SUBMISSIONS TO COMMITTEEPRESBYTERIAN CHURCH VIEWS ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 October 1950, Page 2

SUBMISSIONS TO COMMITTEE—PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH VIEWS ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

WELLINGTON, This Day (R.A.)-— The possible danger of panic with. 7 out due consideration and of undue political pressure in. the matter was referred to by the Rev. J. S. Somerville, making submissions for the Public Questions Committee of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, before the Joint Parliamental y Committee on Capital Punishment today. “The matter is capable of being examined calmly and critically and this a Christian duty, rather than to follow a short-lived popular tendency,” he said. It can be shown that the deterrent value of punishment, particularly with regard to homicide, has a minimum of value. Other motives, often beyond the immediate control of the persons concerned, are important in homicide. . protection Of Society “The community often forgets that its primary objept in having the power of punishment is the protection of Society! It is on this essential that most penalties are based, and it is possible on these grounds that the death penalty may be required. The community cannot overlook the fact.” His committee urged, said Mr Somerville, that on this basis no releases from confinement under the existing law in New Zealand should be made too soon and the time of punishment for capital offences should be strictly carried out. “We ask our people to make this p deeper issue than a political one, to consider the facts and figures with caution and to consider the real values and purposes of punishment by =ociety?’ said the witness. He said his Church could not overlook the fact that the death penalty might have to be carried in certain circumstances. Its plea was that, as a policy o+' Christian enlightenment had been embarked on in repealing capital punishment, it should not be thrown aside after 10 years or so. To revert to the old system was a confession of failure. Significant Admissions To the Attorney-General, Mr T. Clifton Webb, Mr Somerville admitted that he did consider significant the admissions made by criminals at times, that they had not carried weapons for fear of killing someone and consequently suffering the death penalty. Mr Webb said that surely sucb admissions showed that the death penalty was a deterrent. Mr E. H. Dowsett, on behalf of the Society of Friends (Quakers), submitted that just as society took the responsibility for the good citizens it produced so it must take the responsibility for its bad citizens. He said a Christian community should redeem the criminal, as well as presenting crime. Discussing the danger to prison warders in caring for convicted murderers who knew they would not be

executed, Mr Dowsett said the warders had better opportunities, for looking after themselves than the prisoners, and it was the responsibility of the prison authorities 'to see that there was safety on both sides. Views Of Quakers “Capital punishment makes a murder trial a gladiatorial show. It is an advertisement of murder cast, in real life and, therefore, more pernicious than printed or celluloid fiction about murder and gangster crime,” said Mr Lincoln Eiford, opening submissions on behalf of the Howard. League for Prison Reform, of which he is president.

He said the League since its inception had opposed capital punishment. The proponents of the restoration of the death penalty should be required to produce overwhelming proof that the abolition of the penalty had harmed the community, morally and physically, and that citizens’ lives had been placed in greater danger. The Howard League believed that no method of grading or other means of mitigation, restricting the death penalty to certain legally-defined types of homicide, could remove the grave objections to the death penalty in toto. Mr Efford said the league maintained that no retrogression in community welfare in the broadest sense, due to the abolition of the death penalty, had been evident in the past 15 years. It could not be demonstrated that the murder rate had increased beyond that of earlier years, or above what would have been likely had capital punishment been in force. “Harmful To Community”

“The death penalty is harmful to the whole community, because periodically it stirs up unhealthy emotions and concentrates public interest on brutality, violence and vengeance,” he said. “Everyone would now admit the demoralising effect of public executions, but the essential evils which attend them are present in shadow form today in the eager study by a large number of people of the sordid and petty personal detail of the life of a condemned murderer.” , Mr Efford said some of- the moroid effect that the imposition of the death penalty had on the moral tone of the community had been shown by much of the propaganda in its favour in this country in the last two or three years. “Much of this propaganda has been deliberately directed to exciting the lowest passions and feelings of revenge and cruelty. We feel that, if this Select Committee pronounces in favour of keeping our country free from an evil and repugnant practice, which has a morbid fascination for those of low or unstable character, much of the unhealthy atmosphere created by certain advocates of the restoration of hanging will disappear. Dramatic or cruel punishments indirectly tend to cause crime. “Wholly Irrevocable” “The death penalty is wholly irrevocable and denies all possibility cf subsequent vindication or compensation in the case of a wrong conviction,” said Mr Efford. “The risk of an innocent person being hanged is a strong argument against capital punishment.” Injustice was not confined to a wrongful conviction. There were cases of reprieves being granted at the eleventh hour, because of a new consideration. Many observers, including British judges, had noted that where the death penalty was in force juries often sought for a means of avoiding the possible execution of the accused by returning what amounted to a perverse verdict, “guilty but insane,” which resulted in a sane man being committed to a lunatic asylum for life. Mr Efford also argued that the prerogative of mercy could not be exercised satisfactorily. “We do not believe it should be left to human judgment to decide that anyone is unfit to live,” he said. Mr Efford said that the mere existence of the death penalty, with its emphasis on destruction and revenge, tended to vitiate and distort the whole of the penal system, by mocking the spirit of reform which should animate it. The death penalty brought unnecessary suffering to innocent persons. The relatives of the murderer probably suffered as 1 much as he up to the time of the execution and their horror and suffering were life-long. Discussing the deterrent effect of the death penalty, Mr Efford said that to act on the intuitive belief of the advocates of restoration was dangerous. The Howard League did not claim that the death penalty had no deterrent effect but that its effect was no greater than less brutal or objectionable punishment, he said. It was a well-known principle that the certainty of conviction was more important than severity of threatened punishment. The existence of the death penalty often caused a jury to fear doing an irrevocable injustice, thus allowing some who were guilty of a killing to escape conviction altogether or to be convicted of a lesser offence. “Where the death penalty is abolished the jury is not faced with this fear and there is a likelihood of a greater certainty of conviction and thus a more powerful deterrence,” said Mr Efford. The committee adjourned until tomorrow.