DEATH PENALTY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24710, 12 September 1941, Page 4

DEATH PENALTY

BILL FOR ABOLITION MEASURE PASSED BY HOUSE DELAY URGED BY OPPOSITION (0.C.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 11. An amendment that, “ in view of the importance of the, subject matter and the conflict of expert opinion, the Bill should not be proceeded with until a full inquiry has been made and evidence heard by an appropriate Royal Commission or a Select Committee of this House.” was moved by Mr C. G. E. Harker (Opposition, Waipawa) during the second-reading debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives today. It was defeated by 35 votes to 18, the voting being on strictly party lines, with Mr J A. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn) absenting himself from the division. The Bill, which abolishes the death sentence for murder and also abolishes flogging and whipping as punishments, was put through all stages and passed it) just over two hours and a-half from the beginning of the debate. Seutiment Rather than Reason

Mr Harker, who considered that sentiment rather than reaspn was apt to guide untrained minds in deciding an issue, said that the Executive Council could over-ride the powers of judges at the present time, so he did not see why the Government should try to put the Bill through in a hurry during war-time. He thought that a Royal Commission should be set up, consisting of the chairman of the Prisons Board (Sir Hubert Ostler), Mr Justice O’Regan, the Minister of Justice (Mr H. G. R. Mason) and Mr J. A. Hanan, M.L.C., to consider the Bill, or else a Select Committee *bf the House should take evidence on the whole question. The committee could consist of the Minister,. Mr F. W. Schramm (Govt., Auckland East), Mr L. G Lowry (Govt., Otaki), Sir Apirana Ngata (Opposition, Eastern Maori) and either himself or Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago). “The punishment motive has a revenge motive, and. we do not want vengeance in dur country or in our hearts,” said Mr C. W. Boswell (Govt., Bay of Islands). “We want to stick as closely as we can to justice seasoned with mercy; We have been climbing out of barbarity, and I hope nothing will stop it.” Warning by Former Minister Mr J. G. Cobbe (Opposition, Manawatu), speaking as a former Minister of Justice, said there was no doubt that certain atrocious and hateful crimes deserved severity of punishment, and the offenders could be made to feel only through their skins. Scarcely any punishment was too severe for some of those who attacked innocent children. “What can we and the country think of the mentality of the Government, when the whole world is disturbed, in bringing down a Bill for the purpose of relieving murderers, traitors, and sexual perverts of ade-. quate punishment for their crimes? ” Mr Cobbe asked. “I am really surprised that such a thing should be brought down at present in any British dominion. I think the Minister would be well advised to withdraw this Bill. It is. not wanted, and it must have the effect of making people less careful before they commit any crime. It is a step in the wrong direction, and I am satisfied it must ultimately have a bad effect upon New Zealand.” “We cannot' create life, and I question whether we are justified in destroying the life of a fellow creature, even if he has himself destroyed life,” said Mr C. L. Carr (Govt, Timaru). “Christ never taught that we should repay brutality with brutality.” Crime and punishrhent, he added, should be approached with the wisdom of maturity and not the rough justice of immaturity. The view that crime, should be treated as a sickness, with understanding and not with revenge and retaliation, was expressed by Mrs C. C. S. Stewart (Govt., Wellington West). Had everything possible been done to get at the root causes of crime? she asked. Much of it, she believed, was the result of faulty education. The Government was only now beginning to do what previous Governments should have done in this direction. “ Murder with Impunity ”

“ In my opinion, if this Bill is passed we will have in this country murder with impunity,” said Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition, Waitomo). There was evidence to-day of a lack of control in the younger people of the Dominion, and the police records showed an increase in juvenile crime. Mr W. P. Endean (Opposition, Remuera) asked why the Government went outside the British Empire in support of its views on the punishment of crime. British law was the admiration of the world, both for its justice and clemency. American jurists had declared that the law of England was unsurpassed anywhere. All the Empire’s ideas of justice came from England and the Privy Council was New Zealand’s and the whole Empire’s final court of appeal. “I implore the Government to send this Bill to the Statutes Revision Committee,” Mr Endean said. “It would not be in the interests of the country that this Bill should be rushed through. There is a considerable body of opinion outside the House which should be heard. If the opinion of the country could be marshalled, it would be found to be in favour of the existing law.” Abolition Justified Replying to the debate, the Attorneygeneral, Mr H. G. R. Mason, claimed that the Bill was founded on sound doctrine and that was its greatest justification. He believed that the principle of retribution was unsoundly “based and arose from a weakness of human nature, namely a desire for i-etribution founded on passion. It was true that crimes against women and children moved one to indignation, but passion was not a safe guide and was a feeling to be guarded against. During the committee stage, Mr J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara) said he thought the Bill unwise. It was a pity that the Government had followed a controversial policy when the country had a Job to do—to get on with the task or winning the war. In any case, there, was an element of doubt about the wisdom of the Bill itself and it required much more time for study and for hearing outside opinion.