“In the first place,” continues the mother, “there would be the body to be disposed of, if you were to shoot him.  How should we manage about that?”

It would make a great difference in such a case in respect to the danger of putting the boy’s mind into a state of antagonism against his mother’s presentation of the case, whether she says, “How shall we manage about that?” or, “How will you manage about that?”

“Oh,” replies the boy, “we would send to where he lives, and let his people come and take him away; or, if he was in a city, we would call in the police.”

“That would be a good plan,” says his mother.  “We would call in the police, if there were any police at hand.  But then there would be the blood all over the carpet and the floor.”

“There would not be any carpet on the floor in a store-room,” says the boy.

“True,” replies the mother; “you are right there; so that there would not be, after all, any great trouble about the blood.  But the man might not be killed outright, and it might be some time before the policemen would come, and we should see him all that time writhing and struggling in dreadful convulsions, which would fix horrid impressions upon our minds, that would haunt us for a long time afterwards.”

The mother could then go on to explain that, if the man had a wife and children, any one who had killed the husband and father would pity them as long as he lived, and could never see them or hear them spoken of without feeling pain, and even some degree of self-reproach; although, so far as the man himself was concerned, it might be that no injustice had been done.  After the excitement was over, too, he would begin to make excuses for the man, thinking that perhaps he was poor, and his children were suffering for bread, and it was on their account that he was tempted to steal, and this, though it would not justify, might in some degree palliate the act for which he was slain; or that he had been badly brought up, having never received any proper instruction, but had been trained and taught from his boyhood to pilfer and steal.

These and many analogous considerations might be presented to the child, going to show that, whatever the rule of strict justice in respect to the criminal may enjoin, it is not right to take the life of a wrong-doer merely to prevent the commission of a minor offense.  The law of the land recognizes this principle, and does not justify the taking of life except in extreme cases, such as those of imminent personal danger.

A friendly conversation of this kind, carried on, not in a spirit of antagonism to what the boy has said, but in the form of presenting information novel to him in respect to considerations which were to be taken into the account in addition to those which he had himself perceived, will have a great effect not only in modifying his opinion in this case, but also in impressing him with the general idea that, before