Sanguinary punishments are almost universally deprecated. The best of citizens are opposed to them from philanthropic motives; and the worst view them as subversive of liberties. A considerable proportion of the humane, and perhaps most of the vicious, concur in arguing, that man has no right to take away the life of man in the punishment of any offence. A doctrine purporting, in plain terms, that the right or power in the individual to commit crime, is stronger than that in society to punish or to protect. Although this extremely lenient principle has a vast multitude of supporters, it has not been introduced into the criminal code of any state in the Union. Treason, murder, arson, and piracy committed on the high seas, remain on the list of capital crimes. The first of these offences is defined by the constitution of the United States, as consisting “only in levying war against them; or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” No infliction, on this ground, has been found necessary since the epoch of the Federal Union. Other offences, as forgery, burglary, robbery, larceny, &c. being treated as inferior misdemeanours, the machinery of the executioner is seldom put into operation; and a benevolent penetentiary system is adopted in parts of the country where the population is sufficiently great to bear the expense. New {174} settlements cannot afford the large establishments combining the accommodation for solitary confinement and labour. Whipping is therefore resorted to, as a matter of necessity rather than of choice. It is chiefly to be lamented, that chastisement does not produce immediate evidence of reformation, as the sufferer usually removes to another part of the country; and may resume the character of gentleman, even while his back is raw from the recent correction.