Reports Upon Competitions
The Essays on Capital Punishment
THREE hundred and forty-two essays were received, including several from Canada, the United States and foreign countries in Europe. After prolonged consideration and much trouble taken by the two judges outside the office of the Spectator, to whom we are most grateful for the time and care that they have expended, the first prize is awarded to Mr. M. Kornitzer of Sydenham, the second to Mr. M. H. Kennedy of 9, Pall Mall, and the third to Miss Kendall of York. None of these deserves, in our opinion, the doubtful praise of being called brilliant, but they combine better than others the merits of correct state- ment, reason and adequate style. Of the other essays received we particularly commend those of Mr. Alexander Wallace of Hampstead and of Mr. H. H. Farmer of New Barnet. Of these, each was specially approved by one Judge for its merits. For their literary quality alone we place very high those of Mr. Bartlett of Fernshaw Road, S.W., and of Miss N. Owen of Oakley Crescent, S.W. Those of Miss H. M. Shewell and Mr. W. Maxwell seem to us uneven, having some very good points which were unfortunately balanced by faults. That of Miss J. Clarkson appeals to us by the very good sense shown here and there, and Miss I. Looker's by the stern courage manifest in parts. The essay of Mr. F. Hudson was cleverly, rather too cleverly, written. That of M. A. J. McBride had considerable general merit, and we are glad to have had the authoritative essay of Dr. Bernard Hollander with his views upon mental responsibility, and that of Mr. H. Harcourt with its lessons to be drawn from experience in India. On other particular points, Mr. E. Shepherd's was not well written but had interest, particularly in regard to the danger of lynch law asserting itself in the place of legal executions. Mr. R. Ives expressed well his views upon manslaughter as opposed to murder.
Twenty-eight competitors treated the problem without expressing any definite view for or against abolition. One hundred and seventy-two essays were some more and some less definitely in favour of the complete abolition of capital punishment ; one hundred and forty-two were more or less definitely in favour of its retention, though in many cases these advocated drastic changes in the law or in its adminis- tration. As was to be hoped, no serious competitor upholds the Old Testament law against the lessons of the New Testa- ment. On another point the writers are agreed : they confine their arguments to the punishment of murderers, and if they mention treason or the other almost unknown capital crimes, it is only to dismiss them as though the law were a dead letter in that sphere, as, indeed, it must appear to be in times of peace. So far as the execution of women is touched upon in the essays, there seemed to be little desire for the equality of the sexes ; the objections to equal treatment are rightly based not upon reason but upon unconquerable sentiment. There is little suggestion in the essays that so long as there are executions they could be more humanely carried out or the inevitable horror mitigated in British gaols to-day.
To turn to serious points upon which the essays as a whole surprised us, we do not think that enough attention was given to the need for seriously considering changes in the law in regard to sanity. A short essay does not allow of detailed treatment of the Rules in McNaughten's Case, nor of the present state of opinion as reached by leading alienists. But very few competitors gave the weight that we hold to be due to the advance of medical knowledge as it affects those rules which the judges have for so long been bound (let us say) not to ignore. Again, we expected more consideration of the law as it differentiates between murder and manslaughter. We think it may be argued that the instructions which judges must give to a jury on this point err on the side of harshness. It may be said that the muscles cannot act until after the brain has conceived and, therefore, every physical act is " afore- thought," and that there is no point at which the line can be drawn between a slow poisoning carried on for weeks and an
angry blow which, in ordinary parlance, we should speak of as " unpremeditated." If for " malice aforethought " were substituted, as they might be, the words "deliberate malice " the same legal interpretation would hardly be made.
This brings us to the question of the deterring effect of Capital Punishment because there is certainly weight in the argument that the dealer of a passionate blow is often regard- less of consequences, i.e., he is not deterred by fear of any punishment. A few writers deny altogether the deterring effect of Capital Punishment, without, of course, suggesting any particular punishment as a greater deterrent. But we have great respect for the arguments of those who urge that the severity of the legal punishment is not so great a deterrent to the deliberate murderer as the certainty of detection and condemnation to some punishment. It may well be true that a corrupt or inefficient police force will encourage more murderers than a hangman will deter. As against that there is the well-known argument that a burglar or other criminal, foreseeing capture, may not stick at murder it it gives a chance of escape at the risk only of a rather longer imprisonment.
It is upon the deterrent effect that practically all who discuss Capital Punishment must and do base their arguments, whether they realize or not that it is the principal basis of all British criminal law.
Upon this question most of our competitors join issue. Whether Capital Punishment is or is not the most effective deterrent, is a question for an answer to which we must look to the Report of the Select Committee which is now investi- gating the whole problem so thoroughly.
Previous page
