Abolition of Death Penalty

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23430, 10 September 1941, Page 6

Abolition of Death Penalty

The introduction in the House of Representatives of a Crimes Amendment Bill, under which it is proposed to abolish the death penalty lor murder, will no doubt arouse the usual controversy on this issue. It is proposed under the bill to substitute for the death penalty imprisonment for life with hard labour and to abolish flogging and whipping. Abolition of the death penalty has always been a principle of the Labour Party and'the Government is therefore acting consistently in introducing the measure. Debate and voting on the bill will, however, not necessarily be on party lines and there will doubtless be found a number of members on the Opposition of the House who will speak in favour of the bill and vote for it. The usual claims will be made that in those countries which have abolished the death penalty there has been no increase in crimes of violence, and even that they have decreased. Opponents of the bill will denounce it as “mawkish sentimentality” and speak, extravagantly no doubt, of sympathy with the criminal instead of the victim of crime. It is therefore, necessary to try to view the question with detachment and impartiality. First, it should be remembered that the basis of all criminal law is the protection of society. Murder, rightly or wrongly, has been considered by most persons the most odious of all crimes; and it is the right of every individual to live within a civilised community without fear 'of violence, under the protection of the law. Sentiment plays no part in this. The community, as such, does not seek revenge against the murderer; it is concerned to see that no individual shall defy the right of his fellows to live in peace without fear. If the community sees the effects of evil practice in any direction it is concerned (or should be) with rooting out the cause. In fatal crime the immediate cause is the murderer himself; though it may reasonably be argued that the murderer himself is an effect—the product of environment and heredity. In the ideal community of the future the causes which produce murderers may be abolished; but in to-day’s imperfect conditions the homicide is himself a cause and must be regarded as such. The law as it stands says that the murderer by his actions has surrendered his title to exist. It holds, in effect, that while he lives he is a potential menace to the community, which has no further use for him. Threat of the death penalty having failed to deter him once, the law suggests, he may be expected to act in the same way again, given the motive and the opportunity. Upholders of the law as it stands would perhaps say that as a prisoner for;:Jife j .the homicide is serving no useful purpose; Us deatiimay serve as a wamJ " ’ a % .

ing to others that the lawful way of life is the only possible way in a civilised society. But against that is the evidence of such authorities as some prison superintendents, police, and judges, who hold from their experience that the death penalty is no deterrent. There are those who will say that even in prison a man may still make some useful contribution fo society and that therefore destruction of his life may be a loss to society. These are some of the conflicting opinions that may be heard in support of and opposition to the bill. It should be earnestly debated.