Private Harry Farr pardoned

[Fiona]

For years I have heard the story of Private Harry Farr the soldier who was executed during World War I for cowardice is to be granted a pardon, his family has announced.

BBC NEWS | England | London | WWI soldier to be granted pardon

I can't imagine what this must mean for his family.

[Lou]

I saw that and it brought a tear to my eye. Good news all round.

I see that the family don't yet know whether it is conditional or unconditional though. Whichever it is, youa re right, it must mean the world.

[Mal Bridgeman]

Isn't Britain a funny country?

Ninety years ago we call it cowardice and shoot the guy.

Nowadays we call it Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and give the guys counselling.

Although this may be good news for the family it won't help Pte Farr much. I can't help feel that it must be easy to look at historical decisions with today's culture and knowledge and judge them as wrong even though the culture and popular opinion of the time felt them quite right.

Mal

[Lou]

Originally Posted by Mal Bridgeman

Isn't Britain a funny country?

Ninety years ago we call it cowardice and shoot the guy.

Nowadays we call it Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and give the guys counselling.

Although this may be good news for the family it won't help Pte Farr much. I can't help feel that it must be easy to look at historical decisions with today's culture and knowledge and judge them as wrong even though the culture and popular opinion of the time felt them quite right.

Mal

I know what you mean, Mal, and such was the horror of the Grea War that perhaps it was required in order to stop even more desertions, but today, when we can recognise the sacrifice that most of these guys made to even volunteer to go to war, I think that a conditional pardon for the families sake is appropriate in some cases.

Reading things like this just make you weep

Private Thomas Highgate was the first to suffer such military justice. Unable to bear the carnage of 7,800 British troops at the Battle of Mons, he had fled and hidden in a barn. He was undefended at his trial because all his comrades from the Royal West Kents had been killed, injured or captured. Just 35 days into the war, Private Highgate was executed at the age of 17
Many similar stories followed, among them that of 16-year-old Herbert Burden, who had lied that he was two years older so he could join the Northumberland Fusiliers. Ten months later, he was court-martialled for fleeing after seeing his friends massacred at the battlefield of Bellwarde Ridge. He faced the firing squad still officially too young to be in his regiment.

[Bogwoppit]

Did you know as a serving member of the forces you can still be hung even today. Infact they keep a real live working Gallows in Plymouth Dockyard just for that. Currently You can be executed for Regicide and Arson.

Here is an extract from a site I have unashamably stolen..
BBC - h2g2 - British Army Discipline and Capital Punishment 1914

Capital Punishment in the great war.

General and FGCM could impose the severest penalty – death, usually by firing squad. It was rare, the army executed 37 men between 1865 and 1898, a period of frequent colonial wars, and another four during the Boer War (1898 - 1902). The list of offences punishable by death seems endless:

Shamefully delivering up a garrison to the enemy.

Shamefully casting away arms in the presence of the enemy.

Misbehaving before the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice.

Leaving his CO to go in search of plunder.

Breaking into a house in search of plunder.

Committing an offence against the person of a resident in the country in which he was serving.

Forcing a safeguard.

Forcing a soldier when acting as sentinel.

Doing violence to a person bringing provisions to the forces.

By discharging firearms intentionally occasioning false alarms on the march.

When acting as a sentinel on active service sleeping at his post.

Causing a mutiny in the forces, or endeavouring to persuade persons in HM forces to join in a mutiny.

Disobeying in such a manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority, a lawful command given personally by his superior officer.

Striking his superior officer.

Deserting HM service, or attempting to desert.

All were detailed in the Army Act and King's Regulations. During the Great War, 3,080 men, 1.1% of those convicted, were sentenced to death. Of these, 89% were reprieved and the sentence converted to a different one. However, 346 men were executed for the following crimes:

Desertion (266)

Murder (37)

Cowardice in the face of the enemy (18)

Quitting their post (7)

Striking or showing violence to their superiors (6)

Disobedience (5)

Mutiny (3)

Sleeping at post (2)

Casting away arms (2)

Compared to the other armies of the Great War, the British Army was well disciplined and, although many were tried and convicted, serious offences were comparatively rare.

[Paul Oliver]

Times change, those who served in WW1 went through hell. I have lived for a month + in a trench (several times) and its not nice. My time was easy compared to theirs as it was in NI in the Summer with quality logistical support and equipment with a real but limited threat. Their threat was constant and far more dangerous.

This decision is very welcome, however looking at the stats many were reprieved and those executed must have had some foundation in fact not to be reprieved. Military law has many flaws, but does the job most of the time, however i know full well how wrong they can get it.

Any conviction from that time has to have heavy doubt about it, and looking at their service records it would appear harsh.

However there is often mitigating reasons and there are Cowards out there who can get away with desertion. Maybe not a crime nowadays, but we are talking about a different time.

[Lou]

It is difficult for me to apply the word "cowardice" to guys who had fought, been hospitalised with shell shock, fought again, been hospitalised again and finally broke down on the way back to the front.

Or to someone who collapsed in fear after everyone else along side them had been killed.

Or who refused to shoot someone in an execution.

Or to any of the guys who volunteered to go out there and fight and did so for months upon end before it became too much.

[Fiona]

Have to say, some will say predicatably but I am with Lou, Paul's response surprises me a little.

At least now a days soldiers are volunteers, OK in effect they were then but being told this would be an adventure and all over in a couple of months was enough to encourage even children sign up.

[nigelH]

Originally Posted by Fiona

At least now a days soldiers are volunteers, OK in effect they were then but being told this would be an adventure and all over in a couple of months was enough to encourage even children sign up.

I think in the first world war they were volunteers too. Right up to 1917. My grandfather was one and was far too young by today's standards. Born in 1898.

We are convinced he was shell shocked. We kids thought him the most wonderful, fun old man but most of his family hated him. There was no problem to big or complicated for him to not walk away from it - normally just vanishing for three months and doing odd jobs in other towns until he decided to come back. He was gassed. He was sole survivor of his unit once and then only because his officer used him, 'the boy', as a runner to deliver a message back to the lines before the final assault. He had lost the ability to care about problems either for himself or anybody else. After what he had gone through nothing was going to ever worry him again - he had run out of worry. He lived to be 93.

I'm ambivalent about the whole business of rewriting history like this. Yes I know the families like their ancestors to be freed of the stigma of cowardice but by the standards of the day they were. We run the risk of having to go back through the records and issuing pardons to every witch burnt and every heretic flayed as we don't believe in witches or heretics these days so they couldn't be guilty. Are these more deserving cases because they are more recent? We are not allowed to have retrospective legislation to convict somebody of a crime that was not a crime when it was committed should we reverse decisions like this? I confess I don't know.

[turbanator]

What the guys went through was terrible, and the pardons are a blanket pardon AIUI, as due to lackof records, they can't distinquish between those that were innocent than those that were judged to be cowards.

But then it's very easy to sit here and discuss this at a keyboard, nearly 100 years later.

As to removing the stigma from the family, I don't see that as an argument at all. I've never been asked on a loan form, or at a job interview whether I'm the descendent of someone shot for cowardice.

ATEOTD, it's not going to bring them back, is it?