Over the years the General Synod has debated a number of
questions in this area.
OBSCENITY/PORNOGRAPHY
In November 1971 the Synod commended to diocesan and deanery
synods for discussion the report of the Board for Social
Responsibility, Obscene Publications: Law and Practice and
the following motion was carried:
‘That this Synod affirms its belief in the principle
of control of obscene publications, obscenity on the stage or
in films by the law of the land’.
In July 1997 the General Synod debated a Private Member’s
Motion on Standards of Morality and Decency in the Media. The
text of the Motion carried was as follows:
‘That this Synod, recognising the significant role
played by press, radio and television in shaping opinions and
values in today’s society:
- record its appreciation for the many occasions when
the media have been used positively to educate,
entertain and alert the public to abuses of power and
to engender active compassion in times of great human
tragedy;
- note with concern the possibilities for lower
standards as new technology and other factors are
likely to create greatly increased ouput and
competition;
- express its alarm and dismay at the number of
instances when blasphemy, violence, bad language,
casual sex and the invasion of privacy are presented
as entertainment -believing this to have an eroding
effect upon public standards of morality; and,
- seek assurance from Her Majesty’s Government
that such matters are being constantly monitored with
a view to possible legislation should self-regulation
within the media prove ineffective.’
BLASPHEMY
At the end of a debate in February 1977 concerned with
blasphemy during broadcast programmes the following motion was
carried:
‘That this Synod reaffirms its faith in Jesus Christ
as Lord by using its influence to remind the BBC and the
independent television companies of the grave offence that is
caused by their repeatedly allowing His Name to be
dishonoured on broadcast programmes.’
THE MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE
The Synod debated a report , The text of the Motion was
as follows:
‘That this Synod recognise that the system of
mandatory life sentences gives rise to many injustices and
therefore recommends that the penalty for murder should be a
maximum of imprisonment for life’.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
In July 1983 the General Synod debated capital punishment and
the following motion was carried:
‘That this Synod would deplore the reintroduction of
capital punishment into the United Kingdom sentencing policy.’
This subject has not been debated by Synod since 1983.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
In February 1979 the General Synod took note of a report
prepared by the Board for Social Responsibility entitled Prisons
and Prisoners in England Today.
In January 1991 the Board for Social Responsibility published Crime,
Justice and the Demands of the Gospel which covered a wide
range of issues currently facing the criminal justice system and
which was debated in the General Synod that same month. At the
end of the debate it was resolved that:
‘This Synod:
- welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s
acknowledgement of the ineffectiveness of custody in
dealing with much offending behaviour and its
determination to secure greater use of non-custodial
sentences by the courts;
- express concern at the size of the prison population
and the associated poor conditions and regime of many
local prisons and at the lack of alternatives to
custody for mentally disordered offenders and call on
the Government to improve remedial facilities in all
prisons;
- urge Her Majesty’s Government to accept
amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill which would
prohibit by statute racial discrimination within the
criminal justice system;
- ask that the reasons for the disproportionately large
number of black people in prison be investigated and
appropriate measures taken;
- affirm the valuable ministry of all Christians
working within the criminal justice system and those
in the Prison Service Chaplaincy;
- commend the development of local penal affairs groups
as an important contribution to social responsibility
within the Church and the wider community;
- encourage the continuing study of those theological
and biblical principles which should lie at the root
of any penal system commended by the Church’.
In 1992 the Board provided evidence to the Royal Commission on
Criminal Justice. The Commission, chaired by Lord Runciman, was
set up in response to a series of well-publicised miscarriages of
justice which came to light at the end of the 1980s. In its Submission
of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility to the
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (published as GS Misc
385, available from Church House Bookshop) the Board argued that:
‘Unsafe convictions are the mark of a failing
criminal justice system, but so too, it must be said, are
crimes which go unsolved or criminals who remain
unapprehended or systematically elude being fairly punished
... a criminal justice system must not only be merciful, but
should also exhibit that exercise of mercy against a
background of fundamental justice in which a delicate balance
is maintained against competing self-interests and rival
moral claims’.
More specifically the Board made a number of practical
suggestions in the following areas: policing, crime prevention
and detection, police interviews, diversion from court
proceedings, prosecution, pre-trial arrangements, forensic
evidence and the role of experts, trial by jury, court
proceedings, disclosures, verdicts, appeal system and retrials.
