
 there are murderers (a great majority if judged 
 by the percentage of those who receive life sen- 
 tences as compared with those who are con- 
 demned to death) who, even in the opinion of 
 its advocates, do not deserve the death penalty. 
 But what man or group of men is qualified to 
 determine the precise point at which this fine 
 line should be drawn; to arrogate to them- 
 
CHOICE OF PUNISHMENT 25 
 
 selves sufficient wisdom to say that this man 
 deserves death for his act, whereas the crime 
 of the next man is not quite so shocking or 
 atrocious, he does not quite deserve to forfeit 
 his life? By what measurement, by what rule 
 is this point of demarcation to be found? 
 
 Let us examine such statistics as are avail- 
 able to see how this choice actually works out. 
 In fifteen states where the choice is permitted 
 and for which statistics are available, during 
 the eight years from 1912 to I9I9 inclusive, 
 there were 1724 persons sentenced either to 
 death or to life imprisonment. Of these, 272 
 received the death penalty, while 1452 were 
 sentenced to life imprisonment. In the five 
 states above mentioned (p. 24), where the 
 death penalty is absolutely retained, during 
 the same period there were 263 sentences to 
 death and 454 sentences to life imprisonment. * 
 Of course, not in all of these cases in the first 
 group was there a direct choice; in both groups 
 many of the sentences to life imprisonment 
 represent convictions for murder in the second 
 degree. But the difference in the ratios is 
 sufficiently impressive to indicate how rarely 
 the death penalty is imposed when there is 
 any opportunity for a choice. In New Jersey 
 
 t Figures compiled from Tables II and IV. 
 
26 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 during the past three years, out of a total of 
 fifty-four first degree murder cases, thirty- 
 nine were sentenced to life imprisonment and 
 only fifteen received the death penalty. 
 Throughout the country as a whole the follow- 
 ing data for the year 1910 are illuminating. 
 Although the death penalty was at that time 
 retained in forty-three states, yet of the nine 
 hundred and fifty odd prisoners who in that 
 year were committed for grave homicide 
 throughout the United States, only 12.2 per- 
 cent received the death penalty.: 
 
 We also find from an examination of the 
 statistics in Tables II, IV and V that there is 
 a slightly higher proportion of sentences, both 
 death and life, to the total number of homi- 
 cides in states where the choice is given than 
 in the states where the absolute penalty pre- 
 vails. In the seven states having the choice, 
 where the figures of homicides are available, 
 and in the five states with the arbitrary death 
 penalty, there were in each group approxi- 
 mately 8700 homicides during the eight years. 
 The seven states were New Hampshire, 
 Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Washington, 
 Utah and California. In these seven states 
 
 t United States Census Bureau. Prisoners and Juvenile De- 
 linquents in the United States. 1910. 
 
CHOICE OF PUNISHMENT 27 
 
 there were 930 sentences of death and life 
 imprisonment combined, a ratio of one sen- 
 tence to every 9.3 homicides. In the other 
 group there were 717 sentences, a ratio of one 
 sentence to every 12 homicides. If we in- 
 clude with the seven states six abolition 
 states (Maine, Rhode Island, Michigan, Wis- 
 consin, Minnesota and Kansas), we find for 
 the period a total of 11,700 homicides, with 
 a total of 1256 sentences, producing again a 
 ratio of one sentence for every 9.3 homicides. 
 These figures in my opinion are reliably indi- 
 cative of a somewhat greater facility in obtain- 
 ing convictions in homicide cases in those 
 states which have abolished the death penalty 
 and in those which permit a choice between 
 the death penalty and life imprisonment than 
 in the ones which cling to the absolute imposi- 
 tion of death. 
 
 It is appropriate at this point to consider 
 what substitute can be offered to take the 
 place of the death penalty. Many have been 
 suggested, but the one which is here proposed 
 in my opinion not only meets those objections 
 which are always raised to the substitution of 
 life imprisonment in place of the death penalty 
 but embodies in itself many inherent advan- 
 tages. 
 
28 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 Upon conviction of murder in the first 
 degree, the defendant shall be sentenced to 
 life imprisonment. 
 
 Prisoners serving life sentences shall receive 
 no time allowance for commutation or com- 
 pensation until commuted to a definite term. 
 
 No prisoner serving a life sentence shall be 
 pardoned or commuted by the Governor until 
 he has served at least twenty years. actual 
 time unless the Court of Appeals shall make 
 an order or decree in which the majority of 
 its members must concur, to the effect that: 
 
 a. Evidence which was not known at the 
 time of the trial or which was not pre- 
 sented to the court or jury creates a 
 probable doubt of the guilt of the 
 accused, or, 
 
 b. Facts or circumstances exist which in 
 the opinion of the Court make a case 
 for executive clemency consideration. 
 
 After a prisoner shall have served twenty 
 years actual time he shall be eligible for pardon 
 or for commutation to a lesser term than life, 
 and if commuted to a definite term of years, 
 may thereafter earn commutation and com- 
 pensation. 
 
 A substantial percentage of the earnings of 
 the prisoner shall be applied to the support of 
 
THE DEATH PENALTY 29 
 
 his dependants and to the support of the de- 
 pendants of the person killed, to be appor- 
 tioned in the discretion of the Superintendent 
 of Prisons. 
 
 Experience with the Death Penalty 
 
 We are now ready to enter upon the second 
 phase of this study—a consideration of actual 
 experience throughout the country, first with 
 respect to the operation of the death penalty 
 and second with respect to life imprisonment. 
 Viewing the country as a whole, what are the 
 ascertainable facts regarding the imposition 
 and execution of the death penalty? In 
 twenty-three of the states where capital 
 punishment is retained on the statute books 
 accurate statistics of sentences and executions 
 have been secured from the wardens of the 
 state prisons (Tables II, V and IX). During 
 the eight years from 1912 to I919 inclusive, 
 there were 722 sentenced to death in these 
 states; of this number 512 were subsequently 
 executed. 29.08% after being sentenced to 
 death escaped payment of the final penalty. 
 In the various states the percentage of those 
 sentenced who were subsequently executed 
 ranges from as low as 35% and 37% in Arizona 
 and Utah to as high as 100% in Delaware and 
 
30 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 New Hampshire. New York with the largest 
 number sentenced, 145, executed only 61%. 
 Having regard to the number of sentences 
 and the percentage of executions, the record of 
 Pennsylvania was the best, 77 sentenced and 
 of these, 75, or 97%, executed. Yet it is sur- 
 prising to learn that the homicide rate of 
 Pennsylvania over the period of eight years 
 was the highest in the North Atlantic group 
 of states. Even more striking is the fact that 
 Pennsylvania and Connecticut combined, exe- 
 cuted 98 out of 103 who were sentenced (95%) 
 and during the period had a combined homi- 
 cide rate of 4.7. Massachusetts and New 
 Jersey combined, executed 42 out of 57 (70%) 
 with a combined homicide rate of 3.75. Com- 
 pare also New York, where 61% of the 145 who 
 were sentenced were executed, with Pennsyl- 
 vania, where 97% of those sentenced were ex- 
 ecuted. The New York homicide rate for the 
 period was 4.6, the Pennsylvania rate, 5.7. 
 
 Massachusetts and New York Compared 
 
 In New York, from 1912 to 1921, inclusive, 
 193 persons were sentenced to death of whom 
 I17 were subsequently executed. In Massa- 
 chusetts during the same period 13 were 
 sentenced to death of whom 10 were executed, 
 
EXECUTIONS AND HOMICIDES 31 
 
 yet Massachusetts had a far lower homicide 
 rate, 2.8, as compared with 4.6 for New York. 
 This in spite of the fact that New York, 
 - approximately two and two-thirds times the 
 size of Massachusetts in population sentenced 
 to death fifteen times as many murderers 
 and executed eleven times as many. (Table 
 III). In these instances we have not only a 
 greater number of convictions and a greater 
 number of sentences in the states with the 
 higher rates but also greater certainty of 
 execution. It cannot be said that failure to 
 carry out the death sentence had any appreci- 
 able influence upon the higher rates 
 
 Executions and Homicides 
 
 These states have been tabulated with 
 reference to their homicide rates and the per- 
 centage of death sentences carried into effect 
 (Table IX); I am unable to trace any con- 
 nection between the proportion of executions 
 to sentences and the relative standing with 
 reference to homicide rates. In those states 
 where figures of homicides are available, I 
 have computed both the proportion of sen- 
 tences and the proportion of executions to 
 each one hundred homicides, dividing the eight 
 years into two periods of four years each. 
 
32. MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 (Tables V and VI). Again it is impossible to 
 trace apparent relation between the homicide 
 rate in any particular state and the existing 
 proportion of sentences and executions per 
 one hundred homicides. Some very striking 
 comparisons exist, however, between different 
 states. Virginia, which has a high homicide 
 rate, executed 4.0 murderers in the first 
 period for each one hundred homicides which 
 occurred, and in the second period, 2.2; where- 
 as Massachusetts, with a homicide rate less 
 than a third the size of Virginia’s executed for 
 every one hundred homicides, 1.5 in the first 
 period and 0.5 in the second. This means 
 that in the second period Massachusetts 
 executed one person for every two hundred 
 homicides, Virginia one for every fifty. In- 
 diana, also with a low homicide rate, in the 
 first period executed less than one person per 
 one hundred homicides, in the second period 
 none. In the case of Vermont and New 
 Hampshire we seem at first glance to observe 
 some relation between executions and the 
 number of homicides, inasmuch as Vermont in 
 the first period executed at the rate of 7.4 
 persons per one hundred homicides and had 
 a very low homicide rate. However, New 
 Hampshire had an equally low rate and exe- 
 
PROPORTION TO HOMICIDES 33 
 
 cuted none in the same period, while in the 
 second period, both rates continuing low, 
 conditions were just the reverse, Vermont 
 executing none and New Hampshire at the 
 rate of 8.0 persons per one hundred homicides. 
 It should be kept in mind that none of these 
 figures are for single years; they cover periods 
 of sufficient length so that if executions had 
 any effect on the homicide rate, such effect 
 would be clearly reflected. 
 
 Death Sentences and Executions, Proportion to Hom- 
 
 icides 
 
 These data have been tabulated in Table VI 
 to show the comparative number of homicides 
 to each individual sentenced to death and to 
 each individual executed. The comparisons 
 range from one out of every nineteen who 
 committed homicide sentenced to death in 
 Vermont, to one out of every one hundred and 
 twenty in Indiana; and from one out of every 
 twenty-eight who committed homicide execut- 
 ed in Vermont to one out of every three 
 hundred in Indiana. A graphic summary is 
 presented in Chart VIII covering the data 
 for twelve states which retain capital pun- 
 ishment and for which homicide statistics are 
 complete. 
 
34 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 I have made calculations for the United 
 States as a whole from homicide statistics 
 for the Registration Area and from returns 
 of death sentences and executions received 
 from the wardens of the various state prisons. 
 During the first period of four years (1912- 
 I915) there were approximately 13,700 homi- 
 cides in the twenty-four states for which 
 statistics are available, seven of which are 
 without capital punishment. This is an 
 average of nearly 3500 per year. During the 
 second period (1916-1919) there were approxi- 
 mately 15,950, an annual average of nearly 
 4000. During the first period there were 
 imposed in the seventeen capital punishment 
 states 227 death sentences, in the second 
 period 256, averaging per year 57 and 64 in the 
 respective periods. The number of these 
 sentences carried into execution were 161 for 
 the first period and 187 for the second, averag- 
 ing per year 40 and 47. The annual averages 
 for the eight years are 3710 homicides, 60 
 sentences of death, 43 of which were carried 
 out. Thus, roughly speaking, one out of every 
 eighty-five committing homicide suffers the 
 extreme penalty. These data secured from 
 entirely different sources tend to corroborate 
 Mr. Bye’s conclusions: 
 
PROPORTION TO HOMICIDES 35 
 
 “Figuring the number of homicides (as based on 
 U.S. mortality statistics) at 7 per 100,000 inhabitants, 
 and taking the population in that year (1917) at 
 100,000,000, there must have been about 7,000 homi- 
 cides in the United States in 1917. That means that 
 only one man in eighty who commits a homicide 
 suffers death for it. Taking the five year average of 
 100 executions annually, it means that for about 
 every 70 homicides one person is hanged or elec- 
 trocuted. . . . These figures render the deterrent 
 argument in favor of capital punishment extremely 
 weak.’’? 
 
 I have said that the murderer rarely considers 
 the penalty. In those rare cases where the 
 future consequences do enter into his mental 
 calculations, he regards himself as almost cer- 
 tain to be one of the eighty-four who escape. 
 
 Then too, it frequently happens that when 
 more than one is involved, the guiltiest man, 
 the one who planned and had most to do with 
 committing the crime is the first to seek aid of 
 the authorities. He trades his information 
 and bargains the lives of his confederates 
 for aid and clemency. And because of the 
 inherent difficulty in securing murder convic- 
 tions, this practice is encouraged by our prose- 
 cuting officers. On the other hand I have 
 known a number of men who have been exe- 
 
 t Capital Punishment in the United States—Raymond T. Bye. 
 
36 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 cuted who were morally and ethically innocent 
 of the crime of murder; they were implicated 
 in a felony in the course of which murder was 
 committed and for this paid the penalty which 
 the law prescribed. 
 
 Efficiency in England and Canada 
 Contrasted with United States 
 
 The British Isles and Canada are often cited 
 as striking examples of countries where the 
 death penalty is a strong deterrent of capital 
 crime. The following facts are quoted from 
 an article on ‘‘Recent Statistics Relating to 
 Crime in Chicago’’ which appeared in the 
 Journal of Criminal Law for November, 1922. 
 
 ‘In Canada in two successive years there were for 
 indictable offenses approximately 20% of acquittals 
 and 80% of convictions, while in Chicago in the same 
 time there were approximately 71% of dismissals or 
 acquittals and only 28 or 29 percent of convictions. 
 These statistics present a challenge to the thoughtful 
 citizen. Has the administration of criminal justice 
 in Chicago become so inefficient or corrupt or both 
 that out of every one hundred felony charges, only 28 
 or 29 result in convictions, whereas in the courts of 
 Canada or in England approximately 75 or 80 out of 
 every one hundred persons tried for similar offenses 
 are found guilty.” 
 
EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED 37 
 
 A comparison of the very accurate English 
 statistics (Tables XXVIII, XXIX, XXX) 
 with our American figures points very con- 
 clusively to the fact that the number of death 
 sentences and the number of executions in 
 proportion to population have little effect in 
 determining the amount of capital crime. We 
 find in England a percentage of death sent- 
 ences carried into execution noticeably lower 
 than in our own country as a whole or in most 
 of the states individually considered. But on 
 the other hand we cannot fail to be impressed 
 with the remarkable certainty with which 
 judicial action follows the commission not 
 only of crimes of murder but of all crimes. 
 
 Part of the English data was secured from 
 the British Home Office and in transmitting 
 it, the Assistant Secretary, Sir Ernley Black- 
 well, comments as follows: 
 
 “The figures should be compared with figures relat- 
 ing to other countries where capital punishment does 
 not exist, and countries where a very large proportion 
 of murders committed do not lead to any arrests 
 being made. The object of the return was really to 
 show how few cases of murder in this country can be 
 classed ‘undiscovered’ murders, that is to say, mur- 
 ders in which the murderer remains undetected and 
 untraced.”’ 
 
38 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 In twelve states of the United States (New 
 Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Con- 
 necticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
 Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Utah and Cali- 
 fornia) during the eight years from 1912 to 
 I919 there were 19,775 homicides, 467 sen- 
 tences to death and 336 executions (Chart 
 VIII). The population of these twelve states 
 for 1920 was forty-two million. In England 
 and Wales during the eight years from 1913 
 to 1920 there were 2174 homicides, 184 sen- 
 tences to death and 99 executions (Table 
 XXIX). The population of England and 
 Wales for I192I was just under thirty-eight 
 million. In the twelve American states with 
 only twelve percent more population, we 
 find nine times as many homicides, in spite of 
 the fact that there were two and a half times 
 as many persons sentenced to death and three 
 and a half times as many executed. In the 
 United States 71.9% of death sentences were 
 carried into execution; in England and Wales 
 53-7% of those sentenced were subsequently 
 executed. 
 
 In New York State with a population of ten 
 and a half million during the ten years from 
 I9I12 to 1921, there were 4626 homicides, 
 193 sentences to death and 117 executions. 
 
EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED 39 
 
 In England and Wales during the same period 
 there were 2668 homicides, 231 sentences to 
 death and 125 executions. There were thus 
 almost as many death sentences and execu- 
 tions in New York as in England and Wales, 
 yet with a population only about a quarter 
 the size, there were 75% more homicides. In 
 New York State 60.6% of death sentences were 
 carried out; in England and Wales only 53.7%. 
 
 The efficiency and accuracy of English 
 police methods are proverbial. Statistics 
 show that during ten years in England and 
 Wales there were 1491 murder crimes known 
 to the police (Table XXIX). The number of 
 persons actually tried for murder with respect 
 to these crimes was 548, of whom 237 were 
 convicted, and 231 were sentenced to death. 
 In New York County during five years ending 
 June 30, 1923 there were 303 indictments for 
 murder in the first degree and 12 convictions. 
 In Kings County for four years ending June 
 30, 1923 there were 136 indictments and 15 
 convictions. 
 
 I have read with great interest a document 
 published by the English Government and 
 secured through the British Library of Infor- 
 mation in New York—The Annual Report of 
 Judicial Statistics for England and Wales. 
 
40 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 Its careful perusal and study by all who are 
 interested in the attempt to secure more 
 complete and accurate data in this country is 
 well worth while. Thestatistics on this and the 
 next pagehavebeen taken from this document— 
 a striking commentary on the efficiency of the 
 administration of criminal law in England. 
 
 In the year 1921 there were 8,934 persons 
 for trial in the chief criminal courts of Eng- 
 land and Wales. 1,712 were acquitted, 57 
 were found insane either on arraignment or by 
 verdict, and in 13 cases there was no prose- 
 cution. The remainder, 7,152, were convicted. 
 Of those convicted, 5,243 were sentenced to 
 imprisonment, penal servitude or death (13 
 to death). 1,745 were placed on probation 
 or in Borstal Institutions and 164 were other- 
 wise disposed of. (Table XXX). 
 
 In the courts of Summary Jurisdiction 
 where minor offenses are disposed of, 576,139 
 persons were tried, of whom 447,827 were 
 convicted. With this very high percentage 
 of convictions there were only 80 appeals in 
 the Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions, 
 the chief criminal courts (in 31 cases judgment 
 was affirmed and in 49 cases conviction was 
 quashed, including 30 in which other sentences 
 were substituted) and 280 appeals from con- 
 
EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED = 4 
 
 victions in the minor courts. This is a re- 
 markable testimonial to the efficiency of the 
 police methods and of the judicial machinery. 
 
