DEATH PENALTY IN ARMY

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22851, 26 October 1939, Page 10

DEATH PENALTY IN ARMY

ONLY IN EXTREME

CASES

NO. 1 FIELD PUNISHMENT

ABOLISHED

MINISTER SETS OUT NEW POSITION

Except for such offences as treacherously assisting the enemy, or for crimes which would in ■ the civil law merit capital punishment, that form of punishment has been abolished in the Army, according to a statement made by the Minister for Defence, the Hon. F. Jones, in reply to two correspondents whose letters to the editor of “The Press” were referred to him. The Minister states that field punishment No. 1 has been abolished for some years.

“Mother of Sons” wrote to inquire whether- No. 1 field punishment was frequently giyen, and whether the death penalty was imposed on many men and what for. “Until I receive these details,” the correspondent wrote, “none of my sons will go to war. I will see to that. Surely in the British Army brutalities are not practised as in the German Army?” . Under the name “Live and Let Live, another correspondent wrote commending the Auckland Returned Soldiers’ Association for its attempt to have the death penalty abolished. “I would have been better pleased, however had the association also demanded ’that a copy of Army Regulations be advertised with aii Government or Army printed appeals for recruits, and that a copy of such regulations be available in all post offices and police stations, for public inspection, and the public notified accordingly.” the letter states. “It is only fair, just, and proper, that intending recruits or their parents qpd friends or others desiring a young man’s enlistment should be fully aware of what their actions imply and incorporate. “I do not remember what conditions are set out in the Army Oath of Allegiance to King ».nd Country, but the form should clearly make provision for a declaration that the taker of the oath has read the Army regulations and thoroughly understands them.

“I have been told by a returned man that the present Army Regulations demonstrate that there are more than 20 clauses which provide that one may be ‘shot at dawn’.”

In his reply, the said that he had received inquiries on the points raised in the letters from a number of organisations. “The death penalty in the Army is now only inflicted in respect of serious criminal offences,” the Minister said. “It would not apply in the case of desertion and similar lesser - crimes, but generally speaking it has been retained for offences such as treacherously assisting the enemy, and for a crime which in civil law would merit capital punishment. “In regard to the suggestion of the writer that a copy of Army Regulations be advertised with all appeals for recruits, this is considered to be unnecessary and impracticable. The majority of prospective recruits are aware of the forms of punishment .in the Army, but those who would hesitate to join the forces in fear of the penalties for crime are not the type that would be encouraged to enlist. The civil law is not available for- examination by the public in the manner in which the correspondent suggests, and it is not apparent that any good purpose would be served by making military law so readily accessible. The Army Department would, of course, furnish details to anyone so interested as to make such inquiries. It would be impracticable for any layman not versed in military law to fully examine and understand all the legislation, rules, and regulations affecting military discipline. The Manual of Military Law alone is a publication consisting of approximately 1000 pages, and it would be unreasonable to ask anyone to take an oath that he has read the Army Regulations ■ and thoroughly understands them.

“In regard to the concluding portion of the letter, the number of offences which would merit the death penalty is now considerably, less than during the Great War. It max .’also be of interest for your correspondent to learn that No. 1 field punishment was abolished some years ago.”