Legal Revenge Not Dead Yet

    I read Gov. Brown's reasons for giving Caryl Chessman a 60-day reprieve yesterday, but I'm not sure that I believe them.

    He indicated that he felt  the climate in California had changed on the issue of capital punishment and said that the people should have another chance to express themselves on it.  And he added that a telegram from the State Department stating that Chessman's execution could stir hostile demonstrations in Uruguay when President Eisenhower visits there next month also played a part in his decision.

    Neither of his reasons impresses me.

    I don't think Californians have changed their minds about capital punishment.   I'd like to believe that they have because, personally, I think it accomplishes nothing other than to prove that we — as a society — can be as ruthless and as vicious as some of the criminals we remove from our midst.

    Under our laws, it would be very easy to put a man behind bars permanently to protect ourselves from any criminal mind, but there are too many emotional arguments in favor of society's getting revenge.

     Some day, I confidently hope, capital punishment will be as outmoded a form of "justice" as the flogging post or the iron maiden.

    But from where I sit, I don't think the time has arrived.  Convincing people that legal violence, legal revenge, is any more moral than illegal violence or revenge isn't as simple as it might appear on paper.

    Maybe Gov. Brown, who's also an opponent of capital punishment, is watching from a better vantage point than I am.  But on this particular issue, I don't think that he is.

    I hope I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that he's five or 10 years premature in his hopes.

    His second point — that international repercussions could be avoided — is strictly one of temporary relief.  Every day, U.S. government officials are taking off for foreign countries.

    If Brown's action did anything, it intensified foreign interest in the Chessman case.  With each succeeding brush with Death Row, Chessman has won thousands of new followers in foreign countries.

    By granting the convict-author a 60- now 59-day reprieve, he's built himself a monster.  Days go by fast.  In April, Chessman will be back in the headlines again.

    The hysteria — both pro and con — will be worse than ever.

    If he lets Chessman die then, he'll be accused of betraying his own moral convictions of contributing to the "cruel and unusual punishment" which has turned Chessman into an international celebrity.

    If he's rebuffed by the Legislature and the people (which seems likely), but grants another reprieve, anyway, then he will have just about destroyed himself as a politician.

    I'm sure that Brown was aware of the consequences when — less than 10 hours short of the execution hour — he made his decision yesterday.

    No question about it — it was a reckless move.

    He left himself wide open as a target for certain elements to charge him with everything short of treason.

    Dep. Dist. Atty. J. Miller Leavy, who I feel sure had his whole day ruined, made the startling statement:

    "It is a sorry day when Communists in South America and throughout the world  can shape the administration of justice in these United States and California in particular."

     A cohort of his, John W. Dickey, made an even more ridiculous observation:

    "It is very touching that a Democrat like Gov. Brown should be so solicitous of the welfare of a Republican like Eisenhower . . . that he should stop the execution."

    It makes you wonder what Chessman has done to our perspective when a responsible public official can snidely suggest that a Democratic governor isn't concerned about the physical welfare of the President of the United States because he happens to be a Republican.

    There were even wilder charges than these, and there'll be more of them in the days and weeks to come.

    I feel sorry for Pat Brown.  But I admire him.

    At 12:10 a.m. yesterday, he ceased being a politician.  He jeopardized his career by doing what he felt he had to do.

    Public servants are usually more cautious of their own welfare.