Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1951

Vol. 128 No. 3

Private Deputies' Business. - Abolition of Capital Punishment—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that a Select Committee of the House should be appointed to examine and report to the Dáil on the question of the desirability of the abolition of capital punishment.—

(Deputies MacBride and Tully.)

Mr. MacBride

Inasmuch as the only request which is contained in this motion is that a Select Committee should be appointed to examine the desirability of abolishing capital punishment, I do not think it is necessary to go into all the factors that make the abolition of capital punishment desirable. Since this motion was moved, I have received a number of letters from different persons and organisations expressing interest in the question and there is one letter I received from Senator Douglas from which I should like to quote, as it deals with a certain historical aspect in regard to capital punishment in this State. In his letter, Senator Douglas says:

"It has always been a matter of great regret to me that it was not abolished in 1922. The Draft Constitution submitted to the Provisional Government and signed by Hugh Kennedy, C. J. France and myself included a provision that the penalty of death shall not be attached to any offence. I discussed the question with Michael Collins and he said that he would endeavour to get the Provisional Government to accept the abolition of capital punishment. He told me that he was opposed to the death penalty for treason and that he had an open mind as to whether or not it should be imposed for murder. He said that abolition was worth a trial and expressed the view that it might be a very good thing if for the first few years at least we had no executions in Ireland. The Draft Constitutions submitted by the first Constitutional Committee were never published but I still have my copies.

In 1923 the late Senator Duffy and I tried, without success, to have the death penalty removed when the Public Safety Bill was before the Seanad. In 1925 an amendment was moved by Senator Haughton and supported by me to the Treasonable Offences Bill which, if it had been passed, would have removed the death penalty for treason."

I thought that the passage from that letter dealing with the original intentions of the framers of the 1922 Constitution was of some historical interest.

On the last occasion, I was unable to give the House the full list of the countries where capital punishment had been abolished and I should like to remedy that position now by giving the list as complete as I have it. In Holland, capital punishment was abolished in 1870 and no executions had taken place for 10 years before; in Belgium, there were no executions since 1863; in Norway, there were no executions since 1876, and capital punishment, as such, was abolished in 1905; in Denmark, there were no executions since 1892 and capital punishment was formally abolished in 1930; in Sweden, there were no executions since 1910, and, in 1921, capital punishment was abolished; in Italy, capital punishment was first abolished in 1889 and reintroduced in 1926 for political or semi-political offences and, in 1931, extended to bring in the more serious cases of homicide: it was again abolished, and is abolished now, in 1948; in Finland, there were no executions since 1826 and capital punishment was formally abolished in 1949; in Portugal, there have been no executions since 1867. I think I indicated on the last occasion the American States in which capital punishment was done away with and I need not go over the large number of central and South American countries which have done away with capital punishment.

It does seem to be a strong argument in favour of the examination of the whole position that such a large number of countries throughout the world have found that capital punishment is not necessary or essential. On the last occasion on which this motion was before the House, I suggested that it should be whether or not it was essential for the preservation of society to enforce the death penalty. In these countries, apparently, it has been found that it was not necessary for the preservation of society, save probably in exceptional times, such as wartime, to take life by way of punishment. I would submit to the House that circumstances as they exist in Ireland to-day do not indicate that there is any need for capital punishment in order to preserve society.

Very briefly, I should like to go over quickly the arguments that are adduced in favour of capital punishment. There is, first of all, the old doctrine of vengeance. I imagine that few in this House will suggest that vengeance is a sound reason for the taking away of human life. While that is so, I have often noticed in discussions of this question that the most charitable and kindly people will frequently get away from the general question of principle involved, and, pointing to a particularly horrifying murder case, say: "Do you not think that at least in that case it was right to inflict the maximum punishment on so and so?" I know that those who put forward that argument are very kindly, good-hearted people, good Christians, but nevertheless that line of argument is not very far removed from the concept of vengeance. In other words, one is horrified by a particular deed which is surrounded by circumstances which make it particularly repellent, and one's tendency is to seek vengeance—in other words, retribution—for a particularly ghastly deed. We have got to get away from that basis of approach, and should try to consider the issues on a much higher plane.

Another argument which is put forward is the necessity or the value of capital punishment as a reformative agent. There is very little reality in that line of argument. A man whose neck has been broken at the end of a hangman's rope is beyond reform. Another argument is that capital punishment is necessary as a deterrent. That argument, I think, does not bear very close examination. For instance, over 200 people a year are killed on our roads by motor cars. Probably a large percentage of those are killed by people who have had too much to drink. We all deplore that, and we are all horrified by the fact that 200 lives a year are lost on the roads by carelessness, criminal negligence or drunkenness. Yet, would we suggest that we should impose capital punishment in these cases as a deterrent? To be logical, there might be much more force and reason in saying that in order to protect the lives of the 200 people who are killed every year on the roads, we should impose capital punishment on any motorist who kills anybody else on the roads while under the influence of drink. There might be much more force and logic in that line of argument.