The Board made a number of submissions to the Home Office
during the reform of the criminal justice system from 1997-2000.
In October 1997, it published a response
to Getting
to Grips with Crime. In November 1997 a response to Tackling
Youth Crime and a response
to New
National and Local Focus on Youth Crime; in March 1998 a response to No More Excuses;
and in December 1998 a response
to Joining
Forces to Protect the Public: Prisons-Probation.
The board also published Private Sector Involvement in
Prisons (available from Church
House Publishing) in 1996 and Young People
and Crime. In November 1999 the Board published Prisons:
A Study in Vulnerability (also available from Church
House Publishing). This was debated in General Synod the same
month. At the end of the debate it was resolved:
‘That this Synod
- welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s
commitment to the development of restorative justice
programmes which enshrine the biblical principles of
holding offenders responsible for their crimes,
addressing the needs of victims, and enhancing the
protection of the public;
- welcome efforts to prevent 15 and 16 year olds being
remanded into prison custody by offering constructive
alternatives in the community;
- note the continuing public concern about the effect
of crime in our communities;
- record its unease at the disproportionate number of
black offenders in our prisons, and welcome
initiatives to eradicate racism throughout the
judicial and penal system;
- request Her Majesty’s Government to reassess the
situation whereby mentally ill people are often held
in prison when they would be better treated in a
secure hospital environment;
- recognise the need to reintegrate offenders into the
community through prison and community based
programmes and in partnership with employment and
accommodation schemes;
- affirm the role of prison staff, chaplains, Boards of
Visitors and volunteers and the part they play in
supporting the families of people in prison; and
- urge dioceses, deaneries and parishes to promote the
study of Prisons: A Study in Vulnerability (GS
Misc 557) through criminal justice groups and other
means.’
Further information and resources:
Howard
League for Penal Reform
NACRO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of
Offenders), 169 Clapham Road, London SW9 OPU
National Association of Voluntary Hostels, 33 Long Acre,
London WC2
RAP (Radical Alternatives to Prison), 21 Atwood Road, London W6
Prison Reform Trust, 59 Caledonian Road, London N1 9BU
For information on Elizabeth Fry please contact: http://www.quaker.org.uk
SEX OFFENCES
The Board for Social Responsibility has also responded to the
Home Office proposals on sex offenders. It made submissions in
June 1996 on the sentencing
and supervision of sex offenders and in January 1997 it
responded to a consultation paper on banning
sex offenders to work with children
SUNDAY TRADING
The Board for Social Responsibility has considered the issue
of Sunday Trading on several occasions since the early 1960s,
most notably in response to the Crathorne and Auld Reports. The
General Synod debated the subject in July 1985 and February 1986
in connection with the Shops Bill 1986 which sought to introduce
total deregulation as recommended by the Auld Committee of
Inquiry. The Shops Bill 1986 was defeated in the House of Commons
on its Second Reading despite the imposition of a three-line whip
and a Government majority at that time of over a hundred.
The Synod returned to the subject in February 1988, July 1989,
and February 1993. This last debate was accompanied by a
background paper Sunday Trading (GS 1048),. The latter
gave a full account of the history of parliamentary attempts at
reforming the Shops Act 1950. It also considered a wide range of
practical concerns and attempted to place them within a wider
historical and theological framework.
The following motion was carried unanimously by the General
Synod at the February 1993 Group of Sessions:
‘That this Synod affirms the importance of Sunday as
a day for spiritual renewal, rest and recreation and for the
nurturing of family life. It deplores the deliberate flouting
of the law governing Sunday trade by powerful commercial
interests. Believing that any reform of the law governing
trading on Sunday ought to preserve in a distinct and public
way the special character of this day, it considers that this
can be achieved by
- substantially limiting the overall level of
commercial activity on Sundays through clear and
enforceable legislation which controls retailing
first according to type of shop and secondly
according to hours of opening;
- protecting by statute the existing and future rights
of employees in retailing who, in conscience, choose
not to work on Sundays;
- ensuring that those who do choose to work on Sundays
in the retail sector are properly remunerated’.
Go to the top