 The following statistics of murder prosecu- 
 tions offer still further evidence of this effi- 
 
 ciency. 
 Annual Annual Year 
 Average Average 1921 
 IgI2-16 =I9I7-2I1 
 
 Crimes (indictable offenses) 
 
 of murder known to police. . 92 99 go 
 Persons tried for murder..... 57 68 63 
 Proportion per 100,000 pop... 0.15 0.18 0.17 
 Of the total number on trial for murder (1921)....... 63 
 There were found guilty on arraignment........... yi 
 PR RICtR ERT et elra ye ee ci, ay araly ain’ 4 lary Maw Biel's 27 
 Special verdict, guilty but insane............5.... 14 
 UME EMEA ET IN a a aw hls Saha pial a a ye la aia cack bee HG 13 
 Meare SWC SOOSEE TIL Ly hk AA oe ke tinleee ee ees 2 
 
 Of the 13 persons sentenced to death, 8 were commuted to 
 penal servitude for life. 
 
 French Statistics| 
 
 Table XXXI is a compilation of statistics 
 furnished by the French Ministry of Foreign 
 Affairs. These statistics are noteworthy in 
 that they disclose on the one hand, a very high 
 number of indictments in proportion to homi- 
 cide, a large proportion of those indicted 
 brought to trial and convicted, and on the 
 other hand a very small proportionate number 
 
42 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 of death sentences and of executions. Inthe 
 four years, 1913, 1919, 1920 and 1921, there 
 were 5719 homicides but only 154 sentences to 
 death, of whom 48 (31%) were subsequently 
 executed. In spite of the small number of 
 death sentences and of the large proportion of 
 those sentenced who failed to be executed, 
 France had a low homicide rate as compared 
 with the United States. We see in France 
 another example of a country with capital 
 punishment, with a low homicide rate, in 
 which very few murder trials result in death 
 sentences and in which a small percentage of 
 death sentences are subsequently carried into 
 execution. In many of our own states with 
 homicide rates twice the size of France’s we 
 find far higher proportions of death sentences 
 to homicides and far greater certainty of 
 execution. 
 
 My own opinion, which is borne out by sta- 
 tistics, is that the comparatively small num- 
 ber of homicides in Canada and England and in 
 France is due to the accuracy, the certainty and 
 the celerity of justice as administered in those 
 countries rather than to the form or severity 
 of the punishment. We cannot avoid the 
 conclusion that the sureness of detection, 
 reflected in the number of prosecutions in 
 
EFFICIENCY CONTRASTED 43 
 
 proportion to crimes, the certainty of punish- 
 ment reflected in the number of convictions, 
 the celerity and accuracy of punishment, re- 
 flected in the few appeals, are the determining 
 factors in the very low proportion of homicidal 
 and other crimes rather than the severity of 
 the punishment which is meted out. The 
 deterrent effect of a law seems not to depend 
 on the ugliness of its threat. 
 
 In Kings County from July Ist, 1919 to 
 June 30th, 1923 for the crimes of Assault, 
 Manslaughter, Murder, Robbery, Burglary 
 and Larceny in the various degrees there was 
 a total of five thousand seven hundred and 
 fifteen indictments. The number who pleaded 
 guilty to, or were convicted of, the crime as 
 charged in the indictment, was eight hundred 
 and ninety-one. In New York County for 
 the same crimes and for the period from June 
 30, 1918 to June 30, 1923 there was a total of 
 fourteen thousand five hundred and eighty- 
 nine indictments from which there resulted 
 twelve hundred and ninety-eight convictions 
 after trial and fifty-one hundred and eighty- 
 six convictions on pleas of guilty. These 
 figures of convictions in New York County 
 include convictions in lesser degree than the 
 offense charged in the indictment so that no 
 
44 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 comparison can be drawn between the twa 
 counties. 
 
 The statistics in Table XIX were secured 
 as a result of correspondence with the Attor- 
 neys General and other state officials and so 
 far as they go are probably accurate. 
 
 New York State Statistics of Death Sentences 
 
 I have no doubt that many persons will be 
 surprised to learn that in our own state, since 
 1889, a trifle more than one-third (34.9%) of 
 all prisoners who were sentenced to death 
 escaped being executed. From the prison 
 records in the state I have made tabulations 
 as to the age, the nativity and the subsequent 
 disposition of these prisoners. From Decem- 
 ber, 1889 up to October, 1923, four hundred and 
 fifty-eight persons have been sentenced to 
 death in this state. Of these, two hundred and 
 ninety-eight, or just under 66% were executed 
 and sixteen are now in prison (October 1923) 
 awaiting execution. 
 
 A very suggestive fact is that one hundred 
 and twenty-seven of these prisoners were 
 born in Italy. This is especially significant 
 in view of the very low homicide rate in Italy 
 where capital punishment has been abolished 
 for more than thirty years. Two hundred 
 
LIFE IMPRISONMENT STATISTICS 45 
 
 and sixteen, or not quite one-half of these 
 prisoners were native born; twenty-five were 
 Germans, fifteen were Russians and the 
 remainder were divided among twenty-four 
 nationalities. As to age, the greatest number 
 were between twenty-one and twenty-five, 
 27% being included in that group. Not 
 quite 8% were twenty years or under and 55% 
 were thirty or under. A complete tabulation 
 of this data for the state as a whole is appended 
 in Table VII. 
 
 Life Imprisonment Statistics 
 
 In a comprehensive and scientific study of 
 capital punishment it is most important that 
 we should know all that is possible with regard 
 to the life sentence which at present is the 
 only substitute for the death penalty. Be- 
 cause it is axiomatic that we should not 
 abandon the execution of murderers unless 
 we are satisfied that society can be protected 
 at least as well, if indeed not better, by some 
 other method. The reformation of the crim- 
 inal is most important, but it is secondary in 
 importance to the safety and security of 
 society. I know that a strong impression 
 prevails that life sentences mean little—that 
 the majority of “‘ Lifers, ’’ so-called, are released 
 
46 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 after serving comparatively short terms in 
 prison either through executive clemency or 
 by court action. 
 
 I have been able to secure data from a 
 large majority of the states pertaining to 
 all prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment 
 during the years 1912 to I919 inclusive, 
 showing their status on January I, 1923. 
 A questionnaire was sent to the warden 
 of each state prison throughout the United 
 States requesting a statement of the number 
 of persons sentenced to life imprisonment 
 during these eight years and showing as of 
 January I, 1923, the number who had died 
 or been declared insane, the number com- 
 muted, released, or discharged by the courts, 
 and the number who were still in prison on 
 that day. Comprehensive answers were re- 
 ceived from three-quarters of our states and 
 this information has been tabulated in Tables 
 IV and IX. In these tables there has been 
 computed for each state the percentage of the 
 total number sentenced to life imprisonment 
 during the period, who were commuted, dis- 
 charged or otherwise released, and wherever 
 the homicide rate statistics were available, 
 these have also been given for the eight years 
 under consideration. 
 
STATISTICS FOR NEW YORK STATE 47 
 
 An examination of Table IV reveals the fact 
 that for the states which have complete statis- 
 tics there was a total of 2936 persons sen- 
 tenced to life imprisonment during the eight 
 years, and that of this entire number only 651 
 had been released by pardon, commutation 
 or court action on January Ist, 1923. (See 
 also Chart VII.) In other words, 77% of 
 these prisoners were still serving their sen- 
 tences or had died or become insane. A con- 
 trast between the number of life prisoners 
 released and the number of death sentences 
 which failed of execution is presented by Table 
 IX and Charts VI and VII. 29% of death 
 sentences failed of execution; 23% of life 
 prisoners were released. 
 
 Statistics for New York State 
 
 I have made a separate tabulation of similar 
 data for New York State. (Table VIII.) Ido 
 not know of any attempt to collect these 
 data for my own state although their value in 
 the study of this problem is obvious. Dur- 
 ing the eight years from I912 to 1919, inclu- 
 sive, there were received in the New York 
 State Prisons under sentence of twenty years 
 to life, or life imprisonment commuted from 
 death, a total of 282 prisoners. Of these, 
 
48 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 there were still in prison on January Ist, 
 1923, 192, or 68.09%. Only 29 (10.29%) had 
 been released by commutation or pardon 
 and 9 (3.19%) by reversal of judgment. 
 86.15% of the total number received were 
 either in prison on the date mentioned or had 
 died or become insane and were inmates of 
 the Hospital for Criminal Insane. The num- 
 ber of prisoners under sentence of life or 
 twenty years to life who have become insane © 
 is astonishingly large. In New York during 
 the period of eight years more prisoners of 
 this class were declared insane than were 
 commuted or pardoned. (11.32% declared 
 insane, 10.29% commuted or pardoned). Not 
 only is this true of this class, but many mur- 
 derers have been executed who were medically, 
 if not legally insane. ‘There are many border 
 line cases—men who, if they had not com- 
 mitted the particular crime, if they had re- 
 mained in the outside population would sooner 
 or later have been committed to insane 
 institutions. Murderers may be divided 
 roughly into two groups. First, the usually 
 normal, dependable type, who in a moment 
 of great mental stress commit the crime 
 and who are, except for that one moment 
 of their lives, normal individuals. Second, 
 
CONTROL OF LIFE PRISONERS = 49 
 
 the abnormal type, including those really 
 insane, the border line cases, the defectives 
 and moral delinquents and those with low 
 mental development. Many of these latter 
 have a mentality as low as that of a six year old 
 child. These are the ones, without friends and 
 without money, that usually go to the electric 
 chair. 
 
 Control of Life Prisoners 
 
 So far as the control of these prisoners in 
 the prison is concerned I believe that nearly 
 all wardens are united in agreeing that as a 
 group they constitute the most reliable and 
 dependable men in the institution. Ina great 
 majority of cases the murderer is not a crim- 
 inal in his nature as we ordinarily understand 
 this term. Given places of trust and respon- 
 sibility, as they often are, these men invariably 
 make good. This is confirmed by Sir Basil 
 Thompson of Scotland Yard, who says: 
 
 “You have to be in charge of a prison in order to 
 realize that the murderer is rarely a criminal by na- 
 ture. But for the Grace of God he is just you or I, 
 only more unlucky. The murderer is repentant and 
 is thinking only how he can earn an honest living after 
 he is discharged; the others are thinking out schemes 
 of fresh adventure.”’ 
 
50 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 To the same effect is the testimony of Pro- 
 fessor L. N. Robinson in his book, Penology 
 an the United States. An editorial in the 
 Ottawa Citizen last summer, referring to the 
 action of Governor Donahay of Ohio in taking 
 two life convicts with him on a fishing trip is 
 equally illuminating: 
 
 “‘It should serve as a needed object lesson to those 
 Canadians whose faith in modern prison methods has 
 perhaps been somewhat shaken by the recent Rogers | 
 episode. The fact that the Governor was willing to 
 trust himself and his two sons in the company of two 
 convicts serving terms for capital offenses is illustra- 
 tive of the great advance in the attitude of vested 
 authority towards its charges . . . the Governor’s 
 words, ‘We never have any trouble with these men; 
 we trust them as ourselves, and in this way many 
 such men have risen from the depths’ explains the 
 success of his system.”’ 
 
 When we analyze the records of the men 
 convicted of murder we become impressed by 
 the preponderance of those who were never 
 before convicted of any crime. In Sing Sing 
 during six recent consecutive years, 124 men 
 were received under death sentence. Of these, 
 89 (71.8%) had never before been convicted 
 of crime. 35 (28.2%) had records of previous 
 convictions. Very nearly three out of every 
 
CONTROL OF LIFE PRISONERS © 51 
 
 four had committed the crime of murder as a 
 first offense. During five recent consecutive 
 years, 180 inmates of Sing Sing who had been 
 convicted for various degrees of homicide, 
 were paroled after serving the minimum terms 
 of their sentences. Of these 180 men only 
 3 were brought back for violation of parole, 
 and in these 3 cases the violations were minor 
 ones and the men were compelled to serve 
 only a few additional months. This is truly a 
 remarkable record. During the past twenty 
 years I have personally known a great many 
 men who have been commuted from death to 
 life imprisonment. There is a considerable 
 group in Sing Sing today, and without ex- 
 ception they are quiet, dependable, trust- 
 worthy. Many are in places of responsibility 
 and except for that one deed they are in every 
 way fitted and worthy to be normal and useful 
 members of society. 
 
 There is however an aspect to the problem 
 which must receive serious consideration— 
 I mean the danger of a prisoner under sentence 
 of life imprisonment committing another mur- 
 der in the prison. I have no doubt that in 
 some states, in some institutions, it may be 
 considered necessary to retain the death pen- 
 alty in order to restrain the commission of 
 
52 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 such crimes. Under the theory that the state 
 may use what means are necessary, and no 
 more, to protect society, we may, perhaps, justi- 
 fy execution for the murderer who commits 
 another murder in prison—for the “born 
 killer’? type. But these are few in number. 
 One warden in an abolition state writes me: 
 
 “We have at this time twenty-two lifers in this 
 institution and I am free to state that with the excep- 
 tion of two they have the best records in the prison 
 and give us the least trouble. The two serving life 
 terms who are unmanageable are classified as crimin- 
 ally insane, and of course, for this reason the fact 
 that their lives would be taken if they took a life 
 would not prevent them from doing so.” 
 
 There is disagreement among wardens who 
 favor abolition generally, on this particular 
 question and it is undoubtedly debatable 
 eround. Sufficient data are not available to 
 establish a really definite conclusion. 
 However, if the punishment for first degree 
 murder which I have outlined (p. 28) was in- 
 corporated in the law, I believe this problem 
 would not be presented and there would be 
 no difficulty in controlling the murderer in 
 prison. There would always exist the possi- 
 bility of commutation after twenty years’ con- 
 finement which would certainly be lost if 
 
LYNCHING 53 
 
 another murder was committed. I do not 
 believe the death penalty is any more of 
 a deterrent to the man in prison serving a 
 life sentence than it is to those outside of 
 prison. To the “born killer’? type no de- 
 terrent is effective. They present ‘the same 
 problem as the dangerous insane and should 
 be controlled in the same manner. 
 
 Lynching 
 
 A presentation of the case against capital 
 punishment should include at least a brief 
 discussion of the effect of the death penalty 
 upon lynchings. This topic has been very 
 exhaustively treated by Mr. Bye in his 
 essay and I cannot do better than to quote 
 a few of his pertinent findings as to the 
 facts and the conclusions to be drawn from 
 them. He shows that in the twenty-eight 
 years covered by the statistics, the five states 
 that were without capital punishment during 
 that period had a total of 26 lynchings, 20 of 
 which were in Kansas. Maine and Rhode 
 Island had none, Michigan 4 and Wisconsin 2. 
 Minnesota, which abolished capital punish- 
 ment in 1911 had 4 in the pre-abolition period, 
 none afterward. He presents a table showing 
 the number of lynchings for each state during 
 
54 MAN'S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 the whole period, which it is not necessary to 
 quote in detail. Healso presents a table giving 
 the fifteen states which legally executed the 
 greatest number of criminals during the 
 twenty-eight years and points out the fact 
 that included in this list of fifteen states are 
 all but one of the ten states having the greatest 
 number of lynchings to their discredit. Very 
 much to the point he asks this question: 
 
 “Tf capital punishment is the remedy to keep down 
 the number of lynchings, it may pertinently be 
 asked, why is it that the very states which use it the 
 most have the greatest number of lynchings?”’ 
 
 He sums up the whole question of lynchings as 
 affected by capital punishment with this very 
 sane and well-substantiated logical conclu- 
 sion: 
 
 ‘“‘It has been established, then, that the theory that 
 capital punishment is necessary to prevent the popular 
 demand for stern punishment of certain classes of 
 offenders from breaking out into lynch law has but a 
 limited application, if any. While the prevalence of 
 lynchings in some parts of the country does appear 
 to indicate a belief in retributive justice on the part 
 of the people, it seems to be found only in unstable 
 societies where frontier conditions prevail, or where 
 racial mixtures create a pressing social problem. 
 Practically only the latter of these causes is operative 
 
GENERAL DEDUCTIONS 55 
 
 today in this country. Lynching, therefore, is con- 
 fined mainly to the Southern states and rests largely 
 on race prejudice. In other parts of the country the 
 abolition of capital punishment has resulted in no 
 increase in lynchings. In the south the death penalty 
 is used more than anywhere else in the United States, 
 yet lynchings have prevailed there to an alarming 
 degree. If there is any validity in the theory that 
 capital punishment prevents lynchings, it has not 
 appeared so here, and it is evident—particularly in 
 view of the trivial nature of the offenses for which 
 many lynchings take place—that if it is to do so it 
 must be used far more extensively than it is at present. 
 It is at least possible that a more certain administra- 
 tion of the criminal law will be as effective in this 
 direction as a more vigorous use of punishment by 
 death. Furthermore, the extension of the death 
 penalty which the theory logically entails is contrary 
 to the trend of evolution and is not likely to take 
 place. Lynchings are decreasing rapidly in frequency, 
 and the problem is apparently solving itself. The 
 lynching argument, therefore, need not stand in the 
 way of the eventual abolition of capital punishment.” 
 
 General Deductions as to Application 
 
 From the foregoing data I believe that at 
 this point we may safely draw a few general 
 conclusions regarding the application of the 
 death penalty. 
 
 First. The death sentence is spasmodic 
 and uncertain in its application. No other 
 
56 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 punishment lacks to so marked a degree that 
 most important of all elements, certainty of 
 execution. 
 
 SECOND. In states where any choice is 
 permitted juries and even courts are loath to 
 impose the extreme penalty of death. While 
 it remains on the statute books, it becomes 
 in practice what has so been aptly termed a 
 vestigial remnant. | 
 
 TuirD. Life imprisonment is not so un- 
 certain as it has been or is popularly supposed 
 to be, nor is it so difficult of application. It 
 presents the opportunity for individualization 
 of treatment which is a very necessary element 
 in any system of punishment. 
 
 FourtTH. There is a somewhat greater 
 facility in obtaining convictions for homicide 
 in abolition states and in those which permit 
 a choice between life imprisonment and 
 the death penalty, than in the states which 
 arbitrarily impose death. 
 
 Opinions of Penological Experts 
 
 It is appropriate at this point to examine 
 the attitude and opinions of men throughout . 
 the country who have given consideration to 
 this problem because of close contact with it 
 in all its phases. Ex-Governor Davis of Ohio, 
 
OPINIONS OF PENOLOGICAL EXPERTS 57 
 
 a thoughtful writer on capital punishment, 
 says: 
 
 “Because of the practical obstacles in the way of 
 a universal application of the death penalty in all 
 murder cases or even to all genuinely first degree 
 cases, the certain taking away of the criminal’s 
 freedom for life, with an unavoidable minimum of 
 twenty years, would serve as a much more effective 
 warning to a potential murderer susceptible to any 
 kind of warning, than does the mere spasmodic and 
 unequal application of the death penalty as now in 
 operation.’’* 
 
 And Professor Bye, in his essay, Capital 
 Punishment in the United States, well char- 
 acterizes our use of this means of punishment: 
 
 “The death penalty today is a mere remnant, a 
 left-over from the days when the repressive theory of 
 criminology held sway—a vestigial organ which has 
 ceased to function from lack of exercise. It is too 
 rarely used to prove a very efficacious deterrent, yet 
 its occasional use renders it a ridiculous and pur- 
 poseless outrage. For as it is now applied, the death 
 penalty is nothing but an arbitrary discrimination 
 against an occasional victim. It cannot even be 
 said that it is reserved as a weapon of retributive 
 justice for the most atrocious criminals. . 
 
