PARLIAMENT PLEA FOR ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY

Press, Volume C, Issue 29635, 4 October 1961, Page 14

PARLIAMENT PLEA FOR ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY

Mr Hanan Asks House To Reject Hanging (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 3. In a dramatic plea for the abolition of the death penalty, the Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) said in the House of Representatives tonight: “Let us follow the lead given by Queensland, New South Wales, and other advanced communities and bring to an end a punishment which so many of our people are convinced belongs to other days and other times.”

Mr Hanan was moving the second reading of the Crimes Bill, which retains capital punishment for “aggravated murder” —a clause lie has already announced he will vote against.

Other Government members who have also announced their intentions of voting against the death penalty are Mr E. P. Aderman (New Plymouth), Mr G. G. Grieve (Awarua) and Mr H. E. L. Pickering (Hurunui ).

The vote on the death penalty clause will come when the House deals with the bill in committee. The second reading debate is expected to take most of this week.

The former Labour Attorney-General (Mr H. G. R. Mason) described Mr Hanan’s speech tonight “tremendously convincing.”

Mr Hanan said the bill proposed retaining the death penalty for certain categories of murder described as “aggravate. murder.” Life imprisonment was prescribed for all other murders. Murders which would carry the death sentence were:

(a) Planned and deliberate murders.

(b) Murders committed in association with another crime.

“The idea is that these are murders which shock the public conscience and merit the death sentence," Mr Hanan said. “The clause covers poisoners. robbers, and rapists who kill. I believe this is a much better clause than the one in the British Homicide Act of 1957. If there are to be categories of murder, this is perhaps as good a clause as can be devised. “Those who have devised it think a ‘halfway house' of this kind would be an improvement in the present law. “As members know, this is not my view,” Mr Hanan said. “I consider adoption of this clause would be a grave mistake." Drawbacks Mr Hanan said a careful study of the clause disclosed a number of serious drawbacks. “It does not include all types of murder for which people might feel that death is the appropriate sentence. It omits from aggravated murder: “(a) The murder of an unwanted child in a fit of re. sentment. ‘‘(b) A ruthless ’nd cruel murder committed by a sadist on a sudden impulse for the pleasure of seeing his vietjm suffer and die. "ft includes types of murder which ought not to be there." Mr Hanan said. “For example, it includes the mercy killing of one spouse by the other and the planned killing of a deformed child by its father “Again there are bound to be cases where the prosecution would fail to establish that a murder was ‘planned and deliberate’ when, in fact, it had been. “In this way, if the clause became law, injustices as between one murderer and another would creep in." Mr Hanan said. “The term "planned and deliberate* is insufficiently precise. Juries would differ. The Solicitor . General considers the draft clause would make the task of judges and juries more difficult. It would perhaps lead juries to ignore a judge's complex directions and return verdicts on their own view of the circumstances. “There is trouble in some American states over 'premeditation* which is a similar conception. In one state, a few seconds have been held to be sufficient. Weakness “The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker) also drew attention to this weakness when he was invited to comment on the clause He asked: ‘When does a matter reach the stage of being planned? In five minutes, a few hours, a day?' “Lord Parker raised this and other questions in order to expose the difficulties and weaknesses of our formula He asked: ‘What other crimes wiU be linked with killing so as to make the case one of aggravated murder?* He Implied that the words ‘any other crime* introduced matters that might be comparatively trivial ” Mr Hanan said the clause took into account the circumstances of the murder only It ignored the history and circumstances of the murderer. •‘At present the Executive Council has most exhaustive reports and everything known about the man is considered. If the clause was adopted, great stress would

be laid on just one aspect—“premeditation’—and all other factors would tend to be ignored.” Mr Hanan said. 'lt is not true that the measure of a murderer’s guilt is the length of time he had the murder in contemplation. British law. as opposed to American law. has always set its face against degrees of murder.

“In 1957, in spite of the fact that the Gowers Commission had recommended otherwise, the United Kingdom departed from this stand. The venture has been a complete failure. “I suggest New Zealand would be wise to take a more conservative view and avoid degrees of murder. ‘‘lf I am right that the proposed compromise would not work out in practice, the choice lies between the retention of capital punishment with commutation by the Executive Council when called for. and acceptance of imprisonment for life as the punishment for murder.

“By imprisonment for life, in the case of that type of murderer who has been executed in the past. I mean, of course, a longer sentence than that served by the average ‘lifer’ today. ‘‘That is, a person who would have been executed but for abolition, must serve a longer term than has been the practice. Indeed, there are some murderers who may have to be held for the whole of their life. Members will know the type of murder I have in mind—the criminal psychopath who is a sadistic killer.” Deterrent Dealing with arguments advanced by those who favoured the retention of capital punishment Mr Hanan said: “Considerable stress has been laid on particular anecdotes where individuals have said things that indicate thought for the gallows. These statements are put forward from time to time as proof that capital punishment has a special value as a deterrent. “An example is that of the man who said: ‘What is eight years, anyway? You don’t get hung for murder nowadays.’ But the force of that remark is remarkably reduced if it is known that the mental condition of that man was suspect,” Mr Hanan said. “I admit freely that, in isolated instances, capital punishment has a deterrent value," Mr Hanan said. “But such cases are very, very few. They are so few, it seems, that they have no influence at all on the murder statistics. “Then there is the argument that some murders are so grave and so shock public opinion that the only appropriate penalty is death. This raises deep spiritual issues which I do not pretend to be able to answer. But there are one or two things worth saying. “Murder is a grave crime, which rightly _shocks public opinion, but that does not justify a departure from reason when we are dealing with the offender.

