THE VALIDITY OF EVIDENCE
Sir, —We have to ’thank you for pointing out in your leading article this morning the inadequacy of the Select Commitfee’s work regarding the proposed restoration of capital punishment. But those of us who were directly, or indirectly through representatives concerned in the evidence given against restoration, can only express profound resentment at your statement that their evidence was not as “authoritative, detailed or wellprepared" as that of prison and police officials. Nor can we agree that they are the “leading experts in New Zealand” on the matter. While not detracting from their character, industry. and integrity, may I ask what special qualifications, by education, moral outlook or even experience, they have to make them superior to the carefully chosen sociologists who gave evidence on the other side. It was almost a clear-cut division, the officials versus the churches and other social groups.—Yours, etc., JOHN JOHNSON. Clerk. Christchurch meeting of the Society of Friends. November 7, 1950.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19501108.2.31.4
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26264, 8 November 1950, Page 5
Word Count
161THE VALIDITY OF EVIDENCE Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26264, 8 November 1950, Page 5
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.