The Times. TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1944. Crime and Punishment

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 125, 30 May 1944, Page 4

The Times. TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1944. Crime and Punishment

On no less than three occasions within the past few Weeks New Zealand juries have upheld the taking of human life. In each case homicide was clearly established, and in each case the accused left the dock with an unqualified acquittal. While it is not desired to pass any comment upon the soundness or otherwise of the verdicts in these particular cases, nevertheless they do raise several challenging issues.

It may be stated without fear of contradiction that recent years have seen a marked increase in crimes of violence in this country, and especially those involving the taking of human life No doubt the deliberate invocation of the killer instinct in war has dissipated much of the sanctity in which human life was formerly held Indeed, it may well be wondered what proportion of the global shock and commando troops are destined to become talented thugs and accomplished assassins in the years to be.

Undoubtedly, too, the current war has accelerated the serious decline in standards of ordinary decency which is to-day such an unpleasant feature of our national life. The background of the three recent murder trials demonstrated this all too clearly. In fact, the acquittals in two of these cases appear to reflect the strong aversion felt by the average decent citizen towards gross immorality, especially when it is practised by strangers welcomed within oUr gates.

But the growth of violent crime cannot be attributed to war alone, for it commenced to flourish before Dunkirk and Pear! Harbour. In fact, its notable increase broadly coincides with the refusal of the present Government to enforce the death penalty, a refusal which culminated in 1941 with the total abolition of this punishment together with flogging. Is this coincidence in fact a cause, and has the removal of the death penalty become a stimulus to killing"

The purpose of all punishment is primarily deterrent. It is thus stated by Lord Ilalsbury, perhaps the most eminent expounder of English law: “The object of punishment is the prevention of crime, and every punishment is intended to have a double effect namely, to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the act or omission and to prevent other members of the community from committing similar crimes.”

This deterrent effect of punishment is its chief end and its very justification. Bentham, another great English jurist, says that punishment should be regarded as “an indispensable sacrifice to the common safety.” It will be recalled that #mc years ago, shortly after Queensland abolished the death penalty by law, a murderer took pains to lure his victim across the b&rder from New South AYales before carrying out a particularly revolting crime.

Current events in this country seem to indicate that the deterrent effect of punishment in homicide cases has been emasculated in New Zealand by the removal of the death penalty. If this be so, then we are faced with the spectacle, not of punishment “as a sacrifice to the common safety,” but of that very safety being sacrificed to sentimentality.