 “Waiving, then, the doubtful question as to whether 
 deterrence is at all a proper object of punishment, the 
 facts and reasoning presented clearly lead to the con- 
 
 tHarry L. Davis, Death by Law. 
 
58 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 clusion that the death penalty is not to be defended 
 on the grounds of its deterrent effect. While death is 
 probably as much feared by most men as any punish- 
 ment, some are of such callous nature that they can 
 never be restrained from crime by the threat of the 
 gallows. Murders in particular are apt to be com- 
 mitted under circumstances which preclude or out- 
 weigh the thought of the prospective punishment. 
 Moreover, criminals expect to escape the full penalty 
 of the law. | 
 
 ‘‘Granted that if death were certain to be meted out 
 to every murderer few would be so foolhardy or callous 
 as to incur it, the fact remains it is in practice seldom 
 applied. . . . Reprieves, retrials, commutations and 
 pardons have become so general that few suffer death 
 even after conviction. Statistics show that legal 
 executions have become so rare, in fact, that it is 
 absurd to attribute much deterrent effect to capital 
 punishment as at present applied. It has become in 
 practice a discriminatory persecution retained from 
 a warped sense of justice resting in revenge, and 
 from sheer inertia of conservatism.”’ 
 
 Men of prominence in public life, students 
 of criminology through wide experience, those 
 who ponder deeply on these problems and 
 who in life and practice come into close con- 
 tact with them, are coming more and more to 
 this belief. 
 
 The judgment of the Wardens of our prisons 
 as practical men, not as theorists, is entitled 
 
OPINIONS OF PENOLOGICAL EXPERTS 59 
 
 to weight. Asa result of correspondence,’ I 
 have been able to secure opinions on the sub- 
 ject of capital punishment from nearly fifty 
 of the Wardens throughout the country. Of 
 these, seventeen have expressed their verdict 
 against the death penalty; twenty-three are 
 in favor of it and seven give qualified expres- 
 sions of opinion about evenly divided for and 
 against. If so many of these men who are 
 in closest possible contact with actual con- 
 ditions have lost faith in the efficacy of the 
 death penalty as a deterrent of crime, is it 
 not time that men and women everywhere 
 who have vision should weigh the evidence and 
 reflect upon the problem without prejudice? 
 To the Governor of a state the infliction 
 of the death penalty is a matter of very grave 
 concern. It is to him that the last appeal is 
 made, and in consequence, the conscientious 
 man devotes grave consideration to this prob- 
 lem. In the course of personal correspondence 
 with a number of our state executives I have 
 secured many interesting and forceful expres- 
 - gions of opinion. These, together with other 
 opinions and statements have been gathered 
 in Appendix B. I realize of course, that for 
 every opinion against capital punishment one 
 equally strong in its favor may be secured, 
 
60 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 and that in a discussion of this character the 
 scales cannot be tipped either way by weight of 
 opinion alone. However, it is always interest- 
 ing and often constructive to know what others 
 think about any controversy and particularly 
 to know the ideas and ideals of persons who 
 are especially qualified to judge by experience, 
 by training, by close contact and observation. 
 
 Personal Opinion 
 
 My own conviction against capital punish- 
 ment is based upon personal experience of 
 twenty years, upon contact with hundreds of 
 murderers whom I have known and with whom 
 I have talked in very solemn moments, upon 
 close observation of what we choose to call 
 “legal execution.”’ I have seen many men die 
 in the electric chair.~.Under our laws the court 
 sentences the murderer to die ‘‘during the 
 week beginning . . .”’ The actual day and 
 the hour within the week is my responsibility 
 to fix. J alone determine the exact moment 
 when that life shall be extinguished.» I always 
 wonder afterward whether the world is any 
 better off; whether what has been done in the 
 name of the law is consistent with the spirit 
 of religion, consistent with the right progress 
 of civilization. 
 
FACTS JUSTIFYING OPINIONS 61 
 
 Facts Justifying Opinions 
 
 The question now presents itself, how far 
 are these men, how far am I justified in these 
 conclusions by the facts? To answer this 
 question we must review some of these facts 
 as they are indicated by the use of the homi- 
 cide rate as a barometer. 
 
 From statistics furnished by the United 
 states Census Bureau showing the death rate 
 from homicides per one hundred thousand 
 population for the years 1911 to 1921, inclusive, 
 for all states in the Registration Area, I have 
 prepared a series of tables to exemplify a 
 comparison of the combined average homicide 
 rates in various groups of abolition and capital 
 punishment states. For the purpose of this 
 comparison these states have been grouped 
 according to geographical divisions. In the 
 North Atlantic Division are included nine 
 states. Two of these, Maine and Rhode 
 Island, have long since abolished capital 
 punishment; the other seven all retain the 
 death penalty. In the Central Division, 
 ~ Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas and Minnesota 
 are the abolition states. Missouri tried the 
 experiment in 1917 but restored the death 
 penalty two years later. In the Western 
 Division, Washington abolished capital pun- 
 
62 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 ishment in I913 to restore it again in I9QI9Q. 
 Oregon abolished it in 1914 to restore it again 
 in 1920. Restoration in these three states is 
 undoubtedly to be attributed to the after 
 effects of the war and to the generally dis- 
 turbed and unsettled economic conditions 
 which ensued. In neither state does there 
 appear to have been an increase in the num- 
 ber of murders as reflected in the homicide 
 rates which justified public sentiment in de- 
 manding restoration. Oregon is not used in 
 the comparison tables as the homicide figures 
 of that state are available for four years only. 
 
 Table X sets forth the combined averages 
 in the North Atlantic Division. It will be 
 observed that the combined average rates in 
 the abolition states are in general lower than 
 in the capital punishment states. The first 
 column of rates shows the combined averages 
 for the two abolition states, Maine and Rhode 
 Island; the second column shows the combined 
 averages for the two states which are similar 
 in population, conditions of industry and 
 general characteristics, New Hampshire and 
 Connecticut. During the first six years of the 
 comparison the rate in the abolition states 
 is slightly higher, but after 1912 except for the 
 two years 1916 and 1921 it remains consistent- 
 
FACTS JUSTIFYING OPINIONS = 63 
 
 ly below the rate in the capital punishment 
 group. The third column gives the combined 
 average rate for all states in this group which 
 retain the death penalty. This rate is higher 
 throughout but does not present so fair a basis 
 of comparison. The combined average rate 
 over the whole period for the seven states 
 which retain capital punishment is 3.46 as 
 compared with the rate of Maine and Rhode 
 Island at 2.49. The rate for the two com- 
 parable states, New Hampshire and Con- 
 necticut, is just a fraction over 2.5. 
 
 Table XI presents a comparison of the 
 combined average rate for Michigan and 
 Minnesota, abolition states, with that of Ohio 
 and Indiana where the death penalty is re- 
 tained. The Wisconsin rate has not been used 
 for purposes of comparison, although lower 
 than that of any other state in this group. 
 The four states selected are more comparable 
 in general character both as to population and 
 industrial conditions. Kansas was omitted 
 because the figures were not complete, and 
 _ Missouri on account of the fact that abolition 
 was tried for two years only making a com- 
 parison over the whole period impossible. It 
 will be observed that the average rate in the 
 two abolition states is lower throughout. The 
 
64 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 combined average rate for the whole period 
 for Michigan and Minnesota is 3.8 as com- 
 pared with 6.3 for Ohio and Indiana. 
 
 Table XII presents a comparison of the 
 rate for Washington, the only state in the 
 Western Division which tried abolition and 
 which has complete figures for the period, 
 with the combined rates for Montana, Utah, 
 Colorado and California. It should be kept 
 in mind that capital punishment was restored 
 in Washington in 1919. The average rate 
 for Washington for the entire period was 
 6.6; the combined average rate for the four 
 capital punishment states was 9.7. 
 
 Table XIV presents a comparison of the 
 combined average rates for five abolition 
 states (Maine, Rhode Island, Michigan, Kan- 
 sas and Minnesota) contrasted with the com- 
 bined average rates for five states comparable 
 in geographical location, character of popula- 
 tion and industrial conditions, which have 
 capital punishment. It is perhaps as com- 
 prehensively accurate a comparison as can be 
 made considering available homicide statis- 
 tics, and reveals to a very striking degree the 
 fact that there are less homicides in the aboli- 
 tion states than in those which cling to capital 
 punishment. 
 
HOMICIDE RATE CHARTS 65 
 
 Homicide Rate Charts 
 
 These combined average rates have also 
 been plotted on charts. (Charts I, IT, ITI, and 
 IV). The broken black line represents the 
 variations from year to year in the combined 
 average rate in the abolition states. The solid 
 black line represents the variation for the 
 capital punishment states. A striking simi- 
 larity in the variation of the two curves will 
 be noticed. This is particularly true in the 
 Central and Western Divisions and is also 
 characteristic of the Eastern. It is also strik- 
 ingly true in the comparison of the combined 
 rates of the six abolition states with the rate 
 for the whole Registration Area. (Chart IV). 
 The fact that this variation occurs with con- 
 siderable coincidence in each group indicates 
 that the increase and decrease from one year 
 to another in the number of homicides is due 
 to general economic or sociological causes 
 rather than to the nature of the penalty im- 
 posed for murder. Crime comes in waves 
 like the rising and falling of the tide, waves 
 that are coincident with periods of unrest, 
 with panics, with disturbances of capital 
 and labor, with war. Homicides vary 
 just as other crimes vary and for the same 
 reasons. 
 
66 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 “When it is realized and fairly acknowledged that 
 the taking of human life is to some extent an incident 
 in the grouping of people in large communities and 
 happens regardless of the penalty to be visited upon 
 the offender we will have approached very near to the 
 point where the propriety of the extreme penalty can 
 be sanely and judicially determined.” * 
 
 Further light is thrown on the question of 
 the effect of the abolishment of capital punish- 
 ment by a study of homicide rates in four 
 abolition states of comparatively recent dates, 
 in three of which capital punishment was later 
 restored. Table XIII shows the rates for the 
 three states, Washington, Oregon and Missouri 
 and for Minnesota where it has been abolished 
 since 1911. (See also Chart III.) These figures 
 donot indicate any increase in the number of 
 homicides due to abolition; in fact they indi- 
 cate quite the reverse. In Washington in 1914, 
 the first year after abolition, there was an 
 increase in the rate from 6.5 to 10.0, but 
 thereafter occurred a regular annual decrease 
 to 4.2. ‘This was the rate in 1918 the year 
 before restoration. After restoration in 1919, 
 1920 and 1921 the rates were 7.5, 5.1 and 5.9. 
 In Minnesota there has been no increase since 
 IQII, the year of abolition, except in two years. 
 
 t James J. Barbour, ‘‘The Death Penalty.’”? Journal of Crim- 
 tnal Law. February, 1919. 
 
HOMICIDE RATE CHARTS 67 
 
 The Minnesota rate for this whole period 
 shows, in fact, very little variation, ranging 
 from 2.8 to 3.4 except for the two years men- 
 tioned. In Oregon, figures are available for 
 four years only but the rate shows a decided 
 increase since the restoration of capital punish- 
 ment. In Missouri, abolition was tried for so 
 short a period that it probably had little 
 effect on the homicide rate. 
 
 By an examination of the chart of the rates 
 in three states where capital punishment was 
 abolished a few years before the war, in two 
 of which it was later restored largely because 
 of popularreaction following the war (Chart ITT) 
 we can discern concrete evidence of instances in 
 which generally prevalent sociological and eco- 
 nomic conditions were assumed by popular 
 sentiment to be local conditions brought about 
 by the abolition of the death penalty. The 
 increases in the number of homicides in 1919 in 
 Oregon and Washington were locally attributed 
 to the fact that the death penalty was no longer 
 a bogie to deter the murderer and as a result, 
 
 capital punishment was restored. Governor 
 Davis referring to these instances says: 
 
 “Evidence indicates that when the universally 
 noted increase in crime began to make itself evident 
 in these states, by a corresponding rise in the number 
 
68 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 of murders, it was immediately attributed to the ab- 
 sence of capital punishment, though in fact, other 
 states where the death penalty was in operation were 
 going through identically the same experience.’’* 
 
 The chart shows, however, very plainly that 
 this increase was part of a general trend. The 
 combined rates in the four capital punishment 
 states, Colorado, California, Utah and Mon- 
 tana, increased as did the rate in Minnesota. 
 We also find the same upward curve in both | 
 groups in the North Atlantic Division, in the 
 capital punishment group in the North Central 
 Division, and in the combined rate for the 
 whole Registration Area of the United States. 
 In other words what people in these two states 
 hastily and unthinkingly assumed to be an 
 increase in the number of murders, due to the 
 absence of the death penalty—an assumption 
 upon which the successful campaign for restor- 
 ation of capital punishment was based—was 
 part of a general trend extending throughout 
 the United States. 
 
 Homicide Rates by States 
 
 A further interesting presentation of the 
 low homicide rates in the abolition states is 
 contained in Tables XVI, XVII and XVIII. 
 
 t Harry L. Davis, Death by Law. 
 
HOMICIDE RATES BY STATES ~ 69 
 
 These give in detail the rates for the years 
 1912 to 1921, inclusive, for all Registration 
 States grouped by geographical divisions, 
 together with: the relative position of each 
 state in its respective group in each year. It 
 will be observed that although the homicide 
 rates vary from year to year, there is little 
 variation in the relative position of the states. 
 For instance, in the North Atlantic Division, 
 Maine is first four times, second three times 
 and third three times, while Pennsylvania, at 
 the bottom of the group, is ninth nine times 
 and eighth once. In the Central Division, 
 Wisconsin is first throughout the period and 
 the three abolition states, Wisconsin, Michi- 
 gan and Minnesota are either first, second or 
 third in every instance except one. This cog- 
 nation again indicates as a cause of the homi- 
 cide variation something other than the na- 
 ture of the penalty. 
 
 The averages over the whole period are 
 illuminating. Maine, an abolition state, has 
 for the period of ten years the lowest homicide 
 rate in the country, 1.8. New Hampshire 
 and Vermont where capital punishment is 
 retained are a fraction higher, each having 
 arate of 1.98. Rhode Island, also an abolition 
 state, with a rate of 3.1 compares with Massa- 
 
70 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 chusetts and Connecticut at 2.88 and 3.69 
 respectively. The figure for Rhode Island is 
 significant in view of the fact that nearly one- 
 third of its inhabitants are foreign born; that 
 it contains a larger proportion of aliens than 
 any other state in the Union. Massachusetts 
 presents a surprisingly low homicide rate for 
 a state containing large congested centers of 
 population—an industrial state comparable 
 with New York and Pennsylvania. (Massa-_ 
 chusetts 2.88, New York 4.77, Pennsylvania 
 5.7.) This is very suggestive when it is con- 
 sidered that in Massachusetts during the last 
 twelve years there have been only thirteen 
 executions. 
 
 In the Central Division, Wisconsin, Minne- 
 sota and Michigan, abolition states have 
 rates for the period of 2.2, 3.4 and 4.0 respec- 
 tively, while those of Indiana, Ohio and 
 Illinois (the latter for four years only) are 5.4, 
 7.1 and 7.8 respectively. 
 
 These statistics do not necessarily prove 
 that a lower homicide rate prevails in the 
 abolition states because of the absence of the 
 death penalty. They do, however, furnish 
 further corroboration of the fact that the 
 number of homicides in a geographical area is 
 caused to vary by conditions other than the 
 
HOMICIDE RATES IN CITIES 71 
 
 existence or non-existence of the death pen- 
 alty; that the death penalty has little effect, 
 if indeed it has any at all, on the homicide 
 rate. 
 
 Homicide Rates in Cities 
 
 In an article in the Spectator of June 14, 
 1923, Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman presents a 
 table showing the number of homicides and 
 the homicide rates in seventy-four cities in 
 the United States for the year 1922. There 
 are included the following six cities in states 
 where capital punishment is now abolished. 
 In fact there are no cities in the present aboli- 
 tion states having a population over 100,000, 
 except Kansas City, that are not included 
 
 
 
 CITIES POPULATION HOMICIDES RATE 
 
 SoPATI WA DICIG. Co vis «5 2 144,084 I 0.7 
 Milwaukee............. 478,615 14 2.9 
 PROVBIOTICG a eis a sn ern 241,267 8 3.3 
 PAOCHOOUS be kas es 401,095 22 5S 
 EL RAE iy ea a 239,933 16 6:3 
 REN ts ye A SS sg: 0's, 4» 1,127,046 95 8.4 
 Totals above six Cities... 2,632,040 156 5.9 
 Totals 68 other cities with 
 
 REICH TCI soy ss sid ste 25,047,398 2,159 8.6 
 Total for all 74 cities. ... 27,679,438 2,315 8.4 
 
 There were six cities throughout the country 
 having no reported homicides for the year. 
 
72. MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 Four of these were in Massachusetts, one in 
 Connecticut and one in Pennsylvania. Grand 
 Rapids, Milwaukee and Providence, three 
 abolition cities, stood respectively seventh, 
 nineteenth and twenty-third. In comparison 
 with other cities of their own size those in 
 the abolition states more than held their own 
 in relative position. 
 
 Method of Homicides 
 Use of Firearms 
 
 Table XV taken from the same article by 
 Dr. Hoffman shows the homicide rates by 
 method for the Registration Area for the years 
 1910 to 1921. In commenting on this table 
 Dr. Hoffman says: 
 
 ‘“The outstanding facts of America’s murder record 
 are: first, the excessive proportion of criminals who 
 go entirely unpunished or who fail to receive a punish- 
 ment proportionate to the seriousness of their offenses; 
 second, the large majority of murders committed by 
 shooting as the result of the ease with which revolvers 
 and ammunition can be secured even where the law 
 prohibits their sale. Individually considered, our 
 murder cases furnish abundant proof that this facility 
 of securing the means of murder is often the immediate 
 cause. That matters in this respect are growing worse 
 is made evident by a return kindly furnished me by 
 the Director of Vital Statistics of the Census, showing 
 
FOREIGN HOMICIDE STATISTICS 73 
 
 the homicide rate for the Registration Area (about 
 85% of the total population) for each of the years 
 1910-1921 by method. This table conclusively proves 
 that the murder problem in the United States is essen- 
 tially a problem of the wrongful use of firearms, the 
 sale and possession of which require to be made more 
 effectively a matter of control and punishment on 
 the part of the authorities. While a beginning has 
 been made in this direction in a few states there is 
 probably no alternative than congressional action, 
 if a way can be found by which the interstate traffic 
 in revolvers at least can be made subject to federal 
 regulation and control.” 
 
 Foreign Homicide Statistics 
 
 Statistics that I have been able to obtain 
 from foreign countries bear out the assertion 
 that in the United States an abnormally high 
 homicide rate prevails. 
 
