RETRIBUTIVE PUNISHMENT
Sir,—Without a knowledge of the past, it would be shocking to find the Lord Chief Justice of England advocating reversion to savage retribution in penal treatment in order to pander to the lowest of human passions—the desire for revenge, and enjoyment in the infliction of pain. However, throughout a century and a half of penal reform, the English judges, with a few notable executions have consistently opposed amelioration of savage punishments. It was Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough who bitterly opposed the abolition of hanging for stealing goods to the value of five shillings, and he spoke for all the judges. Happily, he and his successors have consistently proved wrong, and penal reformers right. The progressive amelioration of savage punishments has been accompanied by a decrease in crime. There is no reason to believe that Lord Goddard’s advocacy of retributive punishment is more firmly based than that of his predecessors—Yours, etc. L. A. EFFORD. July 13, 1948.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19480715.2.87.7
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25547, 15 July 1948, Page 8
Word Count
158RETRIBUTIVE PUNISHMENT Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25547, 15 July 1948, Page 8
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.
Log in