I beg formally to move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 23, to delete the words "suffer death" and substitute therefor the words "penal servitude for life."
This amendment requires very little explanation. The subject was dealt with incidentally on the Second Stage, and a good many of the reasons, pro and con, were discussed. I do not propose to take up the time of the House at any great length, but to state briefly the reasons why I believe it is a mistake to include the death penalty for treason in our normal legislation; and secondly, to give the reasons why I prefer the form of amendment which I am moving to the other similar amendments which were handed in afterwards, but which I still think are not as suitable as the one which stands in my name. It was emphasised by the Taoiseach that we should remember that, of the two Bills dealing with offences against the State which come before us to-day, the first, that is the present Bill, is the normal ordinary legislation which is intended to be part and parcel of the ordinary law of the State. That, I think, was accepted pretty generally by all sides and all sections of opinion in this House, and, I think, in the Dáil. The question, then, we are considering is not whether there might be exceptional circumstances or a state of actual war, for which special measures might have to be taken, but as to whether in our opinion the death penalty should be the penalty, in fact the only penalty, for treason as defined in that part of the Bill.
I am opposed, and always have been opposed, to capital punishment but I do not think it necessary or wise to initiate a debate on the principles involved, for or against capital punishment. I prefer to confine myself entirely to the specific matter before us—that is, as to whether capital punishment should be the penalty for treason in this country. I should like to point out, first of all, that we are not now dealing with the inevitable loss of life that will occur in a state of civil war, should such a regrettable event occur again in the history of this country. We are dealing now with persons who have been arrested, imprisoned and tried by an ordinary court. In most cases that would apply. The court having found them guilty, after full trial, the State decides that the only penalty that can be enforced is that of taking away their lives. I am particularly anxious that nothing I should say should minimise the seriousness to my mind of an attempt to interfere with the legitimate Government of the State. I do not want anything I should say to appear as though I had a trace of sympathy with the kind of theoretical excuse which can be brought forward, that of course treason is a terrible thing, except in the particular circumstances with which the person who is arguing has sympathy. It does not seem to me that if I had 100 times the objection to the present Government that I have, there would be any possible excuse for aiding, abetting or assisting in any way the overthrow of that Government by force.
Having made that, I hope, clear, I think we have to face the fact that the vast majority of the people in this country feel that there were, at any rate, and that there possibly may be, circumstances in which it would be right to take up arms against the State and that we do not place the man or the woman who is found guilty of treason in the same moral category as one who is found guilty of murder. If a man is found guilty of treason and if he is imprisoned, as I suggest, with penal servitude for life, he is safe in the keeping of the State. He can do no harm, and if circumstances change, and the Government of the day is satisfied that that man, or those with whom he was associated, are no longer dangerous or if circumstances change in any direction, it will be quite possible to release him at such time as the Executive think fit. I see no reason whatever in making the period seven years, ten years or 14 years. It seems to me that the alternative to the death penalty is imprisonment, virtually at the discretion of the Executive. That is, for all practical purposes, what penal servitude for life means. I do not think that the period of imprisonment should be left to the discretion of the judge. We have not provided for different degrees of treason in this State. I understand that an effort to provide for these different degrees of treason was ruled out of order because of the definition in the Constitution. I, therefore, think it would be unfair, unwise and not in the interests of justice to leave it to a judge to decide: "So-and-so has been found guilty of treason; shall I use clemency, as it is commonly called, and sentence him to penal servitude for life or shall it be the death penalty?" For that reason, I am opposed to the amendments which leave that decision to the judiciary.
I should like to suggest what is my own strong conviction. I believe we have had too many executions for treason in this country, in the last 20, 30 or 40 years. I believe that for a very considerable time the carrying out of the death penalty will create sympathy, not so much for the persons concerned but sympathy for the cause for which they are believed to have suffered. What I might call the niceties of explanation would suggest that, in such circumstances, a particular treason might be justifiable. I think it is a definite mistake to include, as is included in this Bill, the death penalty as the only penalty for treason. I know that under another Bill which is of a more temporary nature, and which An Taoiseach has said is an addition to what he hoped would be our normal legislation a person can be charged with other types of offence against the State and the penalty is different, but in this Bill the fact is that we are dealing with treason and the Bill, when an Act, is to be the normal law of the State. I suggest it would be a wise step and that it would not endanger the country in any way should there be—an opinion which I do not personally share but which I know is held by a considerable number of people—a danger of circumstances in which the death penalty may have to be reverted to, if that were done by special legislation or by a special order, in unique circumstances, and not be left, as it is in this Bill, as the normal penalty.
I also consider that it will be rare, if this Bill becomes law, except in these exceptional circumstances to which I refer, that the death penalty will be carried out. I suggest that you will not provide the necessary preventive effect by keeping the death penalty for treason when normally it will be, in practically all cases, commuted. The fact that in this Bill, as it stands, for every type of treason—and almost every type is included—you have one penalty, and that penalty the death penalty, means that the Executive will, in a great number of cases— I think the great majority of cases— under normalacy, have to commute that to some other form of punishment. I suggest that that means that you get all the drawbacks of the death penalty and none of the advantages. There perhaps I am arguing against myself because, as I stated before, I do not believe in the death penalty.
I think I have said sufficient to indicate my views on this section. I gave expression to similar views a considerable number of years ago. I think there were eleven members in the Seanad who were then opposed to the death penalty in the Treasonable Offences Act, which is now law but which is going to be repealed. I think it is desirable that the number of Senators who still hold that view should be registered even though they may be in a very small minority. For that reason, I want to press this amendment to a division.