I do not think there is very much more I can add. I hope we will have an opportunity, if the House agrees to this motion, of discussing the whole question much more fully at a later date. I, therefore, have great pleasure in proposing this motion.

Mr. Tully

I wish to second the motion.

Mr. Cogan

I intend to be very brief on this motion. I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal before the House because the view expressed by Deputy MacBride is one which I held very strongly at one time. It is one which I advocated in this House but I must confess that my views on this matter have been somewhat shaken in recent years. I have some doubts as to the wisdom of the complete abolition of capital punishment to-day. I was particularly struck by the fact that in Great Britain capital punishment was abolished some years ago and was almost immediately reintroduced.

Mr. MacBride

By the House of Lords.

Mr. Cogan

I do not know by whom but I think there was a fairly strong public opinion in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty. I agree with Deputy MacBride that the idea of vengeance or of punishment as a motive for capital punishment may be ruled out completely. The only one justification for the imposition of the death penalty is that it might possibly be an effective deterrent. I think it is only on that ground that capital punishment may be justified, if it is to be justified at all.

I also agree—it is a reasonable point to make in support of the abolition of the death penalty—that there is always the possibility and the danger of a miscarriage of justice which, when the death penalty is carried through, cannot be rectified. We all know that there is a terrible danger involved in the imposition of capital punishment. It is very hard to reply on human judgment, on human memory or upon evidence based either upon the memory of a witness or upon the powers of identification of a prisoner. Mistakes can be made and the utmost care must be taken to ensure that a terrible miscarriage of justice would not occur.

While I agree on all these points with Deputy MacBride, one point in connection with the abolition of the death penalty has worried me. That is, would not the removal of that dire penalty give an undue encouragement to the ordinary lesser criminal, who might be engaged in the commission of a felony such as housebreaking, burglary and offences of that kind, to take a step further and eliminate any person who might surprise him in the act of committing a crime? If a housebreaker, for example, is caught after breaking into a house by a night watchman or some citizen passing by, he knows that, if he is brought to justice, he will get a sentence of penal servitude. If he eliminates, by murder, the person who surprises him, whether that person be a Guard or a law-abiding citizen, he can escape that penalty. Under the present system, he will hesitate to eliminate the witness or the Guard because he realises that by so doing he puts his own life in jeopardy. I think that was the consideration which influenced a great many people in Britain to be seriously worried about the complete abolition of the death penalty. They felt that by abolishing it completely they would be exposing the officers of the law to more grave perils than they at present encounter.

It is true that the person who has committed murder may possibly, in order to evade arrest, commit a further murder by attacking the Guards or any citizen who come to arrest him for his crime. But the number of these is limited compared with the number of lesser criminals who engage habitually in crime such as robbery and housebreaking. The danger I see in the abolition of the death penalty is that you convert—or should I say pervert— a large number of the lesser criminals, burglars, housebreakers and criminals of that kind into murderers when you remove the danger of execution.

I think that that is the most serious consideration which I would submit to the proposer of the motion. He may be able to suggest some way out of the difficulty. My theory would be that instead of the complete abolition of the death penalty we should aim at its gradual elimination by enforcing it only on very rare occasions.

There is an argument in favour of the abolition of the death penalty which I overlooked, and that is that sometimes a jury may acquit a prisoner the more readily when they feel that he is liable to be executed. When they have even the slightest doubts or not even that, but when there are some extenuating circumstances, they will acquit, whereas if the prisoner before the court is not in danger of execution he is more likely to be convicted. That is perhaps one of the arguments which may be advanced in support of this motion. I am trying to look at this as fairly as I can. The effects of the removal of the threat of capital punishment may be offset by greater efficiency in the enforcement of the law, as witnesses will be more inclined to come forward and give evidence, and juries will be more inclined to convict, when they know that the prisoner will not suffer death.

There are strong arguments for this motion, but I am unable to convince myself that there is an effective answer to the argument which I have put up that the abolition of the death penalty might in effect bring about the imposition of the death penalty on those who are charged with the enforcement of the law in a large number of cases, and that is a matter that must be considered.

If the death penalty is to continue I feel that certain reforms are urgently necessary. Trial by jury must, of course, be preserved. It is essential to a fair trial, but I feel that there should be a court of appeal equal from the prisoner's point of view to the court which tries him. There should be a higher central criminal court composed, perhaps, of a jury and two or three judges, who will review the whole case. From every point of view I would suggest as a reform that that court should have power to retry the case. The question then would arise of who should impose the penalty. In order to safeguard the prisoner no prisoner should suffer the death penalty unless he has been convicted by the Central Criminal Court and by this higher court. In all cases he should have this double trial as a safeguard against the possibility of error.

