But emotion too has its biological origin and is a subject of scientific definition.  A really “sentimental” person, in the sense used, is one who has sympathy.  This, in turn, comes from imagination which is probably the result of a sensitive nervous system, one that quickly and easily responds to stimuli.  Those who have weak emotions do not respond so readily to impressions.  Their assumption of superior wisdom has its basis only in a nervous system which is sluggish and phlegmatic to stimuli.  Such impressions as each system makes are registered on the brain and become the material for recollection and comparison, which go to form opinion.  The correctness of the mental processes depends upon the correctness of the senses that receive the impression, the nerves that transmit the correctness of the registration, and the character of the brain.  It does not follow that the stoic has a better brain than the despised “sentimentalist.”  Either one of them may have a good one, and either one of them a poor one.  Still, charity and kindliness probably come from the sensitive system which imagines itself in the place of the object that it pities.  All pity is really pain engendered by the feelings that translate one into the place of another.  Both hate and love are biologically necessary to life and its processes.

Many people urge that the penalty of imprisonment for life would be all right if the culprit could be kept in prison during life, but in the course of time he is pardoned.  This to me is an excellent reason why his life should be saved.  It is proof that the feeling of hatred that inspired judge and jury has spent itself and that they can look at the murderer as a man.  Which decision is the more righteous, the one where hatred and fear affect the judgment and sentence, or the one where these emotions have spent their force?

Everyone who advocates capital punishment is really ashamed of the practice for which he is responsible.  Instead of urging public executions, the most advanced and sensitive who believe in killing by the state are now advocating that even the newspapers should not publish the details and that the killing should be done in darkness and silence.  In that event no one would be deterred by the cruelty of the state.  That capital punishment is horrible and cruel is the reason for its existence.  That men should be taught not to take life is the purpose of judicial killings.  But the spectacle of the state taking life must tend to cheapen it.  This must be evident to all who believe in suggestion.  Constant association and familiarity tend to lessen the shock of any act however revolting.  If men regarded the murderer as one who acted from some all-sufficient cause and who was simply an instrument in an endless sequence of cause and effect, would anyone say he should be put to death?