 Through the courtesy of Doctor Hoffman and 
 through correspondence with our American 
 Consuls, I have secured homicide rate statistics 
 from a dozen or more foreign countries. These 
 statistics have been tabulated (Tables XX to 
 XXVII) and they reveal to a striking degree 
 the very high homicide rates which prevail in 
 our own country as compared with other 
 nations. ‘There are, of course, other factors 
 which enter into this excessively high rate 
 of ours. The United States is a melting 
 
74. MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 pot for alien races; other countries have 
 no such problems of assimilation as those 
 with which we must contend. The older 
 nations in Europe have laws, customs and 
 institutions that have obtained through 
 centuries, backed by traditions reaching far 
 into the past. These instill into the minds of 
 the peoples a veneration for law, a respect for 
 custom, utterly lacking in our shifting popu- 
 lation. It is true there may be some variation 
 in the methods adopted in computing the 
 homicide rates in the various countries. 
 Different classifications may be used. But 
 allowing for these factors, there remains a very 
 marked differentiation between our rates and 
 those abroad from which we cannot fail to 
 draw the deduction that either our form of 
 punishment or our method of application, 
 or perhaps both, are defective. 
 
 There has been presented a comparison of 
 rates in the United States with those of foreign 
 countries which retain, as well as those which 
 have abolished, capital punishment, because 
 it is important to emphasize the fact that our 
 own homicide rates are abnormally high, that 
 nowhere else do we find similar conditions, no- 
 where else do statistics give indication of so 
 much homicidal crime. What a tremendous 
 
ITALY 75 
 
 contrast exists between the rates in the United 
 states and those in other English speaking 
 countries! We far outstrip England, Scot- 
 land and Canada. Our normal rate approach- 
 es even the abnormal condition in Ireland in 
 1920 when the rate rose to 9.5, about nine 
 times its ordinary figure, due to riots and in- 
 ternal disturbances. (Tables XX and XXI.) 
 
 Italy 
 
 A comparison of rates among the foreign 
 nations which have abolished the death penal- 
 ty and those which retain it shows no tendency 
 toward higher rates in the abolition group, 
 except possibly in the case of Italy and even 
 that country is far below ours. In Italy since 
 1910 the homicide rate has not gone above 
 4.04 per 100,000 population. (Table XXIV). 
 In 1918 it was 2.75 and in 1922 3.48. ‘This is 
 about on a par with Massachusetts, Rhode 
 Island and Minnesota and is far lower than 
 the general rate in the United States. Taken 
 in connection with the very large proportion 
 of Italian nativity among those sentenced to 
 death in our own state, it seems to indicate 
 that even the impulsive Latin is more deterred 
 by life imprisonment than by the threat of 
 death. The Italian rates are also worth study- 
 
76 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 ing as indicating no tendency for homicidal 
 crime in that country to increase, and further, 
 as showing a general decrease in the decade 
 from I910 to 1920 as compared with the 
 previous decade and with the period prior to 
 1890 when capital punishment existed. Cer- 
 tainly the Italians have experienced no diffi- 
 culty in controlling murder without the death 
 penalty. The Ministry of Justice in a letter 
 transmitting these statistics, states that no 
 increase in homicidal crime has been noticed 
 since capital punishment was abolished. 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 From Switzerland I have secured and in- 
 cluded in Table XXV complete data for 
 forty years. These statistics present very 
 interesting contrasts with our own figures. A 
 careful study of this table is worth while. It 
 affords in the first place a comparison of con- 
 ditions over a period of forty years in locantons 
 which retain capital punishment with those 
 in 15 cantons where it is abolished. Analysis 
 of the figures fails to disclose any less homi- 
 cidal crime in those cantons which retain the 
 death penalty than in those where it has been 
 abolished. In the second place, it furnishes 
 material for serious thought when it is realized 
 
SWITZERLAND a 
 
 that the lowest rates in our own states are 
 from eight to ten times higher than the rates 
 in the Swiss cantons. The rates in the Swiss 
 tables cover ten year periods, those in the 
 United States are annual. The lowest rates 
 in our country are for Maine and New Hamp- 
 shire, each of which states for single years 
 have been as low as 0.9 and which for ten 
 years averaged annually 1.8 and 1.9 respec- 
 tively. The highest average annual rate in the 
 Swiss table is for the canton of Nidwalden, 
 which for forty years averaged annually 0.29. 
 The annual average for the whole Swiss Re- 
 public during the forty years was 0.25. In 
 the 10 cantons having capital punishment 
 there were six executions during the entire 
 period. 
 
 Holland and Norway 
 
 The rates in Holland and Norway are 
 equally low in comparison with American 
 rates. Holland for 1911-1918 averaged 0.31, 
 Norway for 1910-1919 averaged 0.82. In 
 the corresponding period, 1911-1921, in the 
 registration area of the United States, the 
 average rate was 7.2. (Tables XXII and 
 XXVI). 
 
78 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 Cities 
 
 Table XXVII presents an interesting com- 
 parison of rates in foreign cities as contrasted 
 with the combined rates for all cities in the 
 registration area of the United States. I also 
 have statistics for Brazil where for the five 
 years from 1917 to 1921, the City of Rio de 
 Janeiro had a homicide rate of 5.37. Com- 
 parative rates for the same period for five of 
 our largest cities in capital punishment states 
 were, New York, 5.3; Philadelphia, 6.5; 
 Chicago, 10.8; Cleveland, 12.3; St. Louis, 16.9. 
 In tables XX VI and XXVII there is presented 
 a tabulation from these statistics of the aver- 
 age homicide rate for a period of years. Two 
 facts again stand out with prominence. First, 
 the great difference between the rates in the 
 United States and those in all other countries. 
 second, except for Italy, where the rate is 
 somewhat higher, the abolition nations have 
 as low rates as those which prevail where 
 capital punishment is retained. 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 From the data which I have collected, from 
 a study of actual conditions over a period of 
 many years in the school of experience, I have 
 come to this very definite conclusion. There 
 
CONCLUSION 709 
 
 has been in the past and there is to a greater 
 degree today a general trend toward a lessen- 
 ing in the severity of punishment. At times 
 backward steps may be taken, ground may be 
 lost, but the tendency is forward, so that the 
 logical goal must be the complete elimination 
 of the death penalty from our system of punish- 
 ment. |The death penalty rests upon wrong 
 _ basic principles. It conforms to none of our 
 ideas of modern criminology. It is impossible 
 of scientific application. As a punishment it 
 
 generations in a great majority of our states. 
 Yet we have a homicide rate today—and 
 always have had—to which in comparison with 
 other nations we cannot point with pride. 
 In those states where capital punishment has 
 been abolished the record is better than where 
 it exists. There have been greater increases 
 in homicidal crimes occurring in states which 
 have always retained the death penalty than 
 have ever occurred in states where it has been 
 abolished. It is no new experiment; it has 
 stood the test of years. No claim is made 
 that it will prove a panacea that will effect the 
 cure of homicidal crime, but I do believe that 
 
80 MAN’S JUDGMENT OF DEATH 
 
 life imprisonment with a long unavoidable 
 minimum provides a form of punishment that 
 is more certain of application than the death 
 penalty can ever be made, that is more scien- 
 tific in application because with its long but 
 variable minimum it presents a possibility for 
 individualization and differentiation of treat- 
 ment; that by reason of these qualities its 
 universal adoption will provide a more effec- 
 tive deterrent. 
 
Appendix A 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 81 
 
82 ; APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE I.—SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF CAPITAL 
 IN THE VARIOUS STATES 
 
 
 
 New En gland Middle Atlantic 
 Division Division 
 
 States where Capital ||NEw HAmMpPsHIRE| New Jersey (2) 
 Punishment is retained 
 conditionally, the court 
 or jury having power to 
 choose between life im- 
 prisonment and _ the 
 
 death penalty. 
 
 States where Capital || VERMONT NEW YORK 
 Punishment is retained || MASSACHUSETTS | PENNSYLVANIA 
 absolutely. CONNECTICUT 
 
 States where Capital |; MAINE 
 Punishment has been |}RHODE ISLAND 
 abolished. 
 
 
 
 Note: Mr. Bye in his essay gives a tabulation of this informa- 
 tion according to the status at that date (1918). Twelve states 
 had abolished capital punishment, twelve retained the death 
 penalty absolutely and twenty-four retained the death penalty 
 conditionally, permitting the court or jury to choose between 
 it and life imprisonment. 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 83 
 
 PUNISHMENT AND THE CHANGES WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE 
 SINCE THE YEAR 1918 
 
 Pacific 
 North Central South Atlantic | South Central and Mountain 
 Division Division Division Division 
 
 Delaware (2) |KENTUCKY MONTANA 
 MARYLAND TENNESSEE IDAHO 
 VIRGINIA ALABAMA WYOMING 
 WEST VIRGINIA |MISSISSIPPI COLORADO 
 SouTH CAROLINA|LOUISIANA Arizona (1) 
 (1) |Georgia (2) |Arkansas (2) |UTAH 
 OKLAHOMA NEVADA 
 TEXAS Washington (1) 
 Oregon I 
 CALIFORNIA 
 
 FLORIDA New Mexico 
 NorRTHCAROLINA 
 
 
 
 Those states in which changes have occurred since 1918 are printed 
 in italics. ‘ 
 (1) indicates states which formerly were without capital punish- 
 ment. 
 (2) indicates states which formerly retained the death penalty 
 absolutely. 
 
84. | APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE I (Continued) 
 
 SUMMARY 
 1923 
 States where capital punishment is retained absolutely 8 
 States where capital punishment is abolished.......... 8 
 States where capital punishment is retained condition- 
 ally, the court or jury being permitted to choose 
 between life imprisonment and the death penalty.... 32 
 
 1918 
 States where capital punishment was retained absolutely. 12 
 States where capital punishment was abolished........ 12 
 
 States where capital punishment was retained condition- 
 ally, the court or jury being permitted to choose be- 
 tween life imprisonment and the death penalty...... 24 
 
 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 85 
 
 TABLE II 
 
 Showing the number of prisoners sentenced to death in each state 
 during the years 1912 to I919, inclusive, the number of those 
 sentenced who were subsequently executed or who died, the percentage 
 of executions and deaths in relation to death sentences, and where 
 available, the average homicide rate for each state for the period. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e2 | sss | 88 3 
 S28 eT eee a Me Re el Wt 
 gees Q) | 223 1883). 3 
 BS Ps 3.2 SPs RR ‘= 
 cued 86 jes See joes] § 
 STATES ads ZS [ogl | Sea] 3s 
 a ee ee 3 
 ee (Sega ess] SS 
 slolsielels/elal SSS] 8885] 8.8] $a 
 2828s seyqsQlSsSSS/SSo] <s 
 BLAINE seid ssa oa o'e ws Abolition 1.80 
 New HAMPSHIRE...| 0} 0} Of Of If oO} I] o 2 2 100% | 1.97 
 VERMONT.........- I] Oo} oO] r] Of o} of x 3 2 66% | 1.97 
 MASSACHUSETTS....| 5} I] 2) I] 21 I} O] o| 12 9 75% | 2.98 
 RHODE ISLAND..... Abolition 3.3 
 CONNECTICUT...... 2] 4) 1] 5| 2) 6] 4] 2}| 26 23 88% | 3.76 
 IEW LORE sls cahe-w s. 26|11}21|22|11/16/11]27| 145 89 61% | 4.63 
 NEw JERSEY.......| 7| 9] 8} 5] 4] 5} 5] 2] 45 33 13% | 4.52 
 PENNSYLVANIA.....| ©} O] 7/10} 7/12/21/20] 77 75 97% | 5.66 
 DELAWARE........ 0} oO} o} I] 1] 3] o} z 6 6 100% | 7.7 Note G 
 MARYLAND ........ B B B 5.78 
 VIRGOUA ee. 2s 55 16]13]12|11|10] 6] 4] 6| 78 64 82% |10.05 E 
 WEST VIRGINIA....| ©} 4] 2] 3] 2] 1) 3] 2] 17 12 10% Note A 
 SoutH CAROLINA...| 9/10] 4/13} 8] 4) 7] 6] 61 44 72% |12.2 NoteF 
 GRORGIA casceness- B B B Note A 
 VTIEO rates dics APs s/o 4} 3] 2} 2] r} 3/11) 8 34 18 53% 7.0 
 INDIANA conse cosees Ij 2] I] 2] o} o} ©} 4] 10 4 40% | 5.31 
 ILLINOIS ca cccoceee- B B B 7.5 Note D 
 -|MICHIGAN......... Abolition 3.7 
 WISCONSIN......-- Abolition 2.33 
 MISSOURI .......-. te B B B 9.7 
 KANSAS 2. -eeseeees Abolition 6.7H 
 IOWA 2c cscvceee peat One | bP Wi oO! o 0 fe) ° Note A 
 NEBRASKA........-.]| O} O} I' 1} I! oO} 2] o 5 2 40% | Note A 
 MINNESOTA........ Abolition 3.29 
 NortH DAKOTA.... Abolition Note A 
 
 SouTtH DAKOTA.... Abolition Note A 
 
 
 
86 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE II (Continued) 
 
 Sen- 
 g 
 or 
 
 STATES 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 PRISONERS 
 SENTENCED 
 EacuH YEAR 
 Percentageof Executions 
 and Deaths in relation 
 
 to Death Sentences 
 Average Homicide Rate 
 
 Number 
 tenced to Death Durin 
 for Period 
 
 Period 
 
 tenced who were Subse- 
 quently Executed 
 
 Number of those Sen- 
 who Died 
 
 I916 
 Toial 
 
 +14 
 ae 
 ALA 
 mie 
 
 WwW 
 Nv 
 
 KENTUCKY ic ss'ss 8 o> 
 BOUWISIANA 4 sc.asc'<.6 a8 
 
 PS 
 an 
 
 ARIZONA... 
 WYOMING.... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WASHINGTON......| I} 11Note K 2 50% | 6.91 
 OCRUGCON fc 55 64a 8] 3] 1;Note L 13 54% | 4.5 D 
 CALIFORNIA......--| 7| 5} 6 is 3| 2/13} 9] 56 4I 73% |11.6 
 NOTES 
 A—No homicide rate statistics. F—Rates are for 1916-1919. 
 B—Executions held in counties, no G— * gee ede) 
 state-wide figures. H— ‘ “*  * IOT4-I9IO. 
 C—Executions after 1918 held in K—Capital punishment abolished in 
 counties. 1913. 
 D—Rates are for 1918-19109. L—Capital punishment abolished in 
 E— 5% «2 «2 I9T3~I9IO- 1914. 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 87 
 
 TABLE III 
 
 Comparison of Death Sentences, Executions and Homicide Rates— 
 New York and Massachusetts, 1912 to 1921, inclusive. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS NEW YORK 
 
 peo Execu- 
 
 10nS 
 tences d 
 
 WD DD VOWO HO 
 
 COM CWO KOH HO 
 PPALHAHAHPAAUUH 
 CAHDOWNA AOD 
 
 1921 
 
 Totals 
 
 | 
 
 vooal 
 oil ea ey SX 
 
 5 
 I 
 a 
 I 
 o 4 
 I 
 oO 
 10) 
 I 
 O 
 13 
 
 - 
 ron) 
 
 
 
 Notes: * Three are still in death house awaiting execution at the 
 time this table is under preparation. 
 In connection with this table it should be noted that New York has a 
 population approximately 2.7 times that of Massachusetts. 
 
88 } APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE IV 
 
 Showing the number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in 
 each state during the years 1912 to 1919, inclusive: the status of these 
 prisoners on January Ist, 1923, including the number who have been 
 released and the number in prison on that date; the percentage of the total 
 number sentenced who have been released by commutation, pardon or 
 otherwise than by death or insanity; in each period where available, 
 the average homicide rate for the period. 
 
 
 
 ON JANUARY IST, 
 1923, THE STATUS 
 
 NUMBER OF PRISON- 
 ERS SENTENCED TO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LirE IMPRISONMENT OF THESE PRISONERS | 3 3 
 AS = s~. 
 Iw 3 
 2 | £8 es is 
 STATES : 8 E = ~~ : 
 <|2381 2 les da 
 ~a}[ao}] & S33 pt: 
 “A S| ss] = | se] ss 
 Saisiwiecigiei Ste |S [Sel & Sasi 
 HAasqaaqaeQya;Alales| a jase| <8 
 MAING . isnve vse 3| 5} xr] 7] 4] 2] zr] 3] 26) 2 I 5 18 | 19% | 1.80 
 NEw HAMPSHIRE.| 0} 3] 0} 4] 0} I] 0} 1] 9| oO | Oo oO 91 0% | 1.07 
 VERMONT.......} 0] O| 3] I] 2] 2] of 2} 9} of Oo o 9| 0% | 1.07 
 MASSACHUSETTS | 9} 6/1r4/10/12/14|10| 7| 82} 6] 13 5 58 | 6% | 2.08 
 RHODE ISLAND...| 2} 0] o| 2} 0} ZT] of 2) 7} o| Oo I 6 | 14% | 3.3 
 CONNECTICUT....}| 2] 7] 5] 2} 7] 8] 9/13) 53] 7 I 2 43 | 4% | 3.76 
 NEw YoRK...... 33|32|30/37|33|42|22/53/282) ro | 32 39 192 | 14% | 4.63 
 NEW JERSEY....| 0] O} Oo} O| 2/15|/14/I0} 41) 1 7 I 32 | 234% | 4.52 
 PENNSYLVANIA...| 8] 5/10] 6} 0} 4] 4/ 5] 42] 4 3 7 28 | 16% | 5.66 
 DELAWARE...... 2] 2| 2] I] 3] 4] rz] 6] 21] 4 I I 15 5% 17.7 F 
 MARYLAND...... 3] 3] 9] 5] 7] 4/rojz9] 60] 8 | 3 3 46} 5% | 5.78 
 VIRGINIA ........ 0] O} 7} 7/12] 4] 9/23} 62] x 4 4 53 6% |10.95 C 
 WEsT VIRGINIA. ./16] 8/13)/15|14/25/18]11|120] B | B B 76 B | NoteA 
 So. CAROLINA... .|17/13/12|15|I2|10]/12}/14/105] 11 2 38 54 | 36% |12.2 E 
 INDIANA........ 27/30|18}21/28/27/18/23/192] 16 | 14 38 124 | 19% | 5.31 
 RULINOIN 6 os soc Os 23|23/32/28/33|30|28/39/236] 15 | 18 40 163 | 17% | 725 D 
 MICHIGAN.......] 9] 5/11] 9] 9} Olr2|/10] 74] 6 | 12 | 25 31 | 33% | 3-7 
 WISCONSIN...... 11] 3} 6] 5] 6] 6] 4jro] 51] 5 9 II 26 | 21% | 2.33 
 MISSOURI......./20/27}23/30|22|25|12/22/181] 15 | 5 | 54 | 107 | 20% | 9.7 
 TOAMEAR J oka o's « 8] 6] 8] olr7] ofr1] 8] 76) 8 ° 22 46 | 290% | 6.7G 
 f° Bybee Ae 10/16|13] O}12|/12] 6]19] 97] 3 4 29 61 | 20% | Note A 
 
 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 89 
 
 TABLE IV—(Continued) 
 
 NUMBER OF PRISON- ON JANUARY IST, 
 ERS SENTENCED TO 1923, THE STATUS 
 
 Lire IMPRISONMENT OF annee PRISONERS 
 AS 
 
 or 
 
 STATES 
 
 Discharged, 
 
 Percentage of Total Number 
 
 Commuted, 
 
 Released 
 Average Homicide Rate for 
 
 Declared Insane 
 Released by Commuta- 
 tion or Otherwise 
 
 Still in Prison 
 
 the Period 
 
 Oo 
 On 
 
 NEBRASKA ...... 
 MINNESOTA..... 
 No. DAKOTA.... 
 So. DAKOTA 
 KENTUCKY. 
 
