CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NEW BILL PRESAGES END OF HANGING IN BRITAIN

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30626, 17 December 1964, Page 18

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT NEW BILL PRESAGES END OF HANGING IN BRITAIN

(Reprinted from "The Times") LONDON, December 3. On August 13 last two men were executed;— the one in Liverpool, the other in Manchester—for the capital murder in Cumberland of John Alan West. They were sentenced to death under clause 3 (1) (a) of the Homicide Act, 1957, having been found guilty of murder in the course or furtherance of theft. The probability must now be strong that these were the last executions for murder to take place in Great Britain, for yesterday a Bill to abolish the death penalty was presented to the Commons. Its principal author, Mr Sydney Silverman. Labour M.P. for Nelson and Colne is assured that the Government will find time to allow the Commons , t free vote on the question of abolition.

As in 1956 and 1957, it may be assumed that criminals found Guilty of capital murder while the state of the law is uncertain will be reprieved. It is not possible to iook too far ahead, for even though there is a strong presumption that the Bill will pass through the Commons the attitude of the Lords has yet to be tested. Yet, unless most readings of the trends of the past seven years are mistaken, it seems that the long campaign for the abolition of the death sentence must be nearing the end of its road.

Changed Factors Since the Homicide Act became law in March, 1957, 29 executions tiave taken place, an average of about four a year. There were 42 cases of capital murder between that date and the end of 1962, and during the same period 992 murders became known to the police, an average of 165 a year. In 168 of these cases the prisoner’s conviction was eventually reduced to one of manslaughter. The average shows a slight rise compared with a similar period before the Act, but the annual fluctuations in the numbers make it difficult to relate them to changes in the law: or, as most students of the statistics agree, to any conclusive discussion about the supposedly deterrent effect of capital punishment. Many factors in the' equation have changed since the last major debates on the question in 1956. Mr Silverman’s abolition Bill, in that year, went through all its stages in the Commons with small but steady majorities, only to be defeated after a two-day debate in the Lords by a majority of 143. The Bill would have abolished the death penalty outright vet although there were lengthy and articulate speeches by both those who supported the Bill and those who with equal determination opposed it, it became clear that there were a number of commoners and peers who felt that a middle way should be taken.

This view was accepted by the Government when the Homicide Act was framed later that year. The death penalty was retained for murder in the furtherance of theft, murder by shooting or causing an explosion, murder in resisting arrest, murder of a police or prison officer, and fresh murder after a former conviction.

An important innovation was the introduction of the defence of diminished responsibility which, if successful, entitles an accused person to a finding of manslaughter and a definite term of imprisonment rather than (perhaps) death, a mandatory life sentence or an indeterminate period in an institution. This has been very widely criticized, not least by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington. Two years ago Lord Parker described the present state of the law as a “hopeless muddle,” and suggested that no one apparently understood the doctrine of diminished responsibility. The Act has also been criticised for creating circumstances in which a person convicted of manslaughter, ostensibly a less serious crime than simple murder, may serve a period in prison similar to the man who receives a “life" sentence..

Objection to the Act has also been taken by those who believe that the death penalty should apply to those who assault and kill small children (at present it does not unless shooting or theft is also involved) and poisoners, and both lawyers and laymen have been perturbed at the way in which the law has worked when there has been more than one accused person. Lord Parker has given an instance in the case of three men setting out to steal, the eldest being 23. He planned the theft and murder was committed. Acting as lookout man, he would not hang. The second, one month under 18, might do the killing and would not hang. The third,- a few months over 18, used some force on the victim and would hang.

Clarity Confusion The situation now faced by Parliament is thus, at the same time, clearer and more confused than it was eight years ago. It is clearer because the present Government are offering Parliament a plain opportunity to abolish the death penalty, and on the Woolsack sits a Lord Chancellor long known to be an advocate of abolition and who regards the present Homicide Act as “hopeless.” Yet is is also more confused, in the sense that some now argue that the correct course is not a general abolition but to extend and redefine the present categories of capital murder. Those who advocate

such a course may call as evi dence the steady rise ln crimes of violence in the pa-t decade, or the fear of an in crease in armed robbery and consequently greater hazardfor the police and the public. Questions will also be ask ed, by those who believe Un death penalty to be- a unique deterrent or society\ means 'of emphatically de nouncing a fearful crime, about what Parliament should put in the place of the death penalty if it is to be abolished. Little time was spent on such conjectures eight years ago, but they have become more frequent in recent years. The “life” sentence, an average of eight or nine years, is not, according to the Lord Chief Justice, gen erally be|ieved to be a deter rent today. Those who sug gest that there should be an alternative deterrent of a minimum sentence of 20 or 25 years—subject to the Royal Prerogative—will have to contend with the views of those who argue that so long a term would institutionalise the offender in a quite inequitable way, or even with those who maintain (with the late Sir Alexander Paterson i that death would be more humane. And there will be many who will say that the existing form of the life sen tence, by which an offender may be released on licence by the Home Secretary, is an adequate safeguard for the public.

Developing Opinion Last, but not least, members of both Houses will keenly watch the development of public opinion. Estimates of this on the question of abolition have varied considerably from time io time, but there is little question that in the past six or seven years the abolitionist cause has made considerable ground, for differing reasons, in the Church of England and the law. Nevertheless one of the most influential factors in forthcoming weeks will be the attitude publicly expressed by the Opposition front bench in the Commons, their leading lawyers and. particularly, the two former Home Secretaries Mr Butler and Mr Brooke. With their personal experience of having to decide whether to recommend reprieves for men condemned to death (a task which successive Home Secretaries have abhorred) their words will* carry great weight.