I would go further and say that, in order to protect the public from the wrongdoer, not only should the prisoner have the right to appeal to the higher court but the prosecution also. There are many cases where people who are obviously guilty are acquitted by the jury and they cannot be retried. I know that I may be going against all legal procedure in this matter.

Mr. O'Donnell

You are not so ignorant of it as that.

Mr. Cogan

I am completely ignorant of the law.

Mr. O'Donnell

Tell the truth.

Mr. Cogan

Of the law I have no knowledge whatever and am speaking only from the point of view of ordinary common sense. I think that it is necessary to safeguard the community against the criminal who may be such a clever criminal that the jury are unable to convince themselves that he is guilty and, therefore, let him go completely free.

Mr. MacBride

Is not this very much outside the scope of this motion, which merely asks to have the question of capital punishment considered?

Mr. Cogan

If the prosecution appealed to the higher court and the higher court convicted him, if he could not be executed he would suffer a period of imprisonment.

I would wholeheartedly support Deputy MacBride's proposal if it had been on less specific lines and on a wider basis, covering the whole question of criminal trial and punishment. I was one of those who, with Deputy Donnellan, sponsored a motion for the reform of our prison treatment. I got a lot of abuse from the Fine Gael Party, particularly from the legal lights in the Fine Gael Party, for taking that stand, but I do not regret it. We should be strictly just to the criminal, to the law-breaker and to the person who, while he may not be either a criminal or a law-breaker, happens to be caught within the toils of the law——

Mr. O'Donnell

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cogan

——perhaps in some cases through error. This should be our object. I have approached this question with an open mind and have tried to be fair. I see a strong argument for it and only one strong argument against it: that it does give to the criminal an advantage over the forces of the law which appears to me to be overwhelming.

Mr. Dunne

I approach the discussion on this motion with the mind, not of a lawyer who is more or less used to the idea of people being tried for their lives, but rather of the ordinary layman who is appalled at the thought of any unhappy human being having to go at the dawn of some morning to meet his doom at the end of a hempen rope.

I feel that this motion has a great deal in it which should commend it to the House. The mover, Deputy MacBride, outlined the very large number of eventualities wherein it is quite possible that, through some error which may occur during the trial of a person charged with a capital offence somebody may be hanged, executed, in the wrong. To my mind, that argument alone is sufficient justification for this House to vote, unanimously to agree, that the whole question of capital punishment should be examined with a view to seeing if it can be entirely abolished. I believe it should be abolished. If one accepts the idea that mankind has been progressing over the centuries, and will progress in the centuries to come, towards a higher civilisation, one must also accept the idea that the old jungle law and principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is one which we must reject.

The picture which one can call to mind of a person who is brought to trial and found guilty of murder and who must await the day that he or she knows will surely come when, without any chance of reprieve, he or she will go to meet the Creator is so terrible that it must cause every thinking person to question whether society is justified in taking human life no matter what the reason may be.

The mover of the motion has referred to many aspects of the various arguments for and against capital punishment. This Dáil is peculiarly well qualified to discuss this matter, because we have, on the one hand, a large number of Deputies whose daily occupation is the defence of persons who are brought to court, sometimes on capital charges, and, on the other hand, there is quite a respectable number of Deputies who at some time or other of their political career have had the death sentence hanging over them. In the light of those facts the Dáil is peculiarly well qualified to discuss the motion.

The ordinary person who reads in the daily paper that some unfortunate man or woman has been found guilty of murder and has been sentenced to death, while perhaps momentarily inclined to be indignant, having read the details of the crime—and some crimes can be brutal and some crimes cause public indignation—thinks of the awful punishment which is about to be inflicted upon that person. There is a growing feeling amongst the public that the person who takes human life is not a normal person, and cannot be said to be normal at the time he committed that awful act. Some persons may say that premeditated murder is the act of an average or sane individual. I would never subscribe to that belief. I could never accept it nor do I believe that any thinking person would accept the proposition that the average individual in society, no matter in what country he may live, will in his sane, sober senses calmly plan to take the life of another. That is not a normal act. Therefore there should be consideration of the punishment to be meted out to a person found guilty of such a crime.

We often hear, when murder trials are under discussion, mention of the name of this or that hangman, but is it not true that, on the awful morning when a man goes to his execution, society is the hangman? The entire population of the country takes part, as it were, in spirit, indirectly, in that execution. It is an unnatural thing, an unchristian, an inhuman thing, in my view, to take life in any circumstances other than those outlined by the mover of the motion, where society may be definitely threatened if life is not taken, or where a principle such as national principle may be involved.