 WH 
 N 
 
 pH 
 NWO HH HW WH OO HH 
 
 es Oe png as eee ee 
 Me -Pry ae e  e  e  ee 
 AHWWOhHNOWOHKHF 
 
 a ntpondsfPhOwHununwt ounnd 
 ms 
 
 dH hha HNO LE DON H 
 WH 
 
 NEw MEeExIco.... 
 
 
 
 2 
 fo) 
 I 
 5 
 2 
 
 La 
 Lal 
 
 3/II} 7|10 
 + -136/27|35138141149| 29/38/2903] 2 
 
 PHPHAHODONAHARWHOUN SH 
 
 >~RANKHONKHWWH 
 
 
 
 NOTES 
 A—No homicide rate statistics. E—Rate for years 1916-1919. 
 B—Records are incomplete. Dog faerie RUA CATAL AM IQIQ. 
 C—Rate for years 1913-1919 G— * * “ 1914-1919. 
 
 D— * * *  tI918-I9I9. 
 
go iy APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE V 
 
 Showing for two periods of four years each (1912-1915 and I916- 
 1919) the number of homicides in each period, the number of persons 
 sentenced to death, of those sentenced the number who were subse- 
 quently executed, the number of death sentences per 100 homicides, 
 the number of executions per 100 homicides and the homicide rate. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 » 
 3 | g Ss s 9 
 S mat ie >a 5 m 
 S S$ Ss “ 3.8 
 ty S 23 8 $ “3 
 3 | 3 S$ |] ss 18 33 
 STATES Periop | SS | & Sf 18s |. ee 
 Lt} pa] O-x S n A, 
 om xy w7 = o€ =) 
 3 v0 s ad S Ss =O 
 2s es £'3 eS) z's 28 
 ae Es a ms s& = = 
 zs Ran a2 ss a) ss 
 za za OR Qn my Ms 
 MASSE eae I9I2-IQI5 7I 2.35 
 I9I6-I919] 38 we a a 1.25 
 NEw HAMPSHIRE .|1912-I915 44 fe) o o fe) 2.5 
 IQI6-I9I9 25 2 2 8.0 8.0 1.4 
 VERMONT........ IQI2-I9I5 27 2 2 7.4 TA I.90 
 IQI6-I9IO 29 I v9) 3-44 ° 2.05 
 MASSACHUSETTS..|I9I2~1915| 451 9 7 1.99 1.55 3.3 
 IQIG-I919] 4I7 3 2 0.74 0.48 2.8 
 RHODE ISLAND.../I9I2-I9I5 73 3.3 
 IG“torD 78 ABOLITION ot 
 CONNECTICUT..../IQI2-I915| 171 I2 Ir 7.01 6.43 2s 
 IQI6-IQ9IO| 212 14 12 6.6 5.66 4.0 
 New YorK......{I912-I915] 1887 80 53 4.23 2.80 4.9 
 I9I6-I9IQ|] 1744 65 36 is. 72 2.06 4.3 
 NEw JERSEY.....|/I912-1915| 466 29 18 6.22 3.86 4.2 
 IQ9I6-1919] 584 16 13 2.74 2.32 4.8 
 PENNSYLVANIA .../I9I2-I915] 1583 17 16 1.07 I.0I 4.9 
 IQI6O—-IQI9| 2170 60 se 2.76 2.62 6.4 
 DELAWARE......|/I9I2-I9I5 NOTE 2 
 IQ9I6-I9I9 17 I I 5.88 5.88 w.7 
 MARYLAND....../I912-I9I5| 271 NOTE I Ea 
 IQIG—-I9IO}] 351 6.2 
 VirGInia (Note 3)/1912-1915] 767 36 31 4.69 4.04 11.8 
 
 IQI6-I9IO} 924 26 21 2.81 2.27 10.3 
 
 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 91 
 
 TABLE V (Continued) 
 
 per 
 
 Rate 
 
 STATES PERIOD 
 
 Death Sentences per 
 100 Homicides 
 100,000 Population 
 
 Executions per r00 
 
 Of those Sentenced, the 
 Homicides 
 
 Number Sentenced to 
 Number Executed 
 
 im] 
 i=) 
 ‘= 
 s 
 Qy 
 00 
 = 
 ‘. 
 fae 
 = 
 Q 
 
 Homicide 
 
 
 
 
 
 IQI2-I9I5 
 IQI6-IQIO 
 IOI2-I915 ABOLITION 
 I9I6-I9I9 
 I9I2-I9I5 ABOLITION 
 I9I6-I9I9 
 MINNESOTA....../IQI2—I9QI5 ABOLITION 3.4 
 IQI6—I9I9 3:1 
 KANSAS... IQI2-1915 NOTE 4 6.5 
 IQI6-IQIO ABOLITION 6.8 
 IQI2-IOI5 5 0.92 5.8 
 I9I6-I9I9 13 I.26 8.2 
 IQI2-I915 4 0.97 5.5 
 I9I6-I9I9 Oo 0.68 5.1 
 MISSOURI........|IQ9I2-I9I5 9.07 
 IQI6—I9I9 NOTE I 0.52 
 WASHINGTON.....|I9I2-1915] 400 8.1 
 I9I6—I919 297 ABOLITION 5.7 
 MONTANA.......|IQI2-I9I5] 214 12.1 
 IQI6—-I9I9] 279 NOTE I 13.7 
 REAM 5 ciate a e-<\p! aie IQI2-I915}| 139 3 I 2.15 0.71 8.6 
 IQI6-I9I9 85 5 2 5.88 2.35 4.9 
 CALIFORNIA......|I9I2-I915| 1400 29 20 2.07 1.43 12.6 
 IQI6-I919] 1354 27 19 I.99 1.40 10.6 
 NOTES 
 
 The number of homicides in the first period are taken from the table in Mr. 
 Bye’s essay, in the second period from the report of the U. S. Census Bureau. 
 Homicides rates are taken from tables of the U. S. Census Bureau. The number 
 of sentences and of executions are taken from reports of the wardens of the various 
 state prisons. The computations are made from these data. 
 
 1) Executions are held in counties—no state-wide figures. 
 2) Figures are available for 1919 only. 
 
 3) Figures in first period are for 1913, 1914 and I9gI5. 
 
 4) Figures in first_period are for 1914 and I9gI5. 
 
92 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE VI 
 
 From the data in the foregoing table (V) there has been 
 computed for the whole period of eight years the proportionate 
 number who committed homicide to each person sentenced to 
 death and to each person executed. The states are arranged in 
 order of the homicide rates. It is to be noted that there is no 
 appreciable relation between the homicide rate and the number 
 of sentences or the number of executions in proportion to homi- © 
 cides. 
 
 
 
 Number of Number of 
 Homicides in | Homicides in 
 Proportion to | Proportion to |Homuicide 
 
 STATES Each Person Each Person Rate 
 
 Sentenced Executed 
 
 to Death 
 NEw HAMPSHIRE 35 35 1.97 
 VERMONT 19 28 1.97 
 MASSACHUSETTS 72 96 2.98 
 CONNECTICUT 14 17 3.76 
 NEW JERSEY 23 34 4.52 
 NEW YORK 25 40 4.63 
 INDIANA 120 300 5.31 
 PENNSYLVANIA 49 5I 5.66 
 UTAH 28 75 6.76 
 OHIO 88 166 7.0 
 DELAWARE (I year) 17 17 YB d 
 VIRGINIA 27 32 10.95 
 KENTUCKY 67 97 11.33 
 
 CALIFORNIA 49 70 11.6 
 
 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 93 
 
 TABLE VII 
 
 Showing statistics as to all prisoners sentenced to death in 
 the State of New York from December, 1889, to October, 1923, 
 with particular reference to Nativity, Age and the Subsequent 
 Disposition. 
 
 I. NATIVITY 
 
 RIPE CLACGS SUA Nene hole wiht om aval WW! catia teak 216 
 DRY oee Cu ee big RON Re tie: wie WmbaKelavebn y) dol pki Sia ie 127 
 ecg Lays Sees op ET RANA Fee AERA BE RCC TERE 25 
 PR NISRIA Taree re CRA tah IN Leas ae ste''e Aie Rk BALE 15 
 AISI eh EMD ay hei bis pale te en ki 19 
 Divided among 24 nationalities................. 56 
 
 DOPE TUMDEM TECOLVE” » Loci :am W/ice;alarsto s ela paierciels 458 
 
 II. AGE 
 
 PARR TOCM CED LYPOTIE YS, Wi silhass Gh. Mavis nine eke bene a ® & 37 
 Twenty-one to twenty-five.,.............0.008. 123 
 thetic! 3 yoren rs Na Lal 8, MO ea ie Pe ae TR be Ro 93 
 ELRIUVSONO tO CHITCVALIVE, ones sibs kc We at bares aak Sikes 70 
 SEE AR Ma) ROEUG eh c's Wieighea tears irik wee dee cate the 54 
 PSTD LOTLY~LIVE so, 0 sis ois inte. aietinre hs pebe late 24 
 Re MVE OC ay Gi Una imide Oe aie ROR s 16 
 COL ESTA 0 A ERE EN MR SE CE 14 
 TERM eV Rom als ad, Stel ahat stave’ A gin ANS Seca | 
 MMAMMEVIR. RDI AT CONEY ttacse tis La Bh yar ata a ehare wrroet 20 
 
 otal number recetved si. !4 sca ec bieladieres #0 458 
 
 III. SwuBsEQUENT DISPOSITION 
 
 PURERTICEME AONE So all dal Ti Rh ce A itera’ s ciate Ate 298 
 (TN ARN Ct Pa: ROME ANE TS Pr aU SCA LR AAPL RUN ROEAGe BHACANE he 4 
 pE REN DRORAE e Siad ARE UN AO RE RY tr 13 
 eRre DOU, ALICNOTIWHER cin a baad Woe eae ale goss 2 
 Commuted to life, pardoned, etc................ 70 
 Judgment reversed and found not guilty......... 10 
 udgment reversed; received prison term......... 34 
 udgment reversed; awaiting disposition......... II 
 n prison awaiting execution (October, 1923)..... 16 
 
 UOtAL TUM DEF PECSIVE a bievs «dca alwidida ale nh e on 458 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 £z61 
 ‘I ‘uef uo wuosud 
 UI [[1¥S 910M OLOTLL 
 
 QUSUT porepseq 
 
 Pep pey sey |se sea 
 
 ‘sgt --fuef ao 
 snjeqs 94} Iv0A 
 qowo poousj}uas 
 Jequmu 943 JO 
 
 pesioAsr Juouspn[ 
 
 podeosq 
 
 "999 
 ‘uopied ‘uoneynm 
 -uioo Aq _ pasvool 
 useq ~=prey soy 
 
 .90Ua}UeS Jopun 
 ie9h YOes poArooos Joquinu [eyoy 
 
 Sere 1070.7 |OIOI/ZIGI|LIGI/OIGI|SIGI/VIGI|EIGI |Z161 
 
 
 
 ‘€z61 ‘4st Arenuef jo se snjze}s Moy} Surmoys 
 ‘QAISNpOUL ‘6161 0} ZI61 sired dy} SUIINP YUoWUOSTICUIT oft] 03 YYvop WIOIJ poyNuUIIOD JO 
 ‘aFIT 0} sIvoA AZIM} 07 PIOUNJUIS YIOX MON JO 9}e}G 9Y} Ut SIOUOSIId [[e Jo AreuruINg 
 
 IIIA WIdVL 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 95 
 
 TABLE IX 
 
 Showing by states, arranged in order of homicide rates, for the 
 eight years, 1912 to 1919, inclusive, the number of prisoners sentenced 
 to death, the percentage of those sentenced who failed to be executed, 
 the number sentenced to life imprisonment, and the percentage of those 
 sentenced who were commuted or released prior to January Ist, 1923. 
 
 DEATH SENTENCES | LIFE SENTENCES 
 
 Percentage Number Percenta 
 
 STATES Homicide Spiselopee Failed . sirens pe niket x 
 
 Rate to Death to be Imprison- Commuted 
 
 Executed ty etc. 
 
 MAINE... 2) .. 1.80 Abolition 26 19% 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE|_ 1.97 2 0% 9 0% 
 VERMONT...) 2:97 4 43% 9 0% 
 WISCONSIN..... 2.33 Abolition 51 21% 
 MASSACHUSETTS | 2.98 i wae BRE 47) 82 6% 
 MINNESOTA..... 3.29 Abolition 92 14% 
 RHODE ISLAND..| 3.3 Abolition 7 14% 
 MICHIGAN...... 3.70 Abolition 74. 33% 
 CONNECTICUT...| 3.76 26 12% 53 4% 
 
 OREGON (6)..... 4.45 3 46% 61 44% | 
 
 NEW JERSEY....| 4.52 45 27% 4I 244% 
 
 NEw YoRE..... 4.63 145 39% 282 14% 
 PNDIANAG 6 od. 5.31 10 60% 192 19% 
 PENNSYLVANIA..| 5.66 a7 3% 42 16% 
 MARYLAND..... 5.78 (Note 1) 60 5% 
 KANSAS i405), 2% 6.7 Abolition 76 29% 
 TITAS ke Se 43 6.76 Bix bi, 63% 18 83% 
 WASHINGTON....{ 6.91 (Note 2) 49 14% 
 
 ) Ste Pe eee 7.0 RAba be ae, Note 7 
 PLLENOT SL). bn 7.5 (3) Note I 236 17% 
 DELAWARE..... Sepia) 6 0% 21 5% 
 VIRGINIA....... 10.9 78 18% 62 6% 
 KENTUCKY..... 113 32 31% 118 34% 
 CALIFORNIA.....| I1.6 56 27% 293 9% 
 So. CAROLINA...| 12.2 (5) 61 28% 105 36% 
 
 MONTANA...... 12.9 Note Ir | 28 50% 
 
96 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE IX (Continued) 
 
 DEATH SENTENCES | LIFE SENTENCES 
 
 STATES  |Homicide| Number \P ercentage 
 Kate Sensenced Failed 
 
 to be 
 to Death E 
 
 hahaned Imprison- 
 
 ment 
 
 States where homicide rates are not available. — 
 Ol 97 29% 
 
 Abolition 7 14% 
 
 Abolition 17 35% 
 
 46 35% 350 33% 
 
 14 71% 59 42% 
 
 9 56% 37 40% 
 
 17 0% 
 
 60% 20 55% 
 
 an 60% 53 13% 
 NEw MEXxIco... 7% 10 10% 
 
 
 
 NOTES 
 
 (1) Executions are held in counties—no state-wide figures. 
 (2) There were two sentences and one execution prior to abolition 
 
 in 1913. 
 (3) Homicide rates for 1918-1919. 
 (4) é “é 4é I9IQ. 
 (5) aS “*  ** 1916 to 1919 inclusive. 
 (6) ‘s “« "1918-1919; sentences for I9I2, 1913, 1914, 
 
 prior to abolition in 1914. 
 (7) No data for life sentences. 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 97 
 
 TABLE X 
 COMPARISON OF HOMICIDE Rates, NortH ATLANTIC DIVISION 
 
 Combined average rates per 100,000 of population for Maine 
 and Rhode Island, abolition states, compared with New Hamp- 
 shire and Connecticut, two states which retain capital punish- 
 ment and which are similar in general character and geographical 
 location. The third column gives the combined average rate for 
 all seven capital punishment states in this division, Vermont, 
 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New 
 Jersey and Pennsylvania. 
 
 Average Rate, | Average Rate, | Average Rate 
 Year Maine and | Connecticut and| for Seven Cap. 
 Rhode Island | New Hampshire| Pun. States 
 
 1906 2.0 1.9 2.6 
 1907 a0 17 3.2 
 1908 2.6 2.1 3.3 
 1909 2.0 2.4 3.3 
 I9IO 2.9 1.6 3.1 
 I9QII 3.0 2.6 3.9 
 1912 2.4 2.5 3.2 
 1913 3-1 3-5 3-9 
 1914 2.8 3.2 3.6 
 1915 2.7 2.9 3.5 
 1916 2.5 2.1 3.5 
 I9I7 2.3 3:3 4.0 
 1918 1.8 2.3 3.4 
 1919 2.4 3.0 az 
 1920 1.6 2.8 3.5 
 1921 2.6 2.6 a7 
 
 
 
 Homicide rates in this and following tables are computed from a 
 table showing death rate from homicides per 100,000 population 
 in the Registration Area furnished by United States Census 
 Bureau. 
 
 TABLE XI 
 COMPARISON OF HOMICIDE RATES, NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION 
 
 Combined average rates per 100,000 of population for Michigan 
 and Minnesota, abolition states, compared with Ohio and In- 
 
98 - APPENDIX A 
 
 diana, two states which retain capital punishment and which are 
 similar in general character and geographical location. 
 
 Average Rate for Average Rate for 
 Minnesota and Ohio and 
 Michigan Indiana 
 
 PAO VYA HHH NOD 
 AWnoumnund oman oO 
 NANDA AN ADNAN BS 
 = OOWORUHENH OM 
 
 
 
 TABLE XII 
 COMPARISON OF HOMICIDE RATES, WESTERN DIVISION 
 
 The homicide rates fer 100,000 of population for Washington, 
 where capital punishment was abolished from 1913 to 1919, 
 compared with the combined average rates for Montana, Col- 
 orado, Utah and California, states which retain capital punish- 
 ment. 
 
 Average Rate in Four 
 Rate in Washington Capital Pun. States 
 
 7.2 
 6.5 
 0.0 
 8.9 
 5-5 
 5-5 
 4.2 
 7:5 
 5.1 
 5-9 
 
 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 99 
 
 4 
 
 TABLE XIII 
 
 Homicide rates per 100,000 of population in four states where 
 capital punishment has been abolished since 1910, and in three 
 of which (Washington, Missouri and Oregon) it was later restored. 
 The years in which capital punishment was abolished are shown 
 in heavy faced type. 
 
