WARTIME OFFENCES

Northern Advocate, 23 June 1925, Page 3

WARTIME OFFENCES

THE DEATH PENALTY.

COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

| Just as we are welcoming a number of signs that we are getting back to normal life, we are abruptly confronted with a reminder of war and its horrors (says a London writer). An interdepartmental committee which has been considering the question of 'fhe abolition of the death penalty for military offences has just issued its report in which it decides that such abolition for major active service offences is undesirable during war but for peace time it recommends that only mutiny should be classed as a capital crime. Briefly, their argument is this, that since in active service death is always imminent, no other punishment would be sufficiently strong a deterrent for such crimes as are already punishable by death. Further, they cannot advise any very extensive reduction oi: the list of those offences. After very full consideration they felt bound to say that almost all of them when committed on active service, and proved against' the accused under the conditions and reservations defined in the Act, may, in the public interest, require to be visited with death.

They recommend, however, that certain offences for which the maximum penalty has been inflicted should be punishable by cashiering or imprisonment only. Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences, that is to say (1) impedes the Provost Marshal or any Assistant Provost Marshal, or any officer or non-com-missioned officer or any other person legally exercising authority under or on behalf of the Provost Marshal, or when called on refuses to assist in the execution of his duty, the Provost Marshal, Assistant Provost Marshal, or any such officer, non-commissioned officers or other persons; .or (2) does violence to any person bringing provisions or siipplies to the forces, or commits any offence against the property or person of any inhabitant of or resident in the country in which he is serving; or (3) irregularly detains or appropriates to his own corps, battalion or detachment any provisions or supplies proceeding to the forces, contrary to any orders issued in that respect, shallbe punishable by cashiering or imprisonment only.

The Committee gave special attention to the death penalty for the offence of sleeping on post when acting as sentry. This is of course a matter which may imperil not only the safebv of those who are being guarded by the sentry but it may be of the whole army itself and the Committee therefore think it necessary to retain capital punishment for this offence, in reserve. The Committee considered very carefully too, the question whether the code is unduly severe.

There is, they state, under the, code, no military offence punishable with death for which any of the lesser punishments provided for in the Act may not be awarded instead at the discretion of the court martial, and that in cases where a less punishment is thus rewarded, it cannot in any circumstances be increased by higher authority. But the higher "confirming" authority, or any "reviewing" autlu oritv, may at his discretion reduce a sentence of death to any less punishment, and the Darling Committee emphasised the fact that during the Great War no fewer than 89 per cent, of the death sentences pronounced were in fact reduced by the confirming or re: viewing authority. They concluded therefore that they do not think it can be contended that the code does not allow freely "the exercise of a merciful discretion. A most important subject enquired into by the Committee was that dealing with allegations that there was differentiation in favour of officers, but the Committee stated that officers of high rank who were directly charged during the war with the duty of final decision in particular cases were uTianimo.usly of opinion that the death penalty was only required in the last resort and in extreme cases, but that for such cases "it must be retained as a power in reserve." Both these

officers and all other ranks regarded the purpose of the penalty not as vindictive but simply as deterrent. The punishment about which there has been much stir particularly in the Overseas contingents. Field Punishment No. 1 has of course already been abolished. ] With regard to the suggested efficacy of alternative, penalties the Committee states that witnesses —and these included soldiers of the Regular Army and the Territorials—who ap- i peared before them so far as they did not frankly disclaim all responsibility, for finding any alternative (i.e., penal servitude, imprisonment or detention) and it seems clear that this is the only alternative under the Army and Air Force Acts. With the possible

j exception of cashiering, which api plies to officers only, the other available punishments—Field Punishment No 1 having been done away with—i are inappropriate for serious offences. I The Committee which appears to I have examined the question from every angle, do not omit the consideration of moral pressure as a deterrent and they expressed the view that offenders should be left to be dealt with by the moral pressure and | examples of their comrades has in I many cases much force, but very full advantage is already taken of this means of securing discipline. It was precisely with the object of avoiding in this way the infliction of the death sentence and Other punishj ments that the Army (Suspension of I

j of Sentences) Acts of 1913 and 1916 ' | were passed and have since in sub- | stance been permanently embodied in the Army Act. But, the Committee adds, situations arise in war when nothing will avail to preserve discipline but the enforcement of the extreme penalty for offences which endanger the safety of the army, the success o£ its operations and the lives of other officers and men. If no other resources than moral pressure were available one or both of two consequences would ensue; .either the bad example of the offender, coupled with the obvious inability of the authorities to deal j with him, might lead to the undermining of discipline and moral, or the ; comrades of the culprit might take it ! into their own hands and shoot him themselves. In either case, more suffering, demoralisation, and loss of life j would result than under the present. ! system.