I do not think there is any substance in the reasons which have been adduced here by Deputy Cogan for his opposition to this motion. I do not think that the petty criminal would be encouraged to commit greater crimes if there were no death penalty. Does anybody suggest that a person who is about to commit a murder ever thinks of the possible result of his action? Does anybody consider that a murderer, before he commits that awful crime, gives any thought whatever to the possibility of his own life being taken? I cannot see that that could occur. I do not believe it does occur. The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent is absolutely unreal and without foundation in fact.

I am convinced that the Dáil would be doing a good day's work if it decided to set up the committee asked for in the motion. The motion is a modest one. It does not propose that there should be immediately complete and revolutionary change in the law so far as convicted murderers are concerned. It asks that a select committee of the House should be set up with a view to discovering what steps ought to be taken to bring about the abolition of capital punishment.

I was impressed by the list of countries read by Deputy MacBride which have abolished capital punishment, not to-day or yesterday but many years ago. It is notable that at least some of them, in fact, the majority of them, are amongst the most cultured and most progressive countries in the world. It may also be said that they have the supreme quality of having a Christian outlook on this important matter.

Literature and history abound with testimony to the cruelty of taking human life. Anyone who has ever dwelt inside the walls of a prison, in this country or elsewhere, and who has had the misfortune to be there when some person was being brought to the gallows knows the awful dread that pervades such a place when such a thing is happening.

That is not new. Oscar Wilde, in the "Ballad of Reading Jail", gives a graphic description of the terror that permeates the mind of every individual, no matter how low a criminal he may be, who is in a prison on such a morning. It is degrading to think of a person being brought to his doom to expiate a crime which he perhaps committed in a fit of anger, a crime which he committed, perhaps, when in a condition of abnormality. That should be remembered by every one of us when considering how we shall vote on this motion.

I feel that the people of this country and the Deputies on all sides of the House are as humanitarian as people in any part of the globe. I feel that they would be as anxious to preserve the principles of justice as the people of any nation. I think justice can be preserved and society can be preserved and the spirit of justice can be improved by the abolition of capital punishment. I consider that it serves no purpose as a deterrent to crime and that the day upon which it is abolished will be a good day, because it is lowering and degrading and has little to commend it, except, as I said, the doctrine referred to by Deputy MacBride, the doctrine of vengeance. I commend this motion to the House and I hope it will be accepted.

Captain Cowan

I regret that Deputy MacBride did not adopt a different procedure, that, instead of putting down this motion which suggests the setting up of a committee to consider the matter, he did not take the bull by the horns and introduce a Bill to abolish capital punishment. That would have enabled this House to give the matter full consideration.

Mr. MacBride

If we were to introduce a Bill you would suggest that we should have put down a motion.

Captain Cowan

I do not want Deputy MacBride to get off on that point.

Mr. MacBride

I am used to the Deputy now.

Captain Cowan

Deputy MacBride should rest on his motion and not be vexed because I am taking a completely different line. In fact, the one thing that I have taken a very strong pledge to do since we reassembled is to endeavour to avoid being in conflict with Deputy MacBride. I ask Deputy MacBride to respond to that Christian spirit. I am only suggesting, as a matter of tactics, that we might have considered the matter by way of a Bill. What I am worried about is this: are we sufficiently civilised to agree to the abolition of capital punishment? That is really the point. If we have reached a certain stage of civilisation, then capital punishment should be abolished. Have we reached a stage where we all live within the law, within the Constitution? That is a stage of civilisation. If we have reached it, then we can abolish capital punishment. If we have not reached it, can the State deprive itself of that power that it may need to maintain the law and the Constitution? I want to put forward that particular point of view. I want Deputy MacBride to correct me if I am wrong, but I gather from the opening part of this motion that he was not in favour of the abolition of capital punishment—that he thought capital punishment might be maintained in the case of treason.

Mr. MacBride

No, I do not think that. I pointed out that it was a matter which could be discussed separately. My own view is that I would do away with capital punishment, anyway.

Captain Cowan

I am glad to know that, because I got the impression that capital punishment may be abolished except in cases of treason. That, of course, is the great trouble, because the number of executions we have had in this country for crimes outside of what one might term treason or political offences have been very few. We have not had so many of them over a period of 25 years. There have been quite a number of executions in cases where the charge was, although it may not have been expressed in the same words, treason or opposition to the State. I think that if any type of capital punishment ought to be abolished that is the type that should be abolished, provided, as I say, we have reached the stage of civilisation that we can deal with all matters in a lawful way within the limits of the Constitution.

