Death penalty and terrorism

Press, 28 June 1983, Page 21

Death penalty and terrorism

There may be a majority in the new British Parliament for the restoration of the death penalty in the case of terrorist murders (and possibly other murderers as well). Among the assortment of people who are hoping that this is so are the Godfathers of the I.R.A. The hanging of members of that organisation by the British would fit in very well with the organisation’s plans for the future. Now, if it were true that judicial hanging would really work for the deterrence of terorism, then there would be a good pragmatic case for the restoration of hanging. If a few judicial executions of convicted murderers would prevent the arbitrary execution, by illegal organisations, of considerable numbers of innocent people, then it would be hard to convince the public that illegal capital punishment should be allowed to continue, simply because the alternative — legal capital punishment — is so inhumane. However, these are not in fact the alternatives. The restoration of the (legal) death penalty would not deter, in any way, or to any extent, the main terrorist organisations now active in these islands: the Provisional I.R.A. and I.N.L.A. (which are, for most practical purposes, the same thing). Those who doubt the above assertions should first consider the hunger strikes of 1981. At that time 10 I.R.A. convicts, so far from flinching from the possibility of capital punishment, actually inflicted capital punishment on themselves. The organisation to which they belonged gained notable dividends from those self-inflicted deaths: dividends in terms of propaganda, of prestige, of public sympathy, of money, and eventually of votes for the I.R.A.’s political spokesmen, as both last year’s assembly elections and this year’s parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland have shown. The dividends would have been not less, but much greater, if those

‘I.R.A. Godfathers welcome it’

says CONOR CRUISE O’BRIEN, former Irish Republic Minister and Ambassador to the United Nations, writing in the London ‘Observer’

deaths had been inflicted, not by the men themselves, -Jut by a British hangman. Mistake me not. 1 am not arguing that Mrs Thatcher should have “shown flexibility” on that occasion, or series of occasions, in order to avoid “creating martyrs.” That argument was indeed urged ad nauseum at the time by the political leaders, press, and clergy of the Catholic population of Ireland, on both sides of the territorial border. It was even urged by the present Taoiseach, Dr Garret FitzGerald. I regretted that, at the time, and still do, because I know that the Government in which Dr FitzGerald and I both served — under Mr Liam Cosgrave as Taoiseach from 1973 to 1977 — was prepared to show, in face of an I.R.A. hunger strike at Portlaoise prison, precisely the same degree of flexibility as Mrs Thatcher rightly showed: that is to say none whatever. If the present Government in the Republic faces the same situation in the future — as it well may — it will have to react in the same way. Governments cannot, without abdicating their own functions and responsibilities to their people, give in to political hunger strikes organised by terrorist conspiracies. In such a case it is a lesser evil to create martyrs — or rather to allow martyrs to create themselves — than it would be to let terrorists dictate their terms to democracy. It would be quite a different thing to look for new opportunities of creating martyrs by bringing back hanging. It may be argued, of course, that

the example I have cited is not itself proof of the claim that capital punishment would not deter these terrorists. The hunger strikes did show that the I.R.A. did contain a remarkable number of potential martyrs, but they also showed that the number was not inexhaustible; the hunger strikes were, after all, called off, after 10 deaths, when the Government’s total inflexibility became starkly clear. So the death penalty — including the penalty of self-inflicted deaths — does have a deterrent power after all, even over the I.R.A. That argument has a certain plausibility, but it doesn’t stand up to close examination. What the hunger strikers knew they faced in the latter stages, if they persisted, was the prospect of certain death. That indeed is the ultimate deterrent. But the mere existence of statutory capital punishment is not a deterrent of anything like that

order. It is a far more diluted and contingent affair. You are not very likely to be caught, you are not very likely, if caught, to be convicted. Even if convicted, you might not be sentenced to death; even if sentenced to death you might be pardoned, or escape. Quite sufficient deterrence, of course, still, for your average citizen. But for I.R.A. men, and possible recruits to the 1.R.A.? Let us consider the possible effects of the reintroduction of the death penalty on the three main categories of the 1.R.A.: the leaders, or Godfather, the rank and file, and the potential recruits. As far as the leaders are concerned, they run virtually no new risk as a result of increased penalties of any kind. The reason why these people are at large at present is that the police cannot find evidence against them to make seious charges stick. On this level the people concerned do not have to take direct part in violent deaths. They need have no personal worries, arising from the reintroduction of the death penalty. If it is reintroduced, their concern will be exclusively with the political opportunities likely to be presented by the first execution of one of their volunteers. The reasons for the certain failure of the deterrent as far as rank and file and recruits are concerned, are almost the opposite to those which make it fail as regards the Godfathers. The fact is that rank-and-file I.R.A. are at such high risk of violent death already that the idea of the contingent extra risk of legal execution is

unlikely to be perceptible at all. These people are permanently at risk of being shot by soldiers or police, both while they are “on active service” and also (though to a more limited extent) when they are not. They are also at some risk from Protestant paramilitaries, and from the barbaric and arbitrary penal system of their own organisation. They further risk blowing themselves up. How likely is it that people already leading that kind of life will take fright on learning that Westminster has reintroduced capital punishment by due process of law? Exactly the same considerations apply to the potential recruits. They know, as it is, that they will be choosing a high risk life if they join the I.R.A. now. Those who are most likely to make that choice, as things now stand, are the very ones who are least likely to be deterred by a change in the law. I hope that some of the M.P.s who may be considering a vote for the reintroduction of capital punishment, because of its supposed value as a deterrent of terrorists, will be prepared to consider the above arguments to the contrary. But I fear that a number of M.P.s, who will have deterrence on their lips, will have punishment in their hearts. It is possible to argue, on the basis of likelihoods, with genuine utilitarians, who defend capital punishment as a deterrent. But it is hardly possible to argue with people who are at heart retributionists, believing that murderers should be hanged because they are murderers, irrespective of whether their hanging is likely to deter potential murderers, or even to encourage them. I read Mrs Thatcher as an instinctive retributionist. I hope there are enough utilitarians in the new Parliament to prevent her from playing into the hands of the terrorist Godfathers, by bringing back hanging.