Mexborough & Swinton Times – Saturday 29 November 1924
Capital Punishment
Interesting Debate at Conisborough
Arguments For and Against its Retention
There was an interesting debate in the lecture room of the Church Hall, Conisborough, last Thursday night, when the members of the Conisborough Literary and Debating Society met to hear Mr. Oswald Clark propose, and Mr. Archie Loy oppose, “That capital punishment be abolished.” The chair was occupied by the President of the Society, the Rev. W. A. Strawbridge.
In opening, Mr. Clark stated that it was a ghastly question, but a burning more before the public eye. The public conscience was being pricked, and feelings of doubt were being aroused in the nation. The Opposition could not say more than that it was a possible necessity. It could not be called good, holy or happy, it was an ugly thing.
The reasons advanced in favour of capital punishment were three—the murderer was a dangerous person, not fit to be in the community; it was the most terrible punishment on the Statute Book, and was a deterrent; revenge—“an eye for an eye.” First, he said, we must ask, “Who is the murderer?” Every time there was a different personality, but there was always the same punishment. The man who murdered was in a fit of passion when unprepared had to pay, though he was often for the time being the victim of perhaps jealousy, lust, anger or fear. Most murderers were the victims of some such passion, and nothing could then prevent a crime being committed. Mr. Clark went on to state that we had to regard murderers as persons of like passions to ourselves. He did not say there were not premeditated cases, but these were committed by persons with warped minds, and too often the results of conditions which society acquiesced in—greed, avarice, and bad conditions for living under.
As a Deterrent
To say that the murderer was unfit to live among the community was not the Christian spirit; it was a denial of religion and an admission of the failure of Christian science and modern civilisation to say that one person was unmanageable. It was a terrible demoralisation, and not the mind of Christ, who stood for redemption of the very worst. Until medical, mental, and Christian science had been tried upon criminals he should say that capital punishment should be abolished.
The second point—capital punishment acted as a deterrent? There was always the idea in the mind that escape was possible. It was a psychological fact that persons who committed crimes thought that they would have luck. A little over a hundred years ago there were 180 crimes punishable by death. Now there were only four—murder, piracy, high treason, and destruction of dockyards. Rabbit stealing and petty theft necessitated even when death was the punishment. He held that capital punishment was not a safe deterrent. He suggested that another reason for lessening the punishment had been the arousing of public conscience. The third point, revenge. He submitted that punishment for its own sake was not a function of British law, and suggested that that was the motive.
The abolition of capital punishment was no new idea. Many countries and States had abolished it, and the only case where a nation had gone back to it was France. Taking the whole world round there was absolutely nothing to show that the abolition of capital punishment increased murder. The criminal had rights, as we had.
Peace and Order at Stake
In moving the amendment, Mr. Archie Loy said he had been waiting all the time to hear the mover of the proposition give an alternative. Many things said by the mover were probably true, but was our concern with the murderer or the community? No doubt the rights of justice were twice sacred to the offender, but they were thrice sacred to the community. We could not treat the community as equal morally. It was a noble idea to try to bring about a better state of affairs through purer literature, education, thrift, and better housing, but it would not pay to take away the punishment and hope for the best. It had been a controversy for centuries. He disagreed that the hanging was in cold blood. Perhaps the murderer did his deed in cold blood after months of meditation. He agreed that there were three reasons, but disagreed with the three given by the mover. His three reasons were: It was the highest penalty of the law, a tried and tested penalty, it acted as an example. Every man had a right to prevent crime; in England this was in the hands of the State, not in the hands of individuals. Revenge was not the motive, and there was no idea of vengeance or atonement; that was between the criminal and God, and he did not doubt that the period given before hanging was sufficient to make atonement. It must be a period of terrible agony. Murderers must be put away so as to be out of the position to murder. If a murderer were committed then the criminal must suffer. Was it possible to compare the lives of the murderers and the victims? Capital punishment did act as a deterrent.
If the death sentence were to be removed we should have to resort to incarceration, and the question would be—for how long? Incarceration for life was only slow death. Was this better than death straight away? The short rope and the big noose was the more Christian method. If there was simply imprisonment there would be the chance of escape. If there were only imprisonment a murderer would take bigger risks. Some persons were born criminal and they could not be altered. From the Biblical point of view there was authority to bring the murderer to justice. If the death penalty were removed we should have to go about armed. Peace and order would be at stake.
Community’s Security
A murderer was not hurried to his end. The death penalty was not pronounced haphazardly; there was a fair trial before judge and jury. Then there was the right to appeal and there was also the right to petition the Home Secretary for the King’s clemency. The security of the community was the first consideration, and as murder was the most heinous crime the death penalty was rightly inflicted.
Captain Laughton stated that the proposer had spoken of fear, but murder through fear was adequately provided for, and, at the worst, the return would be manslaughter. If insanity was proved, then very intricate provisions were made to avoid capital punishment. There was a lot to be said for the principle of trying to better our fellows, and if we could ensure protection for the rest of the community he would be glad to hear of it.
Mr. T. S. Wallis said that an Australian soldier had told him, in France, that Australian murderers were put away for life, but statistics said that they died before fifteen years had expired. If that was the alternative he would prefer capital punishment.
Mr. A. G. Moore, M.M., agreed that the welfare of the community should be considered, but capital punishment was no deterrent. He appeared to an alternative. Mr. Clark did not point out what might be done by exercising scientific remedies. Experiments had already been made in England, and reformation had been accomplished in men who had committed crimes.
Lurid Journalism
Mr. H. J. Wilmott said the interest of the community in crime was not how to prevent it, but in reading lurid journalism in Sunday papers which gloated over it. These papers did little else but tell how to commit crime. There had been more murders since the war than before it, so he did not see how capital punishment was a deterrent. He failed to see how the country would be safer with the murderers out of the way. A good many of us would-be murderers. We often wished people out of the way. Murderers should be placed in institutions which in time could be self-supporting. (Laughter.) The present interest was a sign that the people’s conscience was beginning to doubt the efficacy of capital punishment.
Capt. A. H. Barnard said there was one point which had not been touched upon, and that as the terrible finality in case of a mistake. He thought penal servitude for life would deter as much as hanging.
Mr. R. Coleman stated that in his mission work he had come into contact with three murderers. In one—that of a boy—he would have taken him home and tried to reform him; in another he would have got rid of the murderer at once, and in the third case he held that the perpetrator was not responsible. We should give a man an opportunity and try medical and spiritual effects. If at the end of the period the person was still dangerous then the law should be enforced.
The Chairman’s Views
The Rev. W. A. Strawbridge asked who should be pitied, the murderer or the victim? There was a sanctity on both sides. Remorse could not be lessened by keeping alive, penal servitude was the greater punishment. He was not going to denounce the abolition of capital punishment if it led to greater peace, but it was a terrible risk, and in the Bible neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament was opposed to capital punishment.
In summing up, Mr. Loy said that like thousands more he would go all the way if capital punishment could be abolished. The alternative, imprisonment, was more punishment.
Mr. Oswald Clark summed up. He said we could not lay down hard and fast rules; each case would have to be considered on its merits. He did not suggest allowing murderers to go about the streets, but to take and study them, to treat them medically, mentally, and spiritually. “If you believe in capital punishment, will you pull the hangman’s rope? If you would not, you have no right to expect others to do the dirty work,” he said in conclusion.
On being put to the vote it was found that the members of the Society were equally divided, and the chairman gave his casting vote for the retention of capital punishment.