CAB129-78 — Page 264

2

Page 264 7. The Prime Minister has announced that the Government will consider providing time for a debate on capital punishment, but that time cannot be found in the immediate future.

A.-The Arguments in Favour of the Abolition of Capital Punishment

The Absence of Clear Proof that Capital Punishment is an Effective Deterrent 8. The main argument in favour of the abolition of capital punishment is that the taking of life by the State can be justified only if it is an effective deterrent, that there is no reliable evidence that it is an effective deterrent, and that the experience of those countries that have abolished capital punishment shows that abolition does not lead to an increase in murder. The Royal Commission considered in great detail whether there was evidence that capital punishment was an effective deterrent, and they were careful to emphasise that differences in law, custom and statistical method made strict comparison between one country and another impossible. The Royal Commission said that:

(a) "There is no clear evidence. that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate, or that its reintroduction has led to a fall." (Paragraph 65.)

(b) Comparing States in the United States of America which have abolished

capital punishment with those that have not---

"The only conclusion which can be drawn from the figures is that there is no clear evidence of any influence of the death penalty on the homicide rates of these States.". (Paragraph 64.)

(c) "The negative conclusion we draw from the figures (of foreign countries) does not imply a conclusion that the deterrent effect of capital punish- ment cannot be greater than that of any other punishment. It means only that the figures afford no reliable evidence one way or the other." (Paragraph 67.)

(d)

We recognise that it is impossible to arrive confidently at firm conclusions about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, or indeed of any form of punishment. The general conclusion which we reach, after careful review of all the evidence we have been able to obtain as to the deterrent effect of capital punishment, may be stated as follows: prima facie the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human beings than any other form of punishment, and there is some evidence (though no convincing statistical evidence) that this is in fact so. But this effect does not operate universally or uniformly and there are many offenders on whom it is limited and may often be negligible. It is accordingly important to view this question in a just perspective and not to base a penal policy in relation to murder on exaggerated estimates of the uniquely deterrent force of the death penalty." (Paragraph 68.)

There is a Risk that an Innocent Person may be Hanged

9. There is no evidence that this has happened in modern times. It is nearly a hundred years since an innocent person (Habron) is known to have been convicted in England or Wales of murder, and he had been reprieved before his innocence came to light. If there is even a scintilla of doubt at the time, a reprieve is recom- mended, and the risk that an innocent person might be executed is in practice extremely slight. As Sir David Maxwell Fyfe stated in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill in 1948, "There is no practical possibility (of an innocent man being hanged).

Of course, a jury might be wrong, as might the House of Lords and the Home Secretary; they might all be stricken mad and go wrong. But that is not a possibility which anyone can consider likely." (Official Report, 14th April, 1948, Col. 1077.) It cannot, however, be said to be impossible in theory that new information might come to light after execution which would have thrown sufficient doubt to justify reprieve.

That Juries would be more ready to Convict if there were no Death Penalty

10. There is no reason to believe that this is true, and juries show no reluctance to convict when the case is properly proved. It is sometimes said that juries show

Page 264

Page 264

310