HANGING

Beyond a doubt?

GILES PLAYFAIR

Recently, I received a letter from an inmate of the Special Security Block at Parkhurst Prison. The writer, Dennis Stafford, in- formed me that he and Michael Luvaglio were sentenced in March 1967 to life imprisonment for a murder this, did not commit—the shooting to death of Angus Sibbett—and were subsequently refused leave to appeal. He enclosed a detailed statement of his case for my perusal. This was neatly done up in a cellophane folder, and; like his typed letter, had the look of a professional office job.

I don't know how many other potential crusaders Stafford approached, but he evidently hoped to inspire a press campaign 2 in auontut-

So far he has been disappointed, which is not surprising. His case doesn't seem strong enough to tempt any responsible newspaper editor to sponsor it, especially since it is largely based on highly defamatory allega- tions. Anyhow, such publicity as he mana- ged to attract came to an end when the Home Secretary announced that he saw no reason to intervene.

But Stafford seems to me to have a point when he complains that he and Luvaglio were convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. No doubt, such evidence can be partially if not wholly manuntured, though whether it ever is is another matter; one may feel sure that it is not to any- thing like the extent that criminals, especi- ally professional criminals, are in the habit of claiming. Even so, circumstantial evi- dence seldom excludes the possibility of error and a statement which Stafford attributes to Professor Camps, the pathOlo- gist, says very convincingly why: 'It must be appreciated that it is a great deal easier from the manner in which any initial prosecution is prepared to maintain evidence of guilt than to establish inno- cence. The reasons are obvious, perhaps the most cogent being that the original investigation, once suspicion strengthens, is directed to confirmation rather than search for other possibilities. So, too, facts in favour of guilt tend to weigh more heavily than those which might contradict it.'

Presumably, the smaller the benefit of doubt a particular suspect is thought to be owed on account of his previous. record, and the stronger the feeling that he ought anyhow to be put.`behind bars', the greater the tendency there is to overlook facts in his favour and be careless of the hazard of wrongly convicting him. Though this is understandable, it may none the less result in an affront to justice, and pretty cer- tainly this danger has been exacerbated by the suspension of the death penalty. `If hanging were still in effect in the usc,' Stafford writes with the obvious intention of striking a responsive chord in abolitionist hearts, 'Stafford and Luvaglio would now be pushing up daisies.'

But would they? For my part, I wish I were convinced they would: convinced that the threat of execution, had they been faced with it, would have made no difference to the way in which the prosecution's case against them was prepared and presented, nor altered the facts that they were con- victed, refused leave to appeal, and that the Home Secretary, having searched as diligently as he could for a reason to inter- vene, found none. If I were so convinced, I don't think I should require any further assurance that their case is baseless.

But to hang an innocent man, even though it may have happened in rare instances, is considered a far greater out- rage than to imprison him, no matter for how long. Because of this, it would seem to me almost axiomatic that from the beginning to the end of the legal process, whether consciously or not, more sere is taken to avoid injustice when capital punishment is involved than when it isn't. One may recall, for example, the case of Oscar Slater, who was sentenced to death for a murder he did not commit. There was no valid reason for reprieving this man,

who was a thoroughly bad lot, except doubts about the propriety of his con- viction. Yet Slater served twenty rears in jail. it was only after his re/ease that his

innocence was established, thanks largely to the efforts of Conan Doyle, and he was granted a free pardon and a few thousand pounds compensation.

Society regarded this as a story with a happy ending—the chance to salve its con- science. One may wonder, however, whether Slater felt equally satisfied that all is well that ends well, or was able to draw so clear a distinction between the supposedly `revocable' punishment of twenty years' im- prisonment and the irrevocable one of death.

For the truth is, though neither the pro- hangers nor the anti-hangers can afford to admit it, that life imprisonment may be a more dreadful punishment from the individual's point of view than execution. The anti-hangers are commonly accused by their opponents of showing greater sympathy for the murderer than his victim. But, in fact, few of them have shown the slightest concern about the murderer's fate, provided it does not entail subjecting him to a ceremony which, rightly, they con- sider repugnant. If the pro-hangers, on the other hand were to concede that execution is not necessarily a worse or more

feared punishment than life imprisonment they would have no case left (or none the, would dare to advance).

One of the most vocal of them. Edu Lustgarten, triumphantly claims that %shill there have been frequent petition, for ; reprieve from the gallows, there has never been a petition for the commutation prison sentence to a death sentence. TN is an empty argument, because it would clearly be pointless petitioning for some. thing which is beyohd the sovereign's rand hence the Home Secretary's) power to grant But it also happens to be factually inaccu. rate. I would hazard the guess that if a poll were to be taken among the convicted murderers at present in gaol, a majority would vote in favour of capital punishment on humane grounds; I am morally certain that a significant number of them would.

The danger of convicting the innocent is often said to be the decisive argument against hanging. But, unless and until we are persuaded that a life sentence is not something to be much more lightly inflicted on any human being than a death sentence, it may, on the contrary; be about the best argument for bringing back the gallows.