In a discussion on capital punishment we can always consider the type of person who is guilty of serious murder surrounded by revolting circumstances. I do not think that is the particular type of murder in which the death penalty should be imposed, because, obviously, in that type of case there is some mental derangement, there is something wrong mentally. If there is something wrong mentally, then it is wrong that the person concerned should be executed. But there is another type of criminal, the crafty type of criminal, the poisoner who over a long period will give to some person that he or she is determined to do away with small grains or drops of poison day after day or week after week, something of the Seddon type. There is only one way of dealing with a person of that kind and that is to treat that person the way you treat a mad dog.

Mr. MacBride

Why not do that with people who are insane, then?

Captain Cowan

I have said that where there is mental derangement I am not in favour of the death penalty.

Mr. MacBride

But is not that mental derangement too?

Captain Cowan

I am talking about the crafty deliberate poisoner who poisons quietly and secretly over a period for the purpose of amassing wealth or the property of a particular person. I make no bones in saying that that type of person ought to be executed and the world is well rid of him. That is where our difficulty comes in in regard to this problem. If a particular person is sufficiently civilised, he or she will not poison.

Mr. Hickey

If they are not civilised they are not sane.

Captain Cowan

That is the trouble. In all poisoning cases they have been perfectly normal.

Mr. Dunne

They appear to be.

Mr. MacBride

How do you know they are perfectly normal?

Captain Cowan

They have been perfectly normal in so far as it has been possible to find out. They have carried on normally in society. They had one incentive; it was not to improve the condition of somebody else but to improve their own condition by doing away with a person slowly and quietly by the administration of small does of poison over a period.

I am perfectly certain that whatever one may say about the motion in general terms nobody could say that it would be right that that person should not be properly punished. One may say why not put that person in prison, lock him up and leave him there for the rest of his life. That might be one way of dealing with it. I do not agree that it is the right way. I think that in dealing with that particular type of person it is necessary that there should be a punishment which will make that person afraid. The poisoner hopes to escape punishment and there is a danger that many more people might endeavour to poison if the penalty were simply to lock them up in prison for a period of years.

Imprisonment has now very little terrors. Conditions in our prisons are improving day after day. Prisoners may smoke. They may have their radios. They may have their newspapers. They have everything conceivable except their liberty. I see now in Belfast they propose letting them out for Christmas.

Mr. Dunne

All of them?

Captain Cowan

A good number of them. There are people who believe that capital punishment ought to be abolished. They believe it is wrong. They believe it is unchristian to execute a person. I do not think that is right. I seem to remember that Joan of Arc was executed by Princes of the Church. It was not unchristian then, so that executions are not an unchristian method of dealing with a person.

What really does happen here or in England? I am not so much concerned with what happens in America, because there they have a different standard altogether: there they keep people in gaol for years and execute them after that. Here, or in England, before a person can be executed—that is when they are tried by process of law and not in a back room without their being present—in our courts they are entitled to be defended in the first instance by counsel provided by the State. It is the only case in which the State does provide counsel. That person must be tried by 12 of his fellow-countrymen, not lawyers, but ordinary persons, who hear the evidence, observe the demeanour of the witnesses, hear the arguments for the prosecution and the defence, and the summing-up of the judge. After that they retire to decide on that evidence whether or not a person is guilty. They cannot decide that by a majority. Every one of the 12 must himself be of the opinion that the accused is guilty on the evidence, and the 12 must bring in a verdict that he is so guilty. That is the first step.

Secondly, when the 12 come to that decision the accused has then the right of appeal, which is generally exercised in capital cases, to the Court of Criminal Appeal. If that appeal is dismissed there is the right of petition to the Minister for Justice, to the President through the Government, on which all the relevant evidence concerning the medical condition of the accused and the medical history of his family comes under consideration, and where our Minister for Justice and our President—people like ourselves—have a dreadful responsibility cast upon them for the time being. They consider all the aspects. Eventually they say "the law must take its course." Therefore, in the case in which capital punishment is the penalty every possible opportunity is given to the accused person under the law and the Constitution.

Mr. MacBride

Despite these safeguards will the Deputy not agree that there have been admittedly miscarriages of justice?

Captain Cowan

I admit that. I am aware of some of them myself. There have been miscarriages of justice. If every person does his duty in the way in which it should be done there ought to be no miscarriages of justice. To find an accused person guilty before a jury is very difficult but I do admit that some judges, both here and in England, have been responsible for miscarriages of justice. I say some of the judges; they took a line entirely contrary to the one they should have taken as impartial judges established under the law for a particular purpose. Fortunately the number of cases is very small.

As I was pointing out, all these precautions are taken and when, in the last analysis, a person has to pay the extreme penalty it is merely a matter of society protecting itself against one of its own members who has acted contrary to its best interests.

