Looking Back

From 1953

Capital Punishment: who is to have the power of life and death?

The report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider whether the death penalty should be limited or modified is a striking instance of what the experts have a right to advise and what must in the end be left with the citizens of the country to decide.

The Commission argues cogently step by step (1) that it is impossible to frame any satisfactory definition of murder in the first degree which would automatically define the lesser degrees for which the death penalty would not be imposed; (2) that the placing of the power of decision in the hands of the judge is a burden too heavy to be borne by one man; (3) that this decision should therefore be left with the jury under the system called ‘jury discretion’ thus enabling the court rather than the executive of the law to take account of extenuating circumstances and to correct excessive legal rigidity.

The argument thus leads inexorably to the question, as we might put it in the words of Scripture, “Who is sufficient for these things?” Is any group of people, chosen at random to represent their fellow-citizens? “We recognise,” say the Commission, “that the disadvantages of this system may be thought to outweigh its merits. If this view were to prevail the conclusion would seem to be inescapable that…. The issue is now whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished.” That issue can be decided only by the people of this country through their representatives in Parliament.

The Commission, we in Scotland may note, admits that there are strong arguments for introducing the Scottish doctrine of ‘diminished responsibility’ and the alternative verdict of ‘culpable homicide’, but finally rejects it as too radical an amendment – though it seems no more radical than what is now proposed.

Looking Back menu

Life and Work is the magazine of the Church of Scotland. Subscribe here.