TWO CHURCH BODIES OPPOSE DEATH PENALTY RESTORATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 October 1950, Page 3

TWO CHURCH BODIES OPPOSE DEATH PENALTY RESTORATION

WELLINGTON, October 2 (P.A.)— The committee believed that the reiritroductioh of capital punishment in New Zealand would be retrograde, said the written submission of the public questions committee of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, presented by the Rev. J. D. Grocott, of Wellington, to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Capital Punishment at its sitting this afternoon.

The statement added: “The question is not the academic one of whether in an abstract way capital punishment is a good rrieans of punishment for certain crimes, but whether capital punishment should be reintroduced into New Zealand after having been abolished for several years.

‘The statistical Evidence on capital punishment is unreliable, since statistics are influenced by many other factors, such as war and depression. It cannot be conclusively argued that the abolition of capital punishment has increased the incidence of homicide, nor is it proven that its reintroduction would be an effective deterrent or that it would satisfy the other elements of punishment.” Protection Of Society

The protection of society was served by the certainty of detection and the prosecution of offenders to conviction, continued the statement. The quantum of punishment was always a matter which must have regard to the circumstances of the offender, as well as the protection of society. Justice demanded that while the criminal should suffer punishment, the punishment must be what was due to him as a human being. “There may be times of emergency when the State may be compelled to take life to maintain order, but it is not for human justice to arrogate to itself when, as a principle of the civil code, a human being shall be unfit to live,” the statement continued. “The support for reintroduction of capital punishment is also found in the deterrent effect of the penalty on those who may commit murder. The committee considers that prosecution to conviction and imprisonment are deterrents stronger than the severity of the punishment. “Capital punishment denies the possibility of reform of the offender: the finality of death is absolute. Finally, capital punishment fails to recognise the responsibility of society and that in every criminal there is a man who is to a greater or lesser extent sinned against as well as sinning. The purging of the offence which requires the forfeit of the life of the offender ignores the responsibility of society,” the statement concluded. “It is an essential fact that the criminal, as well as the victim, is made in the image of God,” said Mr A. E. Hurley, a Wellington lawyer, who was associated with the Methodist submissions. “We are not fit and proper persons to deny the criminal redemption,” he said. Witnesses Questioned “My conclusion is that those, who commit murder believe that they will escape any type of punishment because they are too clevei’ to be caught,” said Mr Grocott, replying to a question by Sir William Perry. Dr O. C. Mazengarb, K.C.: Was the State justified in putting to death for their crimes to humanity Kramer and Irma Grese, of Belsen?

Mr Grocott: The churc hdoes not come along here to judge situations like that.

Dr Mazengarb: Would you come before a committee of the State and recommend that there be no death penalty for the perpetrators of the Belsen crimes? Is it not a question of fact or degree which criminals should be executed and which not?—We are dealing here with capital punishment in circumstances in New Zealand. We cannot conceive any situation such as you mention arising in New Zealand. Later Mr Hurley said on the same point: “Belsen is the most obvious case of crime arising out of a social order —the Nazi society. That is a case where the explanation is needed by both.”

Mr C. W. Clift, president of the British Israel Federation in New Zealand, said in a written submission: “Our federation believes that the Bible is true, and that the laws laid down therein should be obeyed. For this reason we believe that the death penalty for murder should be reintroduced in this and all other Godfearing countries.” After quoting a number of passages from the Scriptures, Mr Clift said: “We contend that the Scriptures demand that the death sentence for murder be re-enacted into the laws of New Zealand.” Society Of Friends

Written evidence presented by Mr Edward H. Dowsett, on the authority of the general meeting of the Society of Friends in New Zealand, said that

consistently opposed capital punishment as being in its very nature inadmissable in a Christian community and, from the point of view of community well-being, not only unnecessary but also harmful. It was submitted that there was no evidence to justify the policy of “an eye for an eye,” and statistics were quoted to show that the incidence of homicide and other crimes of violence was in general not increased when the death penalty was removed, and had not been reduced when the penalty had been reintroduced. The average homicide rate a million of the population for the 12 years 1924-1935 was 9.1, during which time the death penalty was enforced. The average rate for the following 12 years was 8.4 a million. The Society of Friends claimed:

(1) That no clear evidence .exists that the death penalty results in fewer convictions for murder.

(2) That such evidence as is available both in this and other countries fends in the direction of less rather than more convictions where capital punishment has been abolished. (3) That in the absence' of clear evidence that society as a whole would benefit thereby, there can be no valid reason for reintroducing capital punishment into the penal code of this country.

(4) That it is dangerous for the Government to increase the severity of punishment unless there is proved need for such an action. (5) That the protection of the community and the redemption of the criminal rather than the death of the murderer should be the preoccupation of the law. Ethical Grounds

On more strictly ethical grounds the society submitted: (1) That capital punishment is a negation of Christian principle, being based on the assumption that the murderer is beyond reach of spiritual reclamation and unfit to live. (2) That capital punishment violates the conception of the sanctity of human life, and stands condemned as an instrument in the preservation of that sanctity. (3) That it is the business of a Christian community to prevent crime and to redeem the criminal.

The Parliamentary Committee adjourned until 9.30 tomorrow morning, when the evidence submitted by the Society of Friends will be crossexamined.