Our contemporary, the _Times_, for the last few days has been very justly
deprecating the existing morbid sympathy for criminals. The moment that a
man sins against the conventionalities of society he ought certainly to be
excluded from all claims upon the sympathy of his fellows. It is very true
that even the felon has kindred, parents, wife, children--for whom, and in
whom, God has implanted an instinctive love. It is true that the criminal
may have been led by the example of aristocratic sinners to disregard the
injunctions of revealed religion against the adulterer, the gamester, and
the drunkard; and having imitated the "pleasant follies" of the great
without possessing the requisite means for such enjoyments, the man of
pleasure has degenerated into the man of crime. It is true that the poor
and ignorant may have claims upon the wealth and the intelligence of the
rich and learned; but are we to pause to inquire whether want may have
driven the destitute to theft, or the absence of early instruction have
left the physical desires of the offender's nature superior to its moral
restrictions.--Certainly not, whilst we have a gallows. There is, however,
one difficulty which seems to interfere with a liberal exercise of the
rope and the beam. Where are we to find executioners? for if "whoso
sheddeth man's blood" be amenable to man, surely Jack Ketch is not to be
exempted.
The _Times_ condemns the late Lord Chamberlain for allowing the
representation of "Jack Sheppard" and "Madame Laffarge" at the Adelphi; so
do we. The _Times_ intimates, that "the newspapers teem with details about
everything which such criminals 'as Dick Turpin and Jack Sheppard' say or
do; that complete biographies of them are presented to the public; that
report after report expatiates upon every refinement and peculiarity in
their wickedness," for "the good purpose" of warning the embryo
highwayman. We are something more than _duberous_ of this. We can see no
difference between the exhibition of the stage and the gloating of the
broadsheet; they are both "the agents by which the exploits of the gay
highwayman are realised before his eyes, amid a brilliant and evidently
sympathising" public. We deprecate both, as tending to excite the
weak-minded to gratify "the ambition of this kind of notoriety;"--and yet
we say, with the _Times_, there should be "no sympathy for criminals."
* * * * *