THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1948. THE MURDERER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26731, 29 March 1948, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1948. THE MURDERER

In urging the reinstatement in New Zealand of the ' death penalty for murder the Federation of Justices’ Associations endorses what, may be accepted as the common view, that if a man deliberately takes another’s life, he should pay for it with his own. At the other extreme is the position of those for whom a woman Justice of the Peace spoke at the conference. The convicted persons, she said, were cases for a psychiatrist since they were suffering from a disease; murderers were ‘‘adequately dealt with in the course of their sentences. - ’ An age which has witnessed some of the greatest mass killings in history, and has at the same time absorbed a new sum of human knowledge of the ways of the mind, is almost inevitably prone to come to confusion when it participates in the causes of crime and the best methods of dealing with crime. It is undeniable that many persons are serving sentences to-day for anti-social acts for which they have had the slightest or no responsibility as it is generally understood; and that they receive no adequate treatment while confined, so that they remain on release as dangerous as mad dogs in the community. It is probable that the majority of murderers are “ not responsible.” Police records in their rough and ready way confirm that view—of ten cases of murder reported in 1946-47, in one case the murderer committed suicide, in two cases the offender was found to be mentally defective. But society’s first concern is with the protection of itself from the criminal, and there is no crime more feared, and none more final, than murder. Society’s reaction to the murderer is as spontaneous as that envisaged by Johnson if a madman entered his room with a stick: “ no doubt we should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity . him afterwards.” The obvious rebuke for murder is death, which at least assures that the murderer will sin no more: and so society has removed a menace. The death penalty also is regarded as being the most powerful deterrent, though statistics in this instance allow of no definite conclusion. It is beyond argument that a murder cannot be atoned for, in its effect upon lives changed and blighted by the act. If, however, the murderer be accepted as a victim of disease, he should presumably be discharged, as is a hospital patient, directly he is cured. But does the law accept any such proposition? No effective cure for murderers as a generality has been announced. The Freudian, asserting the wilful murderer to be lacking a superego, does not undertake to equip him with one. He remains in many cases his own enemy admittedly, but society’s also. The case of Mareo, which was instanced at the Justices’ conference, is'somewhat peculiar, even irrelevant. We have discussed this case critically before, and need only say here that Mareo’s convictions were against the weight of expert opinion on the effects of the barbiturates. His release has been long postponed. But neither in .Mareo’s case, nor any other of which we are aware in the history of the New Zealand prison system, has there been any attempt to “ cure ” those convicted of murder. To describe the murderer as diseased seems, therefore, to beg the question. If he' remains, so to speak, contagious—carrying within his mind the seeds of murder—then it is not safe ever to release him. He should never be allowed to go free. This is the contention of the Federation of Justices. In the light of present circumstances in New Zealand, the argument is irrefutable. > GOOD FRIDAY If there is a Christian conscience in this community—and in spite of some of the evidence this can be assumed—then it will be seared by the words of a Church of England priest reported in our news columns. The district, and no doubt the country, marked Good Friday last week with a diversity of sports events and competitions that engaged the attention of a large part of the population. That there was another part that kept the day as a festival of another kind can scarcely be cited as an ameliorating circumstance. This country is one that does not reject the designation of Christian: indeed, it familiarly—all too familiarly—accepts Seddon’s classification as ‘‘God’s Own Country.” Yet the day which commemorates a central fact in the Christian faith, a day which the Christian can regard only with humility and awe, is given over to competitive public sports and festivities. It is an appalling thought that many who confidently call themselves Christians, and asicri their right to the spiritual and temporal benefits of their faith, should hold Good Friday in such poor regard, and should give affront to those who take their religion more earnestly. It is wrong that public reserves and recreation grounds should be available for organised contests on that day. These Good Friday activities are a popular denial of the principles upon which the Province was founded a hundred years ago; a public rejection of the claims so recently and sincerely made that a inspect for Christianity remains a vital thing in our community. •