‘A barbarous penalty which the community has no right to exact’: why capital punishment was abolished in Britain, 1947-69 Thomas James Wright PhD University of York History August 2014 Abstract This thesis examines why capital punishment was abolished in Britain in spite of the consistent retentionism of the majority of the electorate. It addresses the period between 1947, when abolition was debated as part of the Criminal Justice Bill, and 1969, when capital punishment was abolished permanently for murder. In explaining why capital punishment was abolished, this thesis engages primarily with two broad historiographical narratives for the period: public opinion and liberalisation. It investigates how politicians used public opinion within their arguments and why the electorate’s retentionism did not convince a sufficient number of them to oppose abolition. It places abolition alongside the other socially liberalising legislation of this period, notably the legalisation of homosexuality and abortion and the other permissive reforms. In doing so, it assesses the relationship between abolition and this wider liberalisation. The emerging liberalising ethos after the Second World War is an important context for understanding abolition. This thesis identifies the collective identities of the abolitionists and retentionists. It examines the abolitionists’ and retentionists’ cases separately, assessing how they argued their cases, why they supported or opposed abolition and why the abolitionists succeeded and the retentionists failed. It also considers whether the abolitionists were social liberals and, conversely, whether the retentionists were social authoritarians. This thesis engages with the political discourse on civilisation, which permeated both these debates and many of the justifications for politicians’ beliefs. In addressing and considering these issues, this thesis provides an original explanation for the abolition of capital punishment in Britain. 2 Contents Abstract 2 Contents 3 List of figures 4 List of accompanying material 5 Acknowledgements 6 Author’s declaration 7 Introduction 8 Chapter One: Marginalising the mob: the influence of public opinion 38 within the capital punishment debates Chapter Two: Who were the retentionists and abolitionists? 74 Chapter Three: The abolitionist case 111 Chapter Four: The retentionist case 170 Conclusion 210 Appendix: Figures 221 List of abbreviations 227 Bibliography 228 3 List of figures 1.1 Gallup poll results for capital punishment 1938-70 46 2.1 MPs’ votes on capital punishment organised by decade born 76 3.1 Conservative MPs' votes on abolition organised by decade born 221 4.1 Labour MPs' votes on abolition organised by decade born 221 5.1 MPs' votes on abolition organised by party affiliation and stance on 222 abolition 6.1 MPs' votes on abolition organised by occupation 222 7.1 Number of MPs who voted against the second reading of the Sexual 223 Offences Bill organised by their votes on abolition 8.1 Number of MPs who voted against the second reading of the Medical 224 Termination of Pregnancy Bill organised by their votes on abolition 9.1 Number of MPs who voted for the second reading of the Sexual Offences 225 Bill organised by their votes on abolition 10.1 Number of MPs who voted for the second reading of the Medical 226 Termination of Pregnancy Bill organised by their votes on abolition 4 List of accompanying material CD-R – Database of MPs’ votes on abolition, 1947-69 5 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I am indebted to my supervisor, Mark Roodhouse, for his valuable contributions throughout this degree programme. What follows has been improved immensely by his input. I am also grateful to the members of my thesis advisory panel, Richard Bessel, David Clayton, Chris Renwick and Lawrence Black. Their guidance and interrogation has helped to direct this thesis. I am grateful to the University of York’s Department of History for their scholarship, without which I would not have been able to complete this thesis. I would like to record my gratitude to all of the staff at the various archives that I visited for this project. Many of them directed me to caches of files of which I was unaware. I am also grateful to the many café owners in York and Norwich who tolerated me overstaying my welcome whilst I was drafting this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends and Caroline for their support during my studies. Whether it was reading a draft chapter, discussing a concept or being patient with me during this process, they all helped me to see this through. 6 Author’s declaration This thesis is entirely my own work. It has not been submitted for examination elsewhere. All references to other authors’ works are cited clearly and appropriately. 7 Introduction In May 1969 James Callaghan, the Home Secretary, and William Ross, the Secretary of State for Scotland, prepared a confidential memorandum for the cabinet about the process by which capital punishment could be abolished permanently. Under the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, Parliament could make the temporary abolition of capital punishment permanent by resolution, thus avoiding the lengthy series of debates that had been a feature of the previous attempts to abolish capital punishment. Since the Second World War, politicians were always free to vote on abolition without pressure from the party whips. As part of this tradition, abolition had always been introduced as a Private Members’ Bill rather than by the government. In 1969, Harold Wilson’s Labour government broke with this tradition by introducing the resolution itself, although the free vote was preserved. In preparation for the debate on the resolution, Callaghan and Ross outlined why the abolitionists despised capital punishment: The essential case for abolition is in our view a moral one. Capital punishment is a barbarous penalty which the community has no right to exact, however heinous the crime. There are however other subsidiary arguments in favour of abolition. The death penalty is a denial of the principle underlying the rest of our penal thinking, that no criminal is beyond the hope of redemption. In the event of doubt arising about the verdict after the sentence has been carried out, there is no opportunity to right the wrong. We think that those who advocate capital punishment are under the onus of establishing that this barbarous penalty is a unique deterrent; but there is no conclusive evidence, either here or elsewhere, to support such a contention.1 Callaghan and Ross placed moral outrage at the heart of their and other abolitionists’ beliefs, labelling the punishment as being uncivilised and not a unique deterrent to murder. Callaghan’s and Ross’ memorandum, which was 1 The National Archives: Public Records Office (TNA:PRO), Confidential memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Permanent Abolition of Capital Punishment for Murder, CAB/129/141, C(69) 48, 6 May 1969. 8 one of the clearest statements of why the abolitionists wanted to remove the death penalty, was made as the abolition process was reaching its conclusion. The parliamentary journey to this moment has been documented within the sparse historiography of capital punishment. What remains unexplained, though, is why the death penalty was abolished. Callaghan’s and Ross’ memorandum is interesting in part because it touched on the two themes which are most pertinent for understanding the abolition process. They described capital punishment as a right that should not be permitted within the community and cited a reformed penal policy that was based upon redemption rather than retribution. This placed abolition within the liberalising ethos of the age, as the death penalty denied the criminal the possibility of redemption and reform. This was contrary to a common Christian belief. Furthermore, the description of capital punishment as community penalty alluded to the fact that the government was acting against the will of the electorate. As the memorandum went on to explain, politicians abolished capital punishment despite knowing that the electorate wanted it to be retained. Every opinion poll on capital punishment had found support for retention. During the period between 1947 and 1969, opinion polling grew in both volume and prominence. That Callaghan and Ross dismissed it so freely is indicative of politicians’ dismissive attitude towards public opinion. Liberalisation and public opinion are the two well-established historiographical themes with which this thesis engages. However, neither the association of capital punishment with liberalisation nor the opposition to the reform from public opinion have been challenged or examined within the historiography. These are important themes within this thesis’ examination of politicians’ arguments and beliefs on capital punishment. This thesis examines why Parliament abolished capital punishment after the Second World War despite British public opinion being overwhelmingly in favour of it, as it is today. Until now, the historiography of abolition has chronicled how the death penalty was removed. It has not explained why parliamentarians distanced themselves from the electorate when arriving at their decisions on capital punishment. In addressing this issue, this thesis examines the formative causes of politicians’ beliefs on the death penalty. Hitherto, there has been no attempt to explain why politicians believed that capital punishment was 9