It is all very well for us to talk about the taking of life, but there have been cases in this country and in England where the most dreadful atrecities have been perpetrated by individuals, where children particularly have been mutilated, ravaged and destroyed. We cannot overlook, or we ought not to overlook, these things.

Mr. Dunne

Surely that is an insane act.

Captain Cowan

It may or it may not be an insane act, but society all down the years has endeavoured to protect itself by the use of the death penalty. It is certainly a great credit to the countries mentioned by Deputy MacBride to-night that they have been able to abolish it, and to do away with that penalty over so long a period. Now, if we have reached the stage of civilisation which they have reached, and if we can all agree to act within the law and within the Constitution——

Mr. Hickey

Have we not as high a state of civilisation as those countries have?

Captain Cowan

I do not think so. When people assume the power to deprive citizens of their lives, not within the law, then I think the law and society must be in a position to protect themselves against that. If that situation does not exist, then we are a civilised community, and as a civilised community we can probably do without the death penalty.

General MacEoin

Most of the arguments that have been made in the last few speeches could, in my opinion, be more fittingly put before this commission of inquiry if it were set up. What is before us is the setting up of a commission of inquiry to consider this matter and make recommendations to the Dáil as to whether the death penalty should be abolished or whether it should not.

This commission of inquiry, if set up, will find out, amongst other things, whether we have reached that stage of civilisation or not. I do not know whether it will be qualified to judge of that, but let us hope that the commission, if set up, will be of such standing and quality that it will be able to give a decision on that particular matter.

Commissions of inquiry have been held in many countries on this very important subject. There is much information available relating to it in our own library. Commissions of inquiry have been held in Britain in recent years. The information they have gathered together on the subject is available. I would say that the number of people who have made a study of such information as is available is very small.

The object of this motion is to have an inquiry into the subject. I think it would be wise to have the inquiry, so that at least in our time this question could be settled one way or the other. For that reason I am in favour of the setting up of the inquiry. I am not going to go into the question of whether I am in favour of the abolition of capital punishment or not. If I were a member of the commission, or if I were giving evidence before it which, as a citizen, I suppose I would be entitled to do, I could express some views which I have on capital punishment. Let me say here and now that I do not regard capital punishment at all in the spirit that it is punishment. I think it is the most humane system known to mankind. As I say, I would rather not go into that now.

Deputy Cowan referred to the case of the poisoner. Over a long period, designedly and with intent, the poisoner sees his victim writhing in pain and agony. He will not send for a doctor and he conceals the fact that he knows what is wrong. He is convicted and, if capital punishment were abolished, he would be imprisoned for life. I think that the harshest punishment that can be imposed on a human being is imprisonment for life. I ask Deputies to look at the other angle of it. A person is condemned to death. He gets a fair trial. First of all, there is a trial before a judge and a jury; there may be a second trial by way of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and what we may describe as a third trial takes place before the Supreme Court. We have all known of cases in which three trials have taken place. Yet he is convicted. According to Deputy Cogan, he would execute that fellow once three courts had agreed that he should die.

After his conviction, he is given the unique opportunity of making his peace with God and of preparing himself for death on a particular day and at a particular moment, unless God calls him before the day of execution. He knows what none of us knows, the exact second that he will have to stand before his God in judgment. He gets every opportunity to prepare for his last end.

On the other hand, his victim was sent before his Maker without a second's notice, while a person, who has been poisoned, is left writhing in pain for so long that the mental faculties are so impaired as to give that person little time to prepare to meet God. The culprit, in the case of judicial hanging, gets, as I say, the unique opportunity of preparing for the moment he is to die. His victim did not get that opportunity.

If we were debating here the question as to whether or not capital punishment should be abolished, then the arguments one way or the other could be more positive. This is not a motion to abolish capital punishment, but rather to set up a Select committee to make an inquiry and report to the Dáil. On the question of capital punishment, I think that any Government in office in this or any other country will have at its disposal a great deal of information to enable it to make up its mind as to whether or not capital punishment should be abolished. I do not think a commission of inquiry will be very effective because who is going to give any evidence before it?

It is true certain people who have very strong views on the abolition of capital punishment will go in but may find it very difficult to get witnesses to go in to give evidence against it or to make a case for its retention. Therefore, I do not know that such a commission would be effective. But, as the demand for a commission has been so continuous in this country since the State was established, I think that the Government and the Dáil would be well advised to set up the commission to settle the matter once and for all, and in that way we could see what is the right line to take.

I am impressed by the fact that quite a number of countries have abolished capital punishment, but I regret to say that in these countries there are still violent murders or homicides of a dreadful nature. If they have abolished capital punishment they have not abolished the crime for which it is inflicted.

Mr. Dunne

That is asking a bit too much.

