MOSAIC LAW IN JEOPARDY

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 531, 7 December 1928, Page 8

MOSAIC LAW IN JEOPARDY

WITH the first reading in the House of Commons of a Bill substituting life imprisonment for the death penalty, controversy will be stimulated concerning the principles of the Mosaic Law which have, apparently, grown so distasteful to the refined sensibilities of our time. Many people have declared capital punishment to be nothing more -than judicial murder—a primitive survival revolting to contemporary thought, and no longer necessary in modern society. Commander J. M. Kenwortliy, the sponsor of the Bill, said it was better for 100 guilty persons to escape the gallows than for one to be murdered in the name of the law. The case of Oscar Slater was quoted as one in which an irremediable mistake might easily have been made. The thought behind-a system of capital punishment is the protection of society, and those who make the laws have the definite charge of giving society the measure of protection it demands. Fortunately for the erring, the people of the 20th century are less exacting than those of the 18th, when the daily spectacles at Tyburn, witnessed with relish, brought infinite delight to the multitudes. Society no longer demands death for theft; but there is still a lingering feeling that the taking of life should have the maximum discouragement. Those who favour “judicial murder” contend that it must stay because of its deterrent effect; but there has been no remarkable increase in life-taking in those countries that have abolished capital punishment. Holland, Rumania and Portugal have found that they can get on very well without it. In Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland, it is rarely inflicted, and even Russia abolished it for a time; but in 1920 the system had to be reintroduced for the purpose of meeting. certain political contingencies. American States differ only as to method, some favouring the halter, others the electric chair. The necessity or otherwise of the death penalty is a point that can be debated with vigour; but there does seem to be an influential body of thought against the system. People have grown more sensitive, and it is now a harrowing enough experience for the public to see a man sentenced to death. Few, indeed, would take the opportunity, if they had it, of seeing the sentence fulfilled. The public is prepared to let the law have its final vengeance behind closed doors. That fact alone shows the tendency of the community mind, and the indications are that the time may come when society no longer feels that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is necessary for its protection.