No punishment could be awarded without previous judicial investigation, and a conviction arrived at only on sufficient evidence. And the punishment due to any particular offence was prescribed in the Law, and was not left to the arbitrary determination of the judge. Thus, every precaution was constitutionally taken not only to maintain established order, but to insure a consistent and equitable administration of justice. This was a most potent principle in securing respect for the Law, and so promotive of its objects. D. M.

Design of Punishment.

De. 19 : 20. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and commit no more any such evil. The design of punishment is put in the plainest terms. In its severer forms it is not the discipline of the criminal but the good of the public—to deter the evil-minded from crime and so to make society safe from outrage. In the case of presumptuous sins we read—“That man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel, and all the people shall hear and fear and do no more presumptuously” (De. 17 : 12, 13). H. C.—Moses was quite unacquainted with a modern refinement of wisdom, which represents the reformation of the criminal as the only legitimate end of punishment. Its great design he represents to be the protection of society and the vindication of law and justice. E. C. W.

Kinds of Punishment.

The principal punishments, known to the Mosaic Code, were the sword, stoning, stripes, compensations, restitutions, reparation of losses, and fines. Our inspired jurist appointed no ignominious punishments for the living. Blows were not regarded in that light by the Asiatics; and burning, hanging, and burying beneath a pile of stones, which were of this nature, were, it is probable, according to the laws of Moses, inflicted after death, and are, therefore, to be looked upon as a posthumous disgrace. The Penal Code of Moses was not stained with any of those torturous and lingering punishments which have disgraced the jurisprudence of so many polished nations since his day. E. C. W.

De. 25 : 1-3. Stripes were made the penalty of certain specified crimes (Lev 19 : 20 and De. 22 : 18). The Law was careful to limit the number of stripes to forty, giving as the reason—“Lest if thou shouldest exceed this number then thy brother should seem vile unto thee”—i.e., not merely lest the man might lose his self respect, but lest he lose the respect of the community, and be hopelessly degraded. In usage the Hebrews limited the number to thirty-nine—said to have been administered by thirteen strokes of a triple cord. H. C.—The ground upon which this law is rested is even more remarkable than the law itself. It is not to a simple motive of compassion that the legislator makes appeal; it is respect for the dignity of human nature. To inflict upon a man punishment of an excessive and degrading nature is to outrage humanity itself. This character of the legislation has perhaps not been sufficiently noticed. Strict as it is, it provides for respect to the dignity of man; it punishes the criminal, it never degrades him. Bovet.

Other minor and special penalties, and the crowning one of all, the death penalty, will be treated of in the section following this, in direct connection with various injuries and crimes. But we desire to emphasize here a great principle bearing upon all punishment, though in terms referring to the death penalty. It is found in De. 24: 16. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Read the whole verse.) B.—How much and how justly do we appreciate the principle of our constitutional law that no criminal attainder shall work corruption of blood! Yet this principle Moses here incorporated into his code, in the face of prejudice, common opinion, immemorial usage, and the sentiment of inexorable and insatiate revenge. Undeniably, it is a specimen of legislative policy which takes its author out of the crowd of ancient legislators and places him on an eminence far above them all. E. C. W.

As between man and man, justice consists in conceding and rendering to every one all his rights. He who has all his rights has no injustice done him. Divine justice consists not only in this, but also in rendering to every one his deserts. These two forms of justice are entirely distinct. Desert of punishment depends upon guilt; but with guilt as such and in distinction from injury to the individual and to society, man cannot deal. That depends upon the heart, which he cannot know and can have no claim to regulate. Man looks on the act and infers the motive. He may not punish except on the presumption of a bad motive, but his punishment must be graduated, not by the presumed badness of the motive, but by the tendency of the act to injure society. God, on the other hand, looks at the motive and disregards the act. He sees and punishes guilt in intention where there is no outward act. Hence “vengeance belongs to him.” He only can administer punitive justice. Man may guard rights; he may prevent any violation of them in the name of justice and within its limits. And the sentiment of justice within him may find satisfaction in such punishment, but the measure of punishment by him must be found in its necessity to guard the rights of society, and not in any satisfaction of absolute punitive justice. Any other right can be had only from direct revelation.

Punishment presupposes a law administered by a personal lawgiver having rights. It presupposes a righteous penalty annexed to the law, and that the law has been violated. These conditions being given, punishment is the infliction of a previously declared penalty by the will of the lawgiver for the sake of sustaining the authority of the law. That authority can be sustained in no other way. Nothing but a penalty proclaimed, and, if need be, inflicted, can make known and measure the regard of the lawgiver for the law. Hence, as entering into the very conception of government, punishment is justified. It can never be wanton, or capricious, or revengeful, for evil thus inflicted would cease to be punishment, but the extent of it must be measured by its necessity for the attainment of the ends of government, and what that extent should be only a righteous and competent lawgiver can judge. Obviously, as proclaimed beforehand, the penalty must express, and that only can, the estimate by the lawgiver of his own rights, and of the rights of others that are in question, and also his benevolent desire to present the highest moral motives the case will allow to prevent the infraction of law. And then, whatever it is right to affix as a penalty beforehand it must be not only right, but necessary to inflict as punishment, else, unless some adequate reason can be given, all government must be abandoned. M. H.

CRIMES, INJURIES, AND PENALTIES: THEFT AND BURGLARY; DAMAGE OR LOSS; INJURIES TO PERSONS AND TO CATTLE. THE LAW OF RETALIATION. DEATH PENALTY FOR SPECIAL CRIMES (OTHER THAN MURDER). STONING OF SABBATH-BREAKER. THE BLASPHEMING SON OF SHELOMITH. MODES OF INFLICTING DEATH.