The R^vrr-;<! >>th2?LJ^^^^^ S.'^J.. of-lhe

Univfijg^ity of Jjr/Jr.t I^ath?'^,, Aon Francrsco, ha.< shown
that ^ven ii it were proved that the abolition of cap-
ital-punishment had been followed by a decrease of
crime, it would not follow that the decrease was be-
cause of tiie abolition After this, therefore, because



76 BY RIGHT OF SWORD

of this (the invalid post hoc, ergo propter hoc attribu-
tion of a false cause to a result), is in opposition to
the fundamental principles of logic.
Crime is diminished by precautionary measures —
greater skill and vigilance of the police, better lighted
streets, better moral instruction of children, and a les-
sening of misery and poverty, of drunkenness and de-
bauchery. Father Ford concludes thus: **If it could
be shown that the number of murders had been dimin-
ished because capital-punishment had been abolished,
this would not make for the contention of the oppo-
nents. It would merely go to prove, according to
strict logic, that capital-punishment, by which murder
was formerly punished, was a lesser punishment than
imprisonment, with a chance of being paroled or par-
doned, and that, instead of deterring men from crime,
it rather, by some mysterious allurement, the secret
of which is known only to the abolitionists, incited
men to crime."

It should also be borne in mind that any decrease
of crime — and there has seldom been a decrease of any
consequence in this country — must be traced to other
causes than the penalty of life imprisonment, especial-
ly if the interval of time between the periods of com-
parison be long.