General MacEoin

I am only answering the point that our standard of civilisation is not as high as that in other countries. I think it is, and even higher. Furthermore, I believe that our philosophy, and the faith that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country practise, tends to that high standard. I am perfectly satisfied that we have a very high code and a very high ideal here that is lived up to. Owing to revolutionary and other causes there were certain lapses but those things, I hope, are nearly past and if we once get these fully eliminated I think we will show exactly how high our civilisation is.

What I am saying now is evidence that should be before the proposed commission of inquiry. The question here is not whether you should abolish capital punishment, but whether you would set up a commission of inquiry. I am satisfied that we should and, therefore, I am supporting the motion that we should have an inquiry. If everybody going before that commission advocates its abolition, and there is no one left but myself to advocate its retention, I may feel called upon to advocate the retention of capital punishment.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig)

The proposer of this motion prefaced his remarks by informing the Dáil that he had refrained from asking us to commit ourselves to the abolition of capital punishment. He asks the House to set up a Select Committee, not, as Deputy MacEoin says, a commission of inquiry——

General MacEoin

It is the same thing.

Mr. Derrig

——to examine and report upon the desirability of abolishing it. He then went on to review some of the principal grounds upon which he considered the imposition of capital punishment can be attacked, in his view, at any rate. This view is of the highest importance and, in my view, of the greatest gravity. The motion, I feel, cannot and should not be discussed merely because of academic considerations nor on any basis of personal feeling that we may have in regard to executions, the method of carrying them out, and so on. I think it is the interest of the community which we ought to bear in mind, and I am sure I have only to mention that to get Deputies to approach this issue in that way.

There is a certain false humanitarianism which is full of compassion for a murderer but has none for his victim. Our people need not be in the least degree ashamed of the natural feelings of horror and resentment which a brutal murder must arouse in them. Neither should they have any regrets that they are unchristian or lacking in sentiments of humanity when these feelings are accompanied by the conviction that, so that justice may be done, the murderer should get his deserts.

The Dáil is being asked to take a very grave decision upon grounds which, I suggest, are entirely unconvincing and inadequate. I should like Deputies who may share Deputy MacBride's views to indicate whether they consider that there is any considerable body of opinion here which favours the abolition of capital punishment. I do not believe that there is.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is not the question before the House at all.

Mr. Derrig

If there were such opinion and it manifested itself in such a way as to commend itself to the Government which, after all, is the authority in this matter, then it would be, I suggest, for the Government to take note of that opinion and to act accordingly if it were thought necessary to take steps in that connection. The Government has the responsibility of ensuring that life and property are secure——

Mr. O'Donnell

That would be a negation of democracy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Derrig

——and is bound, therefore, to oppose any unwise or hasty decision being taken which might have the effect of sapping or weakening in any way the administration of the law. In this case it is plainly the proposer's intention to try to secure a recommendation from a Select Committee in favour of abolishing the death penalty for the crime of murder. So that police officers in the discharge of their duties, householders defending themselves against persons with burglarious and more serious intent, women and girls coming home from their work, the ordinary citizens in their avocations, would certainly have a feeling of perturbation if this motion were carried. Certain fears and doubts will be raised in their minds.

The arguments for and against capital punishment are fairly well known. It is quite obvious from Deputy MacEoin's short speech that he could just as easily have made the case in favour of capital punishment as the case he made in support of the motion. The subject has been rightly discussed and inquired into and, as recently as 1948, the matter was discussed in the British Parliament. If this committee were set up one would imagine that in the ordinary way, as is customary, the committee would send for expert opinion and consult with those experts on the matters upon which it had been asked to report. Deputy MacBride has already warned the Dáil in advance against the views of lawyers, urging that in most countries, and certainly in England, lawyers as a whole and judges, in particular, have always been strongly in favour of the retention of capital punishment. We know that lawyers hold themselves out as experts in dealing with industrial problems and such matters——

Mr. O'Donnell

Teachers sometimes hold themselves out as experts.

Mr. Derrig

——and expect to be considered as specialists in these fields.

It is rather surprising that it should come from a Senior Counsel and a former Minister of the House that he does not consider his colleagues should be consulted in this matter. They have, he thinks, committed themselves or have a certain point of view and, therefore, presumably, they should not be consulted.

Mr. MacBride

I think the Minister is being slightly unfair in regard to what I said. I think I pointed to the historical objections that have been made by judges to the abolition of capital punishment for thefts up to the value of 5/-.