“Reason teaches us that capital punishment does not deter. Reason teaches us that in a Christian civilisation we should avoid taking life in retaliation. Reason also teaches us that we should avoid a gunishment so final.” Mr lanan said.

The question of what was an appropriate penalty was a moral issue, and the views of the various churches on it should be taken into account “What they say is entitled to our respect” “It is sometimes said that too much sympathy is reserved for murderers and not enough thought is Jven, to their victim. Two blacks don’t make a white. An execution does not repair the damage, nor restore the victim to his relations,” said Mr Hanan.

“Since there is no mending that situation, it seems to me we mast lay it on one side. What we can do, however, is

to see to it that we create no unnecessary suffering for innocent people. “It is just here that hanging fails,” Mr Hanan said. “It brings intense and probably life-long suffering upon the relatives of the murderer. There can be few things worse than being branded as the .wife, or child, of a man who has been hanged. “There are others, too, who are hurt by it. The series of executions between 1950 and 1957 was a severe ordeal imprison officers and sheriffs. Indeed, they were the cause of more than one breakdown in health. “If we can avoid those consequences, surely we should. If members doubt this statement, evidence is available. “Clear Issue”

“Although my belief that capital punishment for murder should go is of long standing, since I became Minister of Justice I have weighed this issue as carefully and objectively as any man can,” Mr Hanan said. “I have examined all the evidence, including much which has become available since 1950 when the matter was last before the House. “I have sought the views of other people, among them those of many of New Zealand’s judges. I have also had discussions with two distinguished visitors who were here recently, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Chief Justice of the United States. There have also been pronouncements from most of the churches. “It is important we should not become too emotionally involved in this issue. Our highest duty is to form a judgment on the basis of the available evidence. The evidence is decisive —all I have read and heard makes it clear we should abolish capital punishment in New Zealand.” “The decision of the House of Lords on provocation is a mystery to me,” said Mr Mason. It was in line with tile principle of the law of criminal libel the greater the truth, the greater the libel. “In restoring that principle the Attorney-General, I am sure, will have the support of the house," said Mr Mason. The adaptation of the McNaghten rules in the bill he considered to be more practical and less likely to confuse juries. If the death penalty were removed, he agreed that the clause defining diminished responsibility should go, said Mr Mason. “One of the most horrifying things is the. execution of sub-normals. It is a shocking thing to think that their natural misfortune may bring them to execution,” said Mr Mason. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Gotz); How many sub-normals have been hanged? Mr Mason: It depends on whom we think are subnormals. It is a matter of graduation, of course. In many cases a weak intellect has been a considerable contribution to the crime. Chance Of Error Mr Mason said there was chance of a mistake being made in a case of murder because the victim was not there to give evidence. There had been cases w'here mistakes had happened. The gravest was the case of Evans and Christie. Mr Gotz: That is not too certain. It has not been proved. Mr Mason: If anyone reads the book there are a number of books “10 Rillington Place" is on: if Mr Gotz reads that book he will not say that it is not too certain. Mr Mason stressed that where a murder trial took on the elements of melodrama, it was possible for a jury to make a wrong decision. He also cited the danger of perjured evidence being given which could convict a possibly innocent person. Abolition of capital punishment operated in manv countries and these had not found

themselves the worse for it, he said. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) said he wanted to put the other side of the case from that presented by Mr Hanan and Mr Mason. “I believe in the death penalty as punishment for the worst eases of murder,” said Mr Marshall. Giving six reasons for capital punishment, Mr Marshall said:— (1) The death penalty acted as a deterrent—it was the only means of preventing some men from committing murder. (2) The death penalty W'as the most emphatic denunciation of murder the community could make. (3) It emphasised the infinite worth of human life. (4) No term of imprisonment could be long enough for the kind of case for which a man was now hanged. (5) It gave protection for the police against the criminal who would otherwise kill when cornered. (6) It also protected prison officers against inmates who might kill to escape. A man on a life sentence could kill again without fear if there was no death penalty . There was ample evidence of criminals being deterred through fear of the death penalty, said Mr Marshall. The contrary was the case when the penalty did not apply. He cited the case of a man who committed three murders and who had some months earlier said: “What’s eight years in prison; you don’t get hung for murder nowadays.” The public had a retributive reaction to murder, he said, “and I am not prepared to say its wrong or barbarous.” The presence of the death penalty saved lives of people who would otherwise be murdered. Mr M. Moohan (Opposition, Petone) asked why there were not more murders when capital punishment was abolished. Mr Marshall said more murders were committed during the abolition of capital punishment. Marton Murders Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Opposition, Island Bay) said the death penalty was not a deterrent, for in the Marton murder case of 1948—0 f which the Deputy Prime Minister knew the murderer had been confined in a mental hospital and had told a detective that a “Mrs H " had told him that if he committed the murders and ran away he would get a reward. Mr Marshall: There was no mental evidence in Court. Mr Nordmeyer: There was evidence and it will be produced here. i “Various newspapers have pointed out that a murderer’s fate depends on the Government that is in office at the time. There is a general feeling that the time has arrived when we should face up to the fact that in an enlightened democracy we| should abolish the death penalty altogether,” said Mr Nordmeyer.