 
 
 WASHINGTON MINNESOTA 
 Year Rate Year Rate 
 IQII 7.5 1910 3 
 I9I2 he IQII 3-9 
 1913 6.5 1912 2.8 
 1914 10.0 1913 3.0 
 IQI5 8.9 IQI4 45 
 1916 5.5 IQI5 3-4 
 1917 5.5 1916 3-3 
 1918 4.2 IQI7 3-3 
 I9I9 7.5 1918 2.9 
 1920 5.1 IQIQ ree 
 1921 5.9 1920 3-1 
 
 1921 4.4 
 
 MIssourI OREGON 
 
 yy 
 QR 
 ~~ 
 ® 
 
 Year 
 
 IQII 
 1912 
 1913 
 1914 
 1915 
 1916 
 IQI7 
 1918 
 I9IQ 
 1920 
 1921 
 
 SS 
 et ee ee ee 
 
 MONT HW OWWO CON 
 
 - 
 
 
 
100 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE XIV 
 
 Showing combined average homicide rates per 100,000 popu- 
 lation for five abolition states (Maine, Rhode Island, Michigan, 
 Kansas, Minnesota) compared with the combined average rates 
 of five capital punishment states, similar in location, and char- 
 acter of population and industrial conditions (New Hampshire, 
 Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri.) 
 
 Rate in Rate in Capital 
 Year Abolition Group Punishment Group 
 
 5.60 
 5-24 
 5°44 
 6.96 
 5.48 
 5.56 
 5-04 
 
 1914 
 1915 
 1916 
 1917 
 1918 
 1919 
 1920 
 1921 
 
 PROMKKHKWY 
 BW COmM BONITO 
 CONDO OK 
 
 | 
 
 General average 
 over period 
 
 
 
 Y 
 x 
 \o 
 
 TABLE XV 
 
 Table showing homicides by method. Rates per 100,000 of 
 population in the Registration Area of the United States. (This 
 table is taken from an article by Dr. F. L. Hoffman in the Spec- 
 tator, June 14th, 1923). 
 
 Total Cutting or Other 
 Year Rate Firearms Piercing VUethods 
 1910 5.9 3.4 0.8 1.6 
 IQII 6.6 4.0 1.1 1.6 
 I9I2 6.6 4.1 1.0 1.5 
 1913 7.2 4.5 1.1 1.7 
 1914 7.4 4.7 1.1 1.6 
 1915 7.0 4.3 1.0 1.7 
 1916 Wi 4.5 1.0 1.6 
 I9I7 AY d 5.1 1.0 1.6 
 1918 6.8 4.6 0.8 Pe 
 I9I9 76 5.4 0.8 1.3 
 1920 yoy 5.1 0.7 1.2 
 1921 8.5 6.2 0.9 1.4 
 
 
 
IOI 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 eee ** FIOZR ASN 
 ** -eruvalAsuueg 
 
 **** AosIo[ MON 
 *** qnorjoeuU0, 
 + S}yesnyoesse yy 
 "* puvisy spoqd 
 reese gure 
 altysdwmepy MON 
 sees" guOmseA 
 
 MHAMNTOWDANW 
 NMA MNSTOO ALY 
 MAHON EH ACS 
 HAM TFMO MAG 
 NMnHO NSO ASD 
 eFTRNNMNDO Yr AD 
 HAMTNHOND A 
 
 8 
 6 
 L 
 9 
 v 
 $ 
 I 
 (4 
 £ 
 
 HAMUO TMHO AY 
 warn mM tO M™ ACO 
 MHAMNTDOO AM 
 
 9anj0j9y 
 
 SALVLS 
 
 uo1sIsOg 
 9a24D19N 
 9pt91uo 
 uoutIsog 
 2314019 
 9p191mo 
 u0141S0g 
 aanjDjay 
 apro1mopy 
 uontsog 
 3an019y 
 9p191uL.0 FT 
 u01tSOd 
 9011019L 
 ap191m0 
 uortsog 
 aannjay 
 apt91ULo FT 
 u01tS0g 
 9anj0jay 
 ap191moH 
 u0141S0g 
 aa1qnjay 
 apt94moy 
 uo01tsod 
 9p191Mo 
 u0NtSOT 
 9414019 
 9ps21uoH 
 
 6161 SI6I 
 IsDAIV 
 
 
 
 ‘pOliod s[OYM oY} JOAO ZuIpULyS DAT}LIOI OY} PUL SOseIOAL oY} AIT 9G} OY} JO Suu 
 ~[09 OM} ASP] OY, “eof Jey} UT 0}e4S 94} Jo UOTZISOd oAT}eIOI OY} So}eOIpUT Jeo Yoo UI UUINIOO ysIYy ONT, 
 ‘adA} poovj AAvoy ut pojulid ole poysijoqe useq sey 
 yuourystund yeydeo yoryM ul esoyy, “seaX yoRs ut Sojv}s oY} JO UorTsod oAT}eTOI OY} YIM J0Y3}030} ‘oATSHpOUT 
 *IZOI 0} Z161 seo 94} JOJ UOISIAIC] ONJULT}V YIION OY} Ul Soze}S OUTU OY} JO SozeI OprorUMOF] oy} SurMoys 
 
 TAX WIGVL 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 et | 
 
 
 
 Set Se Gar Let Sek bere 8 seeeees ssroulyy] 
 96 | g |ror1] g | 62] g¢ | 46] g |reor] g jeter] L jovor] L | eGo] L}e6)] L166) g | Bl] g I***** Hoss1y 
 r°h 9 g°L 9 6'9 9 e*, 9 S$°g Zz £°6 9 ot 9 6's Ss g's v gs S g’s S$ “eee ee were oqo 
 PS LP AGOL FL eo ee lee igo ft Pres Cb pes Set). Ter y-1ee el ene 
 99] S [S42] S | 4h] € | 49] S$ |OS] S [69] S |gs]| & | 49} 9 | EQ] SF sseees* SBSUBY 
 VELA es pret Pe | ct (ie 1 Ge le Pee (Se 21 Pee Pave pe Pee ee eel eS eeeerrn 
 ov] © | gr Ss Sele wosleter. We oa] Oe € | 4°S €lge| € [of] c | ee] c | ee] € | ac] zc joes cs ues 
 Sef ree. zest xr er es ex fae ee) 24.8 2S Ce eee ee ei eee ey £7 eee 
 SORE] OR] ORT) PR) OR] S| BR OR RR PS] OS OR] OR) OR] SR] Ok] PS Pe] OR Sees | oe 
 SE(EE/FS/SE/FSSETFSlSEl FS PSR) FS] SS/FS SS FS /SS/FS/SE/FslERl PS Es 
 RSS] SSF] TIFT] SSS] PSs] PSF] SSE] TSF] SXF] SSF] SSS] sarvas 
 ® ® ® ® x is) ® ® ® s sy 
 SAD3 X 
 ua, 40f Iz61 Oz6I 6161 gI61 LI6I QI6I S161 VI6I £161 Z161 
 asDAIYy 
 
 ‘6161 ul porojsos ‘L161 
 
 UI poystjoqe sem yuourystund yeyrdeo ‘tmosstp UL ‘“UdATS oFe So}eI OY} YOIYA JOJ srvoA 94} JOAOO SIOUTT[]T pue 
 
 SESULY JO SOBeIOAL OUT, “*porsod sOYM JY} JOAO SUTPUYS SAT}LIOI OY} PUP SOSeIOAR OY} OATS 9[qe} OY} JO SUUUNOO 
 OM} 4SET OUT, ‘seoA 4eY} UI 93e}S OY} JO UOT}ISOd OAT}EIOI OY} SoyvoIpUT IvaA YOR UI UUINIOO 4SIY OY, 
 
 ‘adAy poovy Aavoy ur poyutid ore poystjoqe useq sey 
 
 guowysiund [eyrdeo yoIyA ut sozeys oy, ‘“IeOA YOO UI S9}e}S OY} JO UOTzISOd OAI}EIOI OY} YPM JOY}OSO} ‘OAISNOUT 
 ‘IZ61 0} TIGI sek OY} JOJ UOISIAIG] [eIJUID YON oY} Url soze4s JYSIo oY} JO SopeI OplolMO}F] OY} SUIMOYS 
 
 ITAX WIadVL 
 
103 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 OTIS Oe kk eel ag at ey Pe Te al Alo 34 Poet Of SQTi SOLS La Ss. Pea LO ere’ Oily ec Leip ee ota Sa eeeone 
 Sortie se | Ole Sei be9: |e Vv 0 SLrG Sl eery 8 oreo Lee eries - | eer ort. Pr ely i 2 ere) 
 S9Of1 Vie | S211 |e Oa ec 0-10) 1 O01 26-1 S22 v | 6°38 € j2°9g €=1'9'OT| FES O01) S| Ore ase ey O'O SP os 2" OD STOOL) 
 gh ip OD AR Se ae ES Bh hag ee mt il a ad ee 2 ‘ve ers COS0IC) 
 OT ee 2'S Por a oe Sy Pe rorg re oro) OO: fee | hehe os Sk cl 26 fat Ee Sl eee OP ole en eee 
 Piet Levesar © tka lo c 1S htt ee |e et ce. te ee ed oe 1 |6g] z jovor] s |So] rt [al] xr {°° *'wOPUITySeM 
 SSIAAIERSINS ES EGE BS ES BS ESBS ESE 56 BS ES BS BS bSRS nS 
 SS(SSTFS/LS TSS SS SS SS SS /SS/FS/SS/ FS] SS] FS) SS] Fs | SS) Fs) Ze/F3) ss 
 
 5. ss = ss S. Ss 5 se 3 ss S: ss S. ss 3 ss 5. 3 5. ss 5. s3 SHLVLS 
 
 ® As) As.) a SS a As) As) is) a a 
 
 $ava x aT See ee ee ee ae ae ee es Pee FS eS ars 
 
 uay, Aof IZ6I OZ6I 6161 gIOI LIOI QIOI S161 VIOI £161 ZIOI 
 
 IdDAIBY 
 
 ‘potiod o[OyM oY} IOAO SUIPULYS DATL 
 -~E[dI OY} PUL SOBLIOAL OY]} DAIS SUUINJOO OM} YSPT OUT, ‘IeaA Ye} UT 0}e}S OY} JO UOT}ISOd OAI}eIOI OY} SoPeOrpPUL 
 seo yovo Ul UUIN[OO ySsIY OY, ‘UOs0IO pu UOLZUTYSe MM UT poystjoqe sem yUowYstund yeyrdeo yoryM ut sIvah oYyy 
 oyeoIpur odd} pooey Aavoy url pojurid somsy oyy, ‘reek YoRa ur Soze4s OY} JO UOT}ISOd OAI}LIAI OY} YIM 104,030} 
 ‘QAISNOUT ‘IZOI OF ZI6I SIVdA JY} JO] UOISIAIC] U19}SOAA OY} Ul So}eYS XIS OY} JO So}eI OpIOrMIOFT OY} SuIMOoYS 
 
 IWIAX WIaVoL 
 
104 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE XIX 
 
 Miscellaneous statistics of Homicides, Indictments, Convic- 
 tions, Executions, etc., secured from Attorneys General and other 
 state officials. 
 
 ARIZONA I9IO-1922 505 homicides 
 IOI convictions 
 23 sentences to death 
 16 executions 
 
 ARKANSAS I92I-1922 424 homicides 
 38 sentences to life imprisonment 
 13 sentences to death 
 
 FLORIDA IQOI-1922 195 sentenced to death 
 153 executed 
 4 died 
 27 commuted to life imprisonment 
 II reversals by court 
 
 IDAHO I9I9-1922 47 convictions, murder, first degree 
 o death sentences 
 
 ILLINOIS 1921-1922 416 murder cases 
 7 death sentences 
 III prison sentences 
 
 NEBRASKA 1921-1922 57 prosecutions for murder 
 30 convictions 
 1 death sentence 
 
 NEw Hamp. 1912-1922 41 indictments, murder, first degree 
 12 life sentences 
 2 executions 
 
 NEW JERSEY 1912-1922 137 convictions, murder, first degree 
 44 executions 
 
 UTAH I9I2-1922 23 convictions, murder, first degree 
 10 executions 
 
 WISCONSIN 1921 56 cases of homicide in courts of 
 record 
 
 35 cases of murder 
 6 convicted of murder, first degree, 
 sentenced to life imprisonment 
 4 insane 
 6 convicted of murder, second 
 degree sentenced to 14 to 25 years 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 105 
 
 TABLE XX 
 
 Comparison of Homicide Rates of the Registration Area of the 
 United States with the rates of England and Wales, Scotland and 
 Ireland. The rates are based on 100,000 units of population. 
 The rates in the United States are taken from the Census Bureau 
 homicide statistics. The foreign rates were furnished through 
 the courtesy of Frederick L. Hoffman, Chief Statistician of The 
 Prudential Insurance Company of America and the sources as 
 stated by Dr. Hoffman’s office are given. 
 
 
 
 United England 
 
 Year Side Pa aioe Scotland Ireland 
 IQII 6.6 0.77 0.23 1.0 
 I9I2 6.6 0.87 0.23 0.9 
 1913 oR 0.87 0.19 1.0 
 1914 7.4 0.78 0.29 0.9 
 1915 7.0 0.77 0.42 0.8 
 1916 Tat 0.74 0.41 0.7 
 I9I7 a7 0.76 0.56 0.8 
 1918 6.8 0.63 0.47 0.7 
 1919 7.5 0.81 0.65 1.5 
 1920 7.1 0.77 0.62 9.5* 
 1921 8.5 0.65 0.37 ae 
 SOURCES 
 
 Statistics for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland are 
 from Statistical Abstract of the Umted Kingdom. 
 
 * NoTeE: The increase in 1920 in Ireland was probably due to 
 riots and internal disturbances, Figures for homicides in Ireland 
 are from Reports of the Registrar General for Ireland, 1911-1920. 
 
106 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE XXI 
 
 Comparison of Homicide Rates of the Registration Area of 
 the United States compared with the rates of Australia, New 
 Zealand and South Africa and the Provinces of Ontario and 
 Quebec in Canada. The rates are based on 100,000 units of 
 population. The rates in the United States are taken from the 
 Census Bureau homicide statistics. The foreign rates were 
 furnished through the courtesy of Frederick L. Hoffman, and 
 the sources as stated by Dr. Hoffman’s office are given. 
 
 United 
 Year States 
 IQII 6.6 
 I9I2 6.6 
 1913 7.2 
 1914 7-4 
 I9I5 7.0 
 1916 7.1 
 1917 7-7 
 1918 6.8 
 I9I9 7:5 
 1920 71 
 1921 8.5 
 AUSTRALIA: 
 
 NEW ZEALAND: 
 So. AFRICA: 
 ONTARIO: 
 
 QUEBEC: 
 
 Aus- New South Oniariail Ouse 
 tralia | Zealand| Africa | ~"9"" | ‘Meee 
 
 1.60 0.39 ag 0.71 0.40 
 2.18 0.95 1.53 0.50 0.39 
 1.94 0.75 2.56 0.45 0.71 
 1.81 1.19 2.44 0.65 0.50 
 1.84 1.36 2.25 0.33 0.36 
 1.85 1.09 1.35 0.50 0.31 
 1.49 0.91 1.26 0.72 0.69 
 1.81 0.36 1.07 0.75 0.68 
 
 
 
 2.16 0.44 0.63 0.62 
 
 2.13 1.34 5 “ga! 3 0.48 
 
 rive 1.23 ree 0.10 0.76 
 SOURCES 
 
 Population and Vital Statistics from Common- 
 wealth Demography, Bulletin No. 38. 
 
 Figures from Population and Vital Statistics of 
 the Dominion of New Zealand. 
 
 Homicide figures (for white population only) 
 from Statistics of Union of South Africa. 
 
 Figures from Vital Statistics of Ontario, 
 Canada. 
 
 Homicide figures from Health reports of the 
 Province of Quebec. 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 107 
 
 TABLE XXII 
 
 Comparison of Homicide Rates of the Registration Area of the 
 United States with the rates of Spain, Holland, Sweden, Norway 
 and Hungary. The rates are based on 100,000 units of popula- 
 tion. The rates in the United States are taken from the Census 
 Bureau homicide statistics. The foreign rates were furnished 
 through the courtesy of Frederick L. Hoffman and the sources 
 as stated by Dr. Hoffman’s office are given. 
 
 United 
 
 States | S20” | Holland | Sweden | Norway |Hungary 
 
 6.6 
 6.6 
 7.2 
 7.4 
 7.0 
 7.1 
 7:7 
 6.8 
 7.5 
 
 
 
 SOURCES 
 
 SPAIN: Statistics from Annuario Estadistico de Espana. 
 IQII-I9QI7. 
 
 HOLLAND: Statistics from Statistiek van de sterfte van Neder- 
 land and from Jaarcifers voor het Koninkrijk der 
 Nederlanden Rijk in Europa. 
 
 SWEDEN: Statistics from Ddédsorsaker av Kungl. Statistika 
 Centralbrron. 
 
 Norway: Statistics from Statistik Aarbok. 
 
 HunGary: Source of information, Annuaire Statistique Hongrots. 
 
108 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE XXIII 
 
 Comparison of Homicide Rates of all Registration Cities in 
 the United States with the rates of foreign cities. The rates are 
 based on 100,000 units of population. The rates in the United 
 States are taken from the Census Bureau homicide statistics. 
 The foreign rates were furnished through the courtesy of Fred- 
 erick L. Hoffman and the sources as stated by Dr. Hoffman’s . 
 office are given. 
 
 All 
 
 Regis- 
 Year | tration Greater 
 
 Cities |Berlin |Hamburg|Letpzig | Parts | Munich| Cologne 
 
 United 
 
 States 
 I911|] 8.3 1.31 0.87 1.34517 3:38 2.98 |} 1.53 * 
 1912} 8.4 | 1.96 2.54 2.47. 13.67 1) 4.07 | aban 
 1913} 9.0 | 1.45 2.19 0.07.74 a2 4.66 | 2.38 * 
 1914] 9.2 1.92 3.54 1.76 \4- 2.9% 1.31 | 2.28 * 
 191I5| 8.7 aii, 1.29 0.84 | 0.28 9.40.) 2. 9er 
 1916} 8.9 | 2.28 74 2.68 | 0.45 2.06; 1 2am 
 1917 | 10.0 | 2.69 | 0.67 0.73 | 0.65 | 0.94 | 0.72 * 
 1918] 8.8 3.31 2.75 1.19 0.41 0.93 
 1919} 9.5 | 5.04 aye 3.14.1 1.99 | 15.00°] 2.85 
 1920| 8.8 1.63 2.61 | 3.49 * 
 1921] 9.9 a 3.89 | 2.09 * 
 
 SOURCES 
 
 BERLIN: Statistiches Jahrbuch der Stadt Berlin and Be- 
 volkerungsvorgange Berlins. 
 
 HAMBURG: Bericht tiber die Medizinische Statistik des Ham- 
 burgischen Staates. 
 
 PARIS: Annuaire Statistique de la Ville de Paris. 
 
 MunicH:  Statistisches Monatsbericht der Stadt Miinchen. 
 
 COLOGNE: Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Koln. 
 
