THE DEATH PENALTY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20126, 20 April 1928, Page 7

THE DEATH PENALTY

MILITARY DISCIPLINE DISCUSSION IN COMMONS (By Radio) RUGBY, April 17. The House of Commons debated the question of the death penalty on active service, clause 4 of the Army and Air Force Annual Bill, which came up for discussion, providing for the abolition of the death penalty for certain offences. Air K. Morrison (Lab.) moved an amendment to extend the scope of the clause to various other offences, including cowardice and desertion. Major Atlee (Lab.) seconded the amendment, mentioning that the Labour Party was pledged to the abolition of the death penalty, except in cases of mutiny and treachery. Lord Hugh Cecil (C.) said that, while he was gratified that the Government had seen its way to go as far as it had gone, he hoped that they would not abandon the death penalty in cases where it was necessary for the efficient conduct of war. Sir John Simon (L.) suggested that the penalty for cowardice should be penal servitude, instead of death. He moved an amendment with the object of making it apply only to cowardice. Mr Duff Cooper, Financial Secretary to the War Office, said that the abolition of the death penalty for certain offences, as proposed by the Government, was not made as a concession to popular opinion. It was unanimously recommended by the Military Council. It was proposed in fact, to remove from the Army Act certain clauses which had hitherto cumbered it, and which had not been of any real service for carrying out the purposes of the Act or in maintaining discipline tn the Army. He defended the death penalty in certain ctfses, on the ground that it acted as a deterrent. He said that it had been found that where the death penaly was not executed on a man whom the rank and file knew to be a shirker and a coward the men took the law into their own hands. In certain circumstances, rare as they might be, the retention of the death penalty was essential for the discipline of the forces, because the action of one man might produce, not the -defeat of a small company or a plantoon, but of a wh'de army. It was no grateful task to have to defend t.he retention of one of the many horrors of war and thp Government only did so because it was convinced that it was necessary in certain cases to maintain the morale of the Army. Sir John Simon’s amendment was rejected by 12 to 169 and Mr Morri son ’s amendment was defeated by 199 to 107.