DEATH PENALTY OR NOT ?

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21228, 26 September 1940, Page 6

DEATH PENALTY OR NOT ?

Commutation to life imprisonment of the death sentence upon the man condemned in the Waikino murder case has again opened the whole question of policy in this matter. This case was regarded by the public as a test of the Government’s policy. Because of the exceptionally revolting circumstances the crime aroused interest throughout the country and the public was divided into two schools of thought—those who supported the supreme penalty as a necessary deterrent and those who on principle objected to the taking of a life for a life. It is impossible to attain unanimity on the subject, but the time does seem to have arrived for the adoption of a definite policy by the authorities after the representatives of the people have expressed their opinion. Some time has elapsed since a murderer has been hanged in New Zealand. Regularly death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment. As far as the present administration is concerned the death penalty seems to have been abolished. Possibly if another administration were in power the policy might be reversed. It is undesirable that there should be any inconsistency in the matter. Therefore many people would welcome a debate in Parliament and either the confirmation of the law as it stands or the total abolition of the death penalty. The present law leaves the judge no option but to pass sentence of death on a person found guilty of murder. Is it wise to leave the confirmation of that penalty or the commutation of the sentence to the discretion of the particular administration of the day ? The danger of inconsistency is the most disturbing feature. On the merits of the rival schools of thought it is extraordinarily difficult to judge. That being so the Executive Council has probably taken what it considers the safer and more merciful course and allowed condemned men to live. Many who have to do with the administration of the law contend, however, that the removal of the fear of the death penalty has the effect of increasing crimes of personal violence in which innocent people may be made to suffer agony which could have been avoided by a sterner administration of the law. The question can be argued endlessly on ethical and practical grounds, but it is possible at least to have consistency in the administration of the law, and the public would welcome a decision in Parliament. Another point o£ interest is that a “ life sentence ” does not necessarily mean, under the present prisons system, imprisonment for 21 years.