 * Note: Figures for Munich for 1919 and for Cologne for the 
 entire period include deaths from capital punishment. 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 109 
 
 TABLE XXIV 
 
 ITALY 
 
 HOMICIDE RATES 
 
 Average No. per 
 Period 100,000 Inhabi- 
 tants Per Year 
 
 
 
 Note: Statistics were secured from the Italian Ministry of 
 Justice through the American Consul General at Rome. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 IIo 
 
 
 
 Te SSW 
 
 ee cvesccvegrvava 
 seeeceesoarvn “1g 
 “*T ‘HY TIAZNaddy 
 **** NESOVHAAVHOS 
 sees esse ONNORIa 
 tee ee cee ereeenng 
 sre eee* NFGTIVMAO 
 reese ees 7AMHOG 
 CEES + 70 
 
 seeeees NEON 
 
 “2QDYuUT 
 000‘00r 
 SNOLNYO 
 
 OZ6I-18gI OZ6I-I1I61 OI6I—1061 OO6I—I6g8I O6ZI-IggI 
 
 quouystund [eyideo SUIAeY SUOJULO OY} UIY}IA (2) 
 
 *s1voA £410} JO ported o[OYM 94} I9A00 041 94} PU SOplorlwMoY jo Joquinu oy} ‘9]qe} 94} JO UUIN[OO B[qnop [eUy oy} 
 OBI [PIUUBIEp 94} JO Y}U9}-aUO oq P[NOM 94eI [eNUUL 94} ‘sezeI SOYeIg PoqIUA) 94} YyIM UOstIeduIOS Jo ssodind oy} Joy “sive 
 
 U9} JOJ ae sjULTIGeyUI JO OOO‘OOL Jod 94e1 94} PUL SeplorMIOY JO JoquInU oY} “jse] ot} ydaoxe potsed yous Ur yey} 9JON 
 ‘go1ysnf jo juourjredagq 
 
 [eJoPpeg SSIMG OY} WIOIJ OUIOg UI oZ¥[NSUOD ULOLIOUY OY} YBNOIY} poinoess o19M PULIIOZ}IMG UI Sepformoy Jo Vjep 94, 
 
 GNVTYGZLIMS ‘SACIDINOH WOU SHLVAG 
 AXX ATAVL 
 
IIl 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $°z Ppolsed ivaA us} Yove IOj Bulog 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6°6 g6ze g'I 989 ad 988 L’z 363 
 eee ose coe 88 eee QzI ove Q£1 
 
 0°6 bS7z BOX, esp ANS zss Saas £gs 
 L‘or Zvi a ov Shu vz 6rl Sz 
 v3 gor 9°0 g L°t £z o'% Qz 
 L°6 blz 6’! 09 I°% 89 £°z 99 
 z°6 QcI os ve 0°% If vz ve 
 eZ £g Gr 0% 6'I 9c cee DE 
 g°L IQI cor of 6'I Sv S:Z zs 
 I°L vL g°I Zo vr LI Lx gI 
 g's Ze Pl 8 S°I 6 ea i L 
 Lor cL Q'I I 6% cz ee Zz 
 vg v6 6'I Le £71 SI Bib 61 
 err €11 Qg°I vz vz Sz ze ze 
 9°s QI 6°0 £ 9°0 z oo L 
 Sort SI I°% £ vr Zz <5 L 
 z°6 Ivs Z°I £g O°? Of£I £°~ LEI 
 £°6 ooVv vr gl ZS Lor 9°z €11 
 $qUDI S]UD}4 SqUD} S1UD} 
 
 -1qoyuy | $?P22 || -ranyuz | $?P!2 || -rqoyuz | S?P?2 | -rqanyuz | $9P9 
 
 ooo‘oor | “40 || oootoor | “OH || oootoor | “9H || oootoor | “OH 
 49d 19707 49d 1270. 49d 1070. 49d 1010L 
 
 OZ6I-I8gI Oz6I-I161 OI6I-1061 OO6I—16g81 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3°z 928 
 vies 999 
 o's €£s 
 ov 6 
 ABS 08 
 bt 6z 
 6'l Oz 
 GET ve 
 Q'I LI 
 S“I 8 
 AS SI 
 I'v of 
 a 6z 
 Sr 9 
 vz € 
 gf I6I 
 ove Zor 
 SqUDI 
 -1QDYUT sap1a 
 ooo‘oor | “MoH 
 49d 10707 
 O68I-IggI 
 
 quowmystund jeyideo Surssassod you suojueo oY} UIYZIM (q) 
 
 (panuyuod) AXX Tavi 
 
 eeee Oe OCCT YE 
 *-AHZLIMG AOA TVLOL 
 
 
 
 ‘NMONANQ @TIOINOG 
 
 —— 
 
 etn eek WO. | 
 
 
 
 
 
 sens eo o0ce GemNET) 
 cece ce es *TALYHOANAN 
 C5 aah avs Come ye 
 to eeceeseesoe MISCHT 
 seeeeeeee TIAQODUNHL 
 soe sees sees TTAQDTY 
 peas o¥ 0s * +0 ENOSTEL) 
 “IXY ‘HY TIAZNaddy 
 "ee °* ANOVdINVO-ATY 
 Tere ce eee TIITA-TIVG 
 tee eeceeses TENTION 
 se teens sess s sorawtsy 
 te ee e+ cee NTGIVMGIN 
 eee ceeecsooc nang 
 re eecerereore HTN 
 
 SNOLNVD 
 
112 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE XXVI 
 AVERAGE HoMICIDE RATES 
 
 Average Ra, 
 Country Period for Period 
 
 UNITED STATES 
 Total in Registration Area I9II-I921 
 
 ENGLAND AND WALES I91I-I921 
 IQII-I921 
 I9II-I919 
 
 I9II-1921 
 
 I9II-I921 
 
 I9II-1920 
 
 NEW ZEALAND IQII—1922 
 
 SouTH AFRICA 1912-1918 
 
 SPAIN IQII-1917 
 
 Tray (Abolition) 1910-1920 
 
 HoLianpD (Abolition) I91I-1918 
 
 SWEDEN 1909-1918 
 
 Norway (Abolition) I9IO-I919 
 SWITZERLAND (10 cantons with capi- 
 
 tal punishment, 15 without) I9II-1920 
 
 
 
 TABLE XXVII 
 
 AVERAGE HoMICIDE RATES FOR CITIES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average Rate 
 City Period for Period 
 FOREIGN CITIES 
 Greater Hamburg 1912-1918 2.10 
 Leipzig I9II-—1920 1.68 
 Berlin 1912-1919 2.48 
 
 Paris I9IO-I9I9 1.93 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 113 
 
 TABLE XXVII—Continued 
 AVERAGE HoMICIDE RATES 
 
 Average Rate 
 City Period for Period 
 
 CITIES IN UNITED STATES 
 New York 1912-1921 
 Philadelphia 
 Boston 
 Milwaukee 
 Rochester 
 Reading, Pa. 
 
 
 
 Note: Of the American cities selected for comparison, Reading 
 is the lowest, Rochester the second lowest and Milwaukee the 
 third lowest of the twenty-eight largest cities in the United States. 
 
 TABLE XXVIII 
 
 Return of Number of Cases of Supposed Murder in England 
 and Wales in 1912, 1913, 1920 and Ig2r (excluding cases of 
 Infanticide of Children under one year by Mother, and Deaths 
 from Illegal Operations). 
 
 Taken from a Report presented to Parliament 
 December, 1922. 
 
 Apart from cases of infanticide of children under one year of 
 age by mother and cases of death from illegal operations, 390 
 cases of supposed murder came to the knowledge of the Police in 
 the years I9I2, I913, 1920 and 1921. 
 
 In 83 of these cases the murderer committed suicide; in 288 
 cases arrests were made involving 313 persons; in the remaining 
 19 cases no arrest was made. 
 
 Of the 313 persons arrested and charged with murder, 64 were 
 discharged or acquitted in respect of 51 cases, other persons 
 being convicted in respect of three of these cases; 94 were con- 
 victed of murder and sentenced to death; 70 were ordered to be 
 
114 APPENDIX A 
 
 detained during His Majesty’s Pleasure (found guilty but insane, 
 insane on arraignment or below 16 years of age); 74 were con- 
 victed of lesser offenses (manslaughter, wounding, &c.); 6 were 
 found insane before trial; and the remaining 5 were disposed of as 
 follows: 1 died awaiting trial, 1 extradited to Norway, 1 arrested 
 and dealt with in italy, 1 shot while being arrested, 1 handed 
 over to the American authorities. 
 
 ——— 
 
 1912|1913/1920|1921| Total . 
 
 
 
 NUMBER OF CASES OF SUPPOSED 
 
 
 
 MURDER 
 Cases in which supposed murderer 
 Was ATER fade aie 78 | 74 | 80 | 56 288 
 Cases in which murderer commit- 
 tedvenicide. 329 Sy SVP ew 16 | 25 | 20 | 22 83 
 Cases in which no arrest wasmade| 4] 1| 7} 7 19 
 MLR; Jats tale Sint wh Siar etek 98 |100 |/107 | 85 | 390 
 
 NUMBER OF PERSONS ARRESTED AND 
 RESULTS OF PROCEEDINGS 
 
 Convicted of Murder 
 
 
 
 Sentenced to death........... 26 | 27 | 28 | 13 94 
 Persons under 16 detained dur- 
 ing His Majesty’s pleasure...| .. | .. I 2 3 
 Found guilty but insane.......} 12 | 13 | 12] 8 45 
 Total convicted of murder...} 38 | 40 | 41 | 23 142 
 Convicted of some other offense..| 27 | 19 | 13 | 15 74 
 Agch Gr eG... y.i3 cw 45's eas I2 | 12 | 26] 14 64 
 Found insane on arraignment....| 4] 5 ey te 22 
 Found insane on trial........... Oe ee en I 6 
 IEDR SORUION EC Ws h b's nino ne aha Oe o's 0} Ss rere 5 
 
 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 115 
 
 TABLE XXIX 
 STATISTICS OF HOMICIDES, ENGLAND AND WALES, I913 TO 1922 
 
 Statistics received from Home Office, through the American 
 Embassy at London, England. 
 
 IQIZ/IOT4Z/IOI5| IOIG|19I7/1918/1919|1920|/ 1921/1922 
 
 CRIMES KNOWN TO POLICE 
 Murder 
 Manslaughter 
 
 Total 
 
 Rate per 100,000 
 
 MURDER 
 
 Persons for trial (B) 
 
 Number actually tried 
 
 Number convicted of mur- 
 der (C) 
 
 Persons under 16 ordered to 
 be detained during His 
 Majesty’s Pleasure 
 
 Sentenced to Death 
 
 Sentenced to Imprisonment 
 for Life 
 
 Executed 
 
 
 
 Note: Figures on line (A) relate to all murders known to the Police, 
 whereas those on line (B) relate to the number of persons brought to 
 trial in respect of those murders or some of them. Figures on line 
 (C) give only the number of persons convicted of murder. Many of 
 those mentioned in line (B) would be found guilty of the lesser offense 
 of manslaughter and a certain number would be acquitted. 
 
116 APPENDIX A 
 
 TABLE XXX 
 
 Showing the number of persons for trial and the number of 
 convictions in the Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions in 
 England and Wales for the year 1921. 
 
 TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS FOR TRIAL.......... 8934 
 ING: DROSEOWLIOT Sic). Weis Wuleie hardic matele sk ee 13 
 Insane on arraionment 0a e Oe bab due Os oe ee 30 
 Coit ted ie RU he, Cee Rea cea 1712 
 Special verdict, guilty but insane.............. 27 
 KCORIV ICH: Lista toc hle'd o/s hints beete auton Bald le See ee 7152 
 
 ieee 
 
 LOTAL CONVICTIONS Vi..05 Uy box mie & vein hone. a die aC 7152 
 peritented: to death Fist bike yeh ele wae uale eee 13 
 
 hy " menal servitide.| is saves veut aes re 582 
 re UR DFISONITIOME ce, |. Siewert Conte 4648 
 x “* ‘Borstal detention [3 2.0; wa oe eee 
 " ‘* recognizances with probation officer 516 
 w ‘“* recognizances {without probation 
 OTCBE ASIN wd oles wleace ale hey Aaa 902 
 Otherwise dispased Of i.) bss enaduecey pe eee 164 
 ene rer 
 
 Note: The Courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions in England 
 and Wales are the chief courts of Criminal Jurisdiction. The 
 above figures are taken from Judicial Statistics, England and 
 Wales 1921; Part I, Criminal Statistics. 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 117 
 
 TABLE XXXI 
 
 Table showing the number of Homicides, Homicide Rate, 
 Indictments, Trials, Sentences and Executions, in France, for 
 the years 1913, 1919, 1920 and 1921, furnished by the French 
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 1913*| 1919 | 1920 | I92If 
 
 1.—Number of homicides......... I501 | 1541 | 1940 | 1737 
 2.—Homicide rate per 100,000 of 
 
 DOTMUACION Se Sa! dialer lw sey aes 4 4 5 4 
 3.—Number of indictments for 
 
 BICUEE Viale site be wets Rares ae He 1304 | 1136 | 1603 | 1650 
 4.—Of those indicted, the number 
 
 Hroupht tottialyy oiaveere ss 855 | 620 | 1154 | 1048 
 5.—Of those tried, the number con- 
 
 WIE Sa ea si teme sa sale Bie 558 | 391 | 410] 713 
 6.—Of those convicted, the number 
 
 sentenced to death........... 20 16 54 64 
 7.—Of those convicted, the number 
 
 sentenced to life imprisonment. 70 36 | 104 | IOZ 
 8.—Of those sentenced to death, the 
 
 number subsequently executed. 10 5 13 20 
 
 Comments on statistics made by Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 
 
 *Information collected during 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 
 
 (war years) has not been published and is so summary as to be 
 of little value. 
 
 {Scrutiny of statistics for 1922 not yet terminated. 
 
 The number of homicides set down in the first line represents 
 the totality of crimes by assassination, murder, poisoning, 
 infanticide, parricide, assault and battery resulting in death, 
 and those cases constituting a crime or misdemeanor which were 
 not followed up by the Public Prosecutor, or in which the bill of 
 indictment was thrown out by the Examining Magistrate or the 
 Court of Indictment. 
 
 Cases in which the bill of indictment was thrown out were 
 likewise taken into account in the valuation of the figures in line 
 3, “‘number of indictments,” this expression having been inter- 
 preted in the sense of “‘inculpations.”’ 
 
118 APPENDIX A 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF CHART I 
 
 Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
 the years 1910 to 1921 inclusive in two states in the 
 North Atlantic Division which have abolished capital 
 punishment (Maine and Rhode Island) contrasted 
 with the combined average rate in two states in this 
 Division similar in size, character of population and 
 industrial conditions, which retain capital punish- 
 ment. (New Hampshire and Connecticut). 
 
 The solid black line represents the combined aver- 
 age rate in those states which retain capital punish- 
 ment, the broken black line represents the combined 
 average rate in those states in which it has been 
 abolished. 
 
 The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statis- 
 tics of the United States Census Bureau. 
 
119 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 SEE perp ioearkia OE SHEET 
 NUMBER ONE 
 
 oie 
 2) 
 Q 
 wl 
 = 
 io 
 zr 
 9° 
 a 
 < 
 s 
 - 
 
 STATES RETAIN C.P 
 
 a 
 z 
 < 
 a 
 = 
 - 
 nt 
 
 i 
 bald 
 SS Bee OE < 
 
 
 
120 APPENDIX A 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF CHART II 
 
 Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
 the years 1914 to I921 inclusive in the North Central 
 Division in two states which have abolished capital 
 punishment (Michigan and Minnesota) contrasted 
 with the combined average rate in two states in this 
 Division similar in size, character of population and 
 industrial conditions which retain capital punish- 
 ment. (Ohio and Indiana). 
 
 The solid black line represents the combined aver- 
 age rate in those states which retain capital punish- 
 ment, the broken black line represents the combined 
 average rate in those states where it has been abol- 
 ished. 
 
 The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statis- 
 tics of the United States Census Bureau. 
 
I2I 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 APACE PL 
 SLL TPL eT 
 UL 
 SEH HECHT 
 
 NUMBER TWO “2” 
 
 
 
 SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHART If 
 
 
 
 » ABOLISHED C.P 
 
 
 
 STATES RETAIN C.P 
 
 
 
 Tete 
 
122 APPENDIX A 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF CHART III 
 
 Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
 the years I9II to 1921 inclusive in four states in the 
 Western Division which retained capital punishment 
 (Montana, Colorado, Utah and California) contrasted 
 with the Homicide Rates in Minnesota, Washington 
 and Oregon. In Minnesota capital punishment was 
 abolished for the entire period. In Washington it 
 was abolished in I913 and restored in 1919. In 
 Oregon it was abolished in 1914 and restored in 1920. 
 
 The solid line represents the combined average 
 rate in the four states which retained capital punish- 
 ment and in Washington and Oregon for the period 
 before and after abolition. The broken line represents 
 the rates in these two states during the abolition 
 period. The dotted line represents the rate in Minne- 
 sota for the entire period. The Homicide Rate figures 
 are taken from statistics of the United States Census 
 Bureau. 
 
123 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 —| | S + <t 
 | =e 
 
 » |S | See 
 Ngai esisiele ps | | CBR Te 
 
 ) bo cae ‘ : 
 
 peed 5 
 
 ! ae S 
 
 N\ + * . 
 
 ~ 29 ek 
 “wu IW 2M 
 Ell sre Ta t 5 
 
 _, é; 
 
 : Ge | 
 n un 
 se 2 | 
 
 . : 
 0 aL q |: | 
 
 a? | a 
 
 = zee rad ec Ee 
 atti A 
 
 
 
 oO 
 N 
 oO 
 
 
 
 SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 NUMBER THREE "3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CHART Il 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0o}oQ 
 = e zw) \n 
 oO K|2<| 2 
 _ YO1S 
 t]o 
 [3 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 ° 
 Xe) 
 
 
 
 0 ee - 
 
 fa} t+ 4 wo 
 iow [o> < Say st 
 FYo ame \ 
 | Bata i 
 1 <0 5 
 low 
 
 v4 
 * 6 
 © 89s y ‘ 
 jeeel— = 3 - 
 fo 5 4i— Ny Ba 
 LGOO|D - 
 }20qQ _ < 
 Ooo 
 yOO 
 
 ! 
 
 ! 
 
 i 
 
 ie 
 
 a: 
 16) 
 o 
 : oO Pre) 
 
 a“ 
 om 
 
 ind 
 N 
 PH THOM OHSU? 
 
 
 
 2 = — 
 Te menienninntanneiill 
 
 
 
124 APPENDIX A 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF CHART IV 
 
 Showing the combined average Homicide Rate for 
 the years 1914 to I921 inclusive in six states where 
 capital punishment was abolished (Maine, Rhode 
 Island, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Kansas) 
 contrasted with the Homicide Rate for the entire 
 Registration Area of the United States. 
 
 The solid line represents the Homicide Rate in the 
 Registration Area, the broken black line represents 
 the combined average rate in the six abolition states. 
 
 The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statis- 
 tics of the United States Census Bureau. 
 