Mr. Derrig

I have read what the Deputy has said; he is against the views of lawyers because they have always been strongly in favour of the retention of capital punishment. He mentions that point. If he wishes I will read his exact words from the Official Debates of 21st November, 1951, Volume 127, No. 6, column 1163:

"... In the course of this discussion I hope that some of my colleagues here who are lawyers will express their views on this particular matter. I have not really discussed the matter with any of my lawyer colleagues, but I would like to warn the House in advance against their views because it has been the experience in most countries, and certainly in England, that lawyers as a whole, and judges in particular, have always been strongly in favour of the retention of capital punishment. In the past they were strongly in favour of maintaining capital punishment for the offence of larceny..."

Mr. O'Donnell

We have to get foreign people to inflict it.

Mr. Derrig

I should imagine that, in the field of criminal law, nobody is likely, least of all one of their colleagues, to question the competence of Irish lawyers and of Irish judges to give their valuable views, and the information at their disposal, on this matter. Are we to take it also that the official views, that is, the views of the officers in the Department of Justice, are to be ignored and that they should not be consulted by this committee if it were to be set up? Presumably, on the other hand, these organisations with high-sounding titles, which we have been hearing about and whose support from public opinion is often in inverse ratio to their assertiveness and their eloquence in bringing forward their particular case, would be given a free field before this proposed committee. Deputy MacEoin has pointed out that there is information at the disposal of the Government. The Government are in a position, surely, with the information that is at their disposal in the Official Records over the period since the Irish Government was first set up, and before that, to come to conclusions on this matter. They are free to consult the Attorney-General's Office and the judges, and, from time to time, that has been done.

Mr. O'Donnell

What about the Defence Council now and again?

Mr. Derrig

If we admit that, in this matter of life and death, the decision of the Government should be predominant, is it suggested that the House would be better able to reach an equitable and right decision by setting up a committee to try and get information which is already at the disposal of the Government?

In another part of his speech Deputy MacBride told us that our penal code is very outdated, and that we have not kept pace with the alterations that have been made elsewhere. May I point out that some of the supposed reforms which have been adopted in some of the so-called civilised countries (including some of those in which the Deputy has told us that capital punishment has been abolished) are not such as are likely now, or at any time in the future, to commend themselves to the Irish people. There is no necessity to reassure Irish public opinion that it should not be in the slightest degree ashamed for lagging behind in the march of civilisation, as I dare say some would suggest we have, when we fail to take the direction which those have taken of plain immorality in social life.

Mr. MacBride

Who has suggested that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. MacBride

Surely the Minister is not entitled to make imputations of that type, because they have absolutely no foundation on the basis of the statements I have made.

Mr. Derrig

I am making the answer to the charge that we are retrograde, obscurantist and reactionary because we do not choose to follow what other countries are doing. We have very good reasons for not so doing; our circumstances are different and our history is different. We could follow them if we so wished, but I consider that the primary consideration should be to have regard to our own circumstances, and to what we consider to be right and proper in the interests of our own community.

In his reference to lawyers and judges, Deputy MacBride may have in mind, although he has not said so, that, as a result of the powerful and eloquent speeches made against it by the Law Lords in the House of Lords a few years ago, an amendment of the criminal law designed to suspend the operation of capital punishment for five years was thrown out. The amendment had been proposed and seconded by two private members in the House of Commons and, although it was opposed by the Government, all the members of whom voted against it, it was carried in that House on a free vote by a narrow majority. If I may be permitted to say so, I have not the slightest doubt, as subsequent events have shown, that in this instance the Law Lords represented public opinion in Britain more truly than did the Commons majority.

Mr. MacBride

Are we to follow the House of Lords of the English Parliament in every step which we take? Is that what we have come to?

Mr. Derrig

New Zealand has considered this question of capital punishment even more recently and, by an Act passed on the 1st December, 1950, capital punishment, which was abolished in 1941, has been reintroduced for the crime of murder.

I am very strongly of opinion that, in this matter, the Government represents the attitude of the vast majority of our people. In our view, there is no necessity whatever to set up this committee. We do not feel we would be justified in taking this very grave step of proposing the abolition of capital punishment or, indeed, that if we were asked to do so by this committee that we would have the support of public opinion in introducing such legislation.

Mr. O'Donnell

Why not leave it to a free vote of the House?

Mr. Derrig

This is a Government which pays some regard, Deputy, to the principle of collective responsibility. I have just told the Deputy what happened in regard to the free vote of the British Parliament.

Mr. O'Donnell

Is that our idea—to follow the British Parliament?

Mr. Derrig

I am not saying so. Deputy MacBride told us that we were lagging behind the British in relation to law reform and in regard to law in general. As it is clearly a matter of life and death, it seems to me that the decision should rest with the Government. We do not consider it expedient to set up such a committee. We believe that it would create quite unnecessary fears in the public mind and that, with the death penalty abolished, would-be murderers would be given a certain licence to pursue their fell designs. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.