125 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 RATE IN ENTIRE REGISTRATION CH: 
 
 Ps 
 
 NUMBER FOUR 
 
 H 
 { 
 1 
 ) a 
 
 » SiX ABOLITION 
 
 
 
126 APPENDIX A 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF CHART V 
 
 Showing a comparison of the Homicide Rate 
 between Cities and Rural Districts in the Registra- 
 tion Area of the United States for the period 1911 to 
 1921 inclusive. The solid line represents the rate in 
 Cities, the broken line the rate in the Rural District. 
 
 The Homicide Rate figures are taken from statistics 
 of the United States Census Bureau. 
 
127 
 
 TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 - 
 yu 
 x 
 wie 
 >t 
 a 
 E 
 uw 
 = 
 ud 
 - 
 1a 
 a 
 2 
 ” 
 13 
 ,” 
 
 NUMBER FIVE “5” 
 
 _ RURAL OIS. 
 
 ATTTLT 
 ACCUEIL CCE 
 BULLETS Pt 
 AULT a | 
 
 fl eee eee Saar e St eT eee 
 
 
 
128 APPENDIX A 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF CHARTS VI AND VII 
 
 Showing graphically: 
 
 Chart VI, for all states for which complete statistics 
 are available, the percentage of all those sentenced to 
 death during the years I912 to 1919 inclusive, who 
 were subsequently executed. 
 
 Total number sentenced to death 722 
 Number who failed to be executed 210 
 Total number executed 512 
 
 Chart VII, for all states for which complete statistics 
 are available, the percentage of those sentenced to life 
 imprisonment during the eight years 1912 to I9I9 
 inclusive, who were commuted, or released prior to 
 January Ist, 1923, and the percentage who on that 
 date were still in prison or had died or become insane. 
 
 Total number sentenced to life imprison- 
 ment 2936 
 Number commuted, released, etc., prior 
 to January Ist, 1923 651 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 
 
 \ r 
 
 HAR 
 SEE SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 fi COMMUTED, 
 RELEASED, ETC. 
 
 WN 
 INSANE\OR 
 WWWQH 
 RE IN PRISON 
 Aare 
 
 JAN MN 
 RAK 
 Ie 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 129 
 
130 APPENDIX A 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF CHART VIII 
 
 Showing graphically the total number of reported 
 homicides in twelve states during the years’ 1912 to 
 1919, inclusive; the number of prisoners sentenced to 
 death and the number executed during the same 
 period. 
 
 STATES INCLUDED 
 
 NEw HAMPSHIRE VIRGINIA 
 VERMONT KENTUCKY 
 MASSACHUSETTS INDIANA 
 CONNECTICUT OHIO 
 
 NEw YORK UTAH 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA CALIFORNIA 
 
TABLES AND CHARTS 131 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY 
 
 
 

 
Appendix B 
 
 
 
 QUOTATIONS 
 
 133 
 

 
EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE WITH STATE EXECU- 
 TIVES AND WITH WARDENS OF STATE PRISONS; 
 COMMENTS BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL; 
 QUOTATIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES. 
 
 Extracts from Letters from Governors 
 
 The sentiment of our people would be overwhelm- 
 ingly against restoration of the death penalty if 
 the question were brought forward for discussion. 
 The policy of the State is fixed and I do not think 
 there is even a small minority of our people who 
 would favor a change. 
 
 —GOVERNOR BAXTER of Maine. 
 
 The abolition of capital punishment did not tend 
 to increase the number of murders. It apparently had 
 no effect one way or the other. There is no agitation 
 in the state at this time for the restoration of capital 
 punishment. I feel that South Dakota did a wise 
 thing in abolishing this penalty. 
 
 —GOVERNOR McMasTER, South Dakota. 
 
 I am opposed to capital punishment because I think 
 it serves no good purpose. I believe that public execu- 
 tions instead of operating to the public good, have 
 just the opposite effect. 
 
 —GOVERNOR Hunt, Arizona. 
 
 The Governor is inclined to the belief that capital 
 punishment is not justified at all. The Governor is 
 
 135 
 
136 APPENDIX B 
 
 strongly of the opinion that capital punishment in 
 Colorado has not had any effect whatsoever as a 
 deterrent of crime. 
 —HALE SMITH, Secretary to 
 Governor Sweet of Colorado. 
 
 I would repeal the law which provides the death 
 penalty, except as it applies to criminals, who, after 
 being sentenced, commit another capital offense, and 
 I would not permit the Governor or anyone else but — 
 the Court to alter the sentence pronounced by the 
 Court for such crimes. 
 
 —Ex-GovERNOoR McKELvIE, Nebraska. 
 Message to Legislature, January 6, 1921. 
 
 I do not believe that the number of murders has 
 either greatly increased nor decreased since the death 
 penalty was abolished twelve years ago. 
 
 —GOVERNOR PrREus, Minnesota. 
 
 Governor Groesbeck takes the view that the State 
 has no more right to commit murder than has a private 
 individual. Neither does it appear from the statis- 
 tics gathered from states which still have capital 
 punishment that the infliction of the death penalty is 
 a real deterrent of the crime of murder, and if this 
 be so, surely the whole case in favor of capital punish- 
 ment falls to the ground. There is no question in the 
 Governor’s mind that the abolition of the death pen- 
 alty many years ago by the State of Michigan was 
 generally beneficial to the State. 
 
 —Ro.puH Durr, Secretary to 
 Governor Groesbeck, Michigan. 
 
QUOTATIONS iets 
 
 My impression would be that the abolition of capital 
 punishment removes one of the deterrents to the 
 commission of the crime of murder, but that it is 
 justified nevertheless. 
 
 —GoveErRnNor NEstTos, North Dakota. 
 
 When the citizens of a commonwealth are educated 
 to the point of believing that a criminal needs scien- 
 tific treatment at the hands of a penologist quite as 
 much as a consumptive patient requires medical care; 
 when a State is provided with penal and correctional 
 institutions adequate as to size, equipment and person- 
 nel; when convicts, without being ‘‘coddled,’’ are so 
 trained that they return to their communities better 
 citizens for having been incarcerated; when a State 
 has taken such forward steps in penal reform, no 
 appreciable opposition to the abolition of capital pun- 
 ishment will be manifest. 
 
 —GOVERNOR PINCHOT, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Comments by State Attorneys General’ 
 
 Personally, I do not believe that there is any relation 
 between first degree murder and the punishment pre- 
 scribed therefor... . 
 
 —QOscar L. Younc, New Hampshire. 
 
 It seems to me very clear that the use of capital 
 punishment does not prevent homicides, and I am 
 sure there is no substantial sentiment in Wisconsin 
 in favor of returning to capital punishment. 
 
 —HERMAN L. EKERN, Wisconsin. 
 
 * Published in Report of the Committee on Law Entorcement 
 of the American Bar Association, August, 1923. 
 
138 APPENDIX B 
 
 I am of the opinion that capital punishment is not 
 a deterrent of homicides. ... It seems to me that 
 merely prescribing an extreme penalty accomplishes 
 nothing; it is a mere bogie which frightens no one. 
 If we could substitute for this bogie the certainty of 
 some punishment, whatever it might be, this certainty 
 would be a deterrent. 
 
 —MI.Ton J. HELmicx, New Mexico. 
 
 My observation leads me to the conclusion that 
 capital crimes are not committed by people who have 
 sufficient control to feel the deterring effect of punish- 
 
 ment. 
 —J.S. UTLEy, Arkansas. 
 
 My observation has been that the average person 
 who commits a crime never considers for a moment 
 what the penalty will probably be should he be appre- 
 hended and convicted, and therefore, severe penalties 
 do not have the deterrent effect that some people would 
 ascribe to them. The greatest deterrent which might 
 occur by law enforcement is the certainty of detec- 
 
 tion and conviction. 
 —RtIvers Burorp, Florida. 
 
 I have no well defined opinion as to how much of a 
 deterrent the death penalty is. I doubt if it has much 
 virtue in that respect. . . . Whatever effect the 
 death penalty may have, however, is largely negatived 
 by the fact that juries are reluctant to fix it, judges 
 are reluctant to pronounce it, courts are eager to seize 
 upon technical grounds for the modification of the 
 judgment and the pardoning power hastens to com- 
 
QUOTATIONS 139 
 
 mute. . . . it is not so much the degree of the 
 punishment which acts as a deterrent upon the 
 criminal, as it is the speed with which the punish- 
 ment follows the crime and the certainty that the 
 penalty must be paid. 
 
 —A.H. Connor, Idaho. 
 
 While I cannot say that I have positive convictions 
 upon the subject I have always doubted the right or 
 the propriety of imposing the death penalty since 
 government is apparently able to protect society 
 without this extreme measure. 
 
 —ULyssEs S. Les, Indiana. 
 
 Extracts from Letters from Wardens 
 
 I am unalterably opposed to capital punishment, 
 have always been and probably will always be, as I 
 do not believe there is any deterrent in capital punish- 
 ment. . .. I realize that society often is exasper- 
 ated over some hideous crime that is committed, yet 
 the infliction of the death penalty is no deterrent, 
 and very few, if any, of the men I have known who 
 were executed, ever gave any thought to the penalty 
 when the crime was committed. On the other hand 
 some of the best men I have ever come in contact 
 with behind the prison walls were men who had been 
 sent to the Penitentiary under the death penalty and 
 whose sentences have been commuted to life imprison- 
 ment, so it is better by far to give the offender a 
 chance to reclaim himself, repent of his crime and 
 possibly save his soul, than it is to inflict the death 
 
140 APPENDIX B 
 
 penalty upon him. Capital punishment never lessens 
 crime nor will it ever doso.... 
 —TuHomMAsS J. TYNAN, Warden, 
 Colorado State Penitentiary. 
 
 I am not in favor of capital punishment. I am for . 
 the reformation of men who have been sent to prison. 
 I do not believe it will lessen crime in any way. 
 
 —Harry L. Huripurt, Warden, 
 Michigan State Prison. 
 
 I do not believe the death penalty is any deterrent 
 to crime. There are no more murders in Rhode 
 Island where the death penalty was abolished seventy- 
 five years ago than there are in Massachusetts, 
 Connecticut or New York, where the death penalty 
 is still inflicted. 
 
 —CHARLES E. Linscott, Warden, 
 Rhode Island State Prison. 
 
 I am frank to say that I do not believe in capital 
 punishment. Ido not believe that we have any more 
 crime than they do in the states where they have 
 capital punishment. 
 
 —LESTER D. Eaton, Warden, 
 Maine State Prison. 
 
 I, personally, am opposed to capital punishment. 
 I do not believe it acts as a preventive, and if it does 
 not, why should we have it? 
 —G. T. JAMESON, Warden, 
 South Dakota Penitentiary. 
 
QUOTATIONS 141 
 
 Miscellaneous Quotations 
 
 I believe the public is gradually awaking to this 
 fact; that the death penalty is serving no purpose 
 (except dispensing with the necessity of feeding, 
 housing and providing work for the prisoner) which 
 cannot be accomplished with much better effect in 
 the interest of society, by imprisonment, and the 
 public’s will to abolish executions will be expressed 
 in many states before many years. This growing 
 attitude is indicated by many signs. 
 
 —Death by Law, by Harry L. Davis, 
 Ex-Governor of Ohio. 
 
 It is a perfectly safe assumption that a very con- 
 siderable proportion of homicidal crimes escape 
 punishment, while the enforcement of the death 
 penalty is a rather rare event, considering the large 
 extent of cases in which it is deserved. Personally, 
 my investigations, particularly in the case of electro- 
 cutions, have led me to change my opinion, and I am 
 now reasonably well convinced that capital punish- 
 ment, even when properly enforced, is not a sufficient 
 deterrent of homicidal crimes to justify its continu- 
 ance. It is a relic of barbarism for which modern 
 civilized society should long since have been able to 
 find a proper substitute. 
 
 —Dr. FREDERICK L. HOFFMAN, 
 Consulting Statistitian, 
 Prudential Life Insurance Company. 
 
 It is a matter of history and statistics that in pro- 
 portion as capital punishment, torture and cruel 
 penalties are abolished, crime decreases. . . . No 
 
142 APPENDIX B 
 
 soul except the soul unafraid could ever be genuinely 
 
 good. It is fear that makes criminals. Fear is not 
 
 the cure for crime. ... Seventy-five per cent of the 
 
 life-term prisoners in the United States are model 
 
 prisoners. .. . Probably not more than eighteen per 
 
 cent of the life men have ever been in serious conflict — 
 with the law before. 
 
 —MorbDECAI S. PLUMMER, Ex-Warden, 
 New Castle County Workhouse, 
 Wilmington, Delaware. 
 
 There have been received in this institution two 
 hundred and sixty-three prisoners under life sentence. 
 Of these sixty-five have been discharged by pardon. 
 Our records show but one case where the prisoner 
 pardoned returned to crime. 
 
 —Letter from Warden, Wisconsin State 
 Prison, to CHARLES B. GALBREATH. 
 
 I was previously confined in one of the largest 
 prisons of Paris, where I came in contact with several 
 thousand fellow-prisoners. . . . Amongst other 
 things we talked of capital punishment. And I heard 
 from all of them that its effect was just the opposite 
 from that claimed for it. For these men were outcasts 
 from respectable society. They had no further hope 
 of its estimation or honor; yet everyone naturally 
 desires the good opinion of his fellow men, and if he 
 cannot obtain the appreciation of the good, he will 
 still value the admiration of the bad. Such is human 
 vanity. But if there is anything the criminal class 
 admire it is pluck and daring defiance of authority 
 and its penalties. Consequently even the Guillotine 
 
: QUOTATIONS eae, 
 
 is to them an object to be defied in actual life. And 
 thus do they defy and disregard it because it renders 
 them heroes to their own class. 
 —Interview with a French prisoner. 
 Quoted by WILLIAM TALLACK, in 
 Penological and Preventive Principles. 
 
 Concerning the abolishment of capital punishment, 
 Governor Washburn wrote in 1873: 
 
 ‘It has been twenty years since the abolishment of 
 capital punishment in this State. No State can show a 
 greater freedom from homicidal crimes with a popula- 
 tion representing almost every nationality. Statistics 
 show that crime, instead of increasing with the growth 
 of population in the state, has actually decreased.”’ 
 
 Governor McGovern wrote in 1912: 
 
 ‘“More than fifty years ago capital punishment was 
 abolished in Wisconsin. There is no movement here to 
 restore capital punishment, the people being well 
 satisfied with the present law.”’ 
 
 We believe that this is the concensus of opinion in 
 
 Wisconsin today. 
 —Extract from letter from 
 
 WISCONSIN STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, 
 
 July, 1923. 
 Professor Liepmann has made an exhaustive study 
 of the effect of the abolishment of the death penalty 
 in fifteen countries, including Italy, Portugal, Switzer- 
 land, Holland, Norway. In none of these states does 
 he find evidence that any increase in crime resulted 
 
 from the change. 
 —Penology in the United States. 
 
 by PRoFEssoR L. N. ROBINSON (p. 254). 
 
144 - APPENDIX B 
 
 There is need for a wide-spread campaign to edu- 
 cate the public to favor the abolition of the Death 
 Penalty and to substitute in place thereof something 
 more constructive. Nothing is gained by destroying 
 a man’s life, other than satisfying the feeling for 
 revenge. It has been shown quite clearly that the. 
 death penalty has not only not reduced crime but has 
 frequently increased it. Executions have a most 
 degrading effect upon the public for they tend to 
 make the public cry for greater vengeance, stronger 
 laws, more drastic sentences and more rigorous prisons. 
 Crime may only be lessened by making impossible dire 
 poverty which makes men desperate, and by estab- 
 lishing conditions that are normal and human. 
 
 —B. OGDEN CHISHOLM, 
 International Prison Commissioner. 
 
 In the states that have abolished capital punish- 
 ment the proportionate number of homicides is low. 
 If the United States leads all other nations in the 
 ctime of murder, that disgraceful eminence is due to 
 the states that throughout their entire history have 
 prescribed and executed the penalty of death. In 
 this letter to which I have referred, Upton states 
 that he has not kept statistics of homicides for sepa- 
 rate states, but that they are proportionately most 
 numerous in New York and Pennsylvania in the 
 North and in Texas, Tennessee, Virginia and Mis- 
 sissippi in the South. It is a fact of prime significance 
 that the two Northern States named lead also, abso- 
 lutely and relatively, in the number of legal execu- 
 tions in that section. Murder and the death penalty 
 go hand in hand. They flourish together. The legal 
 
QUOTATIONS 145 
 
 execution with its sensational details, is a sickening, 
 disgraceful, degrading exhibition. It demoralizes the 
 community from newsmonger down to executioner. 
 Public opinion has driven it from the light of day to 
 the darkness of midnight and the solitude and gloom 
 of the dungeon. 
 
 It is claimed that the death penalty will deter 
 others from committing crime; that the example of a 
 legal execution imposes a salutary restraint. If this 
 be true, why was it abolished for minor offenses? 
 Why are all its advocates and apologists agreed that it 
 should apply to only one or two of the one hundred and 
 sixty so-called capital crimes enumerated in the days of 
 Sir William Blackstone? . Why was the restraining 
 death penalty abandoned for all these minor offenses? 
 
 The death penalty does not reform, does not deter, 
 does not protect, does not accomplish a single legiti- 
 mate end of punishment. It has been tried; it has 
 failed; and it is doomed. It may not wholly pass 
 away in your day or mine. But an enlightened public 
 conscience will veto this decree and write for the state, 
 as the state has written for its citizen’s the injunction 
 at once rational, Scriptural, salutary and humani- 
 tarian, ‘‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.” 
 
 —Address by CHARLES B. GALBREATH. 
 
 If we must kill criminals, the use of electricity is 
 the best way. Society is still barbaric, and so poorly 
 organized that it cannot find any better way to protect 
 itself than by the stupid method of killing its criminals. 
 
 —Quotation from a letter 
 from THomAs A. EDISON to 
 Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. 
 
146 APPENDIX B 
 
 The American Federation of Labor has declared 
 its opposition to capital punishment. In 1895 it 
 adopted a resolution declaring capital punishment a 
 barbarous and ‘‘revolting practice’’ and one that 
 should be abolished. That was my opinion at that 
 time and for many years before. 
 
 —Quotation from a letter 
 from SAMUEL GOMPERS to 
 Society to Abolish Capital Punishment. 
 

 
Date Due 
 
 Tk, a 
 
 mm 2 gy 2 ht 
 
 sce) ATTA lis ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ne 
 ] a4 sy 
 a ah 
 
 see whe 
 
 Mi 
 
 She anne! 
 
 nye 
 | ie ti \ BAK 
 
 pea 
 
 5 
 
 Wola ee 
 Na able a 
 Ri dh 
 
 Cee pl 
 
 
 
HV8694 .L41 
 
 : an analysis of 
 
 = 
 P=) 
 © 
 gv 
 i 
 va 
 oO 
 ~ 
 ; 9 
 58] 
 = 
 Oo 
 wc 
 “” 
 Cc 
 i) 
 = 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 Seminary—Speer Library 
 
 n Theological 
 
 | 
 
 Princeto 
 
 il 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 Ill 
 
 | 
 
 1 1012 00140 2181