On the Entirely Reasonable Murder of a Police

Constable - George Bernard Shaw

Chapter Notes by Uma Gopal*

About the Author:

George Bernard Shaw, (1856-1950), was born in Dublin, Ireland. He was the son of a
civil servant. He chose not to get any regular training in education as he disliked the
formal training process. He joined the Fabian1 Society in 1884 and became one of its
prominent members. Shaw’s pragmatic approach to politics and his views on social
welfare reforms made a significant contribution to the society.
Shaw was a comic dramatist, literary critic, and socialist propagandist, winner of the
Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925. When he started writing, his novels were a dismal
failure. However, he gained his style of writing in 1895 when he was brought aboard
the Saturday Review, as the theatre critic. It was at this point in time that he started
writing theatre plays of his own. His first plays were presented as ‘Plays Unpleasant’
and ‘Plays Pleasant’. These plays were filled with Shaw’s signature wit which laid the
groundwork for the oversized genius that he eventually would be remembered for.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Shaw’s writing came into its own and from there
on there was no looking back. Shaw would write plays for the next fifty years. He was
nominated seven times for Nobel prize in Literature and got it in 1925.
Out of the sixty plus plays that Shaw wrote during his lifetime many are popular.
Some of them are:
1. Pygmalion, which was adapted as My Fair Lady to the silver screen in 1938, that
went on to win Shaw an Academy Award for writing the screenplay;
2. Saint Joan, a play based on the 15th century French heroine, Joan of Arc,
premièred in 1923;
3. Heartbreak House, where Shaw adopts Anton Chekov’s style of writing to
comment on the society and the changing faces of people around it;
4. Candida which questioned the Victorian ideas of marriage, love and
companionship. In fact the play gained so much popularity that in 1904, that the
phenomena was termed as ‘Candidamania’.
5. Man and the Superman premièred, his four-act play in 1905, had the third act -
‘Don Juan in Hell’, the longest act of the four acts that went on to become a play in
itself.
George Bernard Shaw died on November 2, 1950.

SUMMARY

George Bernard Shaw was asked to give his opinion on capital punishment with
reference to the murder of the Police Constable Gutteridge, where the popular public
perception was that it was a callous and brutal murder and therefore the punishment to
be given to the perpetrators of the crime was capital punishment. Great Britain at that
time was debating for and against capital punishment.

1
The name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator. A Fabian Society is a socialist
society founded in 1884 in London, having as its goal the establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great
Britain.
*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 1
The incident that was in highlight was that Constable Gutteridge was murdered point
blank. It appeared that the murderer had a sufficient knowledge of physiology to
know as per the prevailing beliefs then about the marvels of science, that the picture
last focused on the victim’s retina can be photographed in a laboratory and may be
used to identify the murderer! This naive belief was an extension of an existing belief
that prevailed in the Age of Faith.
However, Shaw termed this murder as reasonable because he felt that the murderer
was an out and out rationalist, who believed in the‘cause and effect’ theory or the
theory of consequences. Further, he argued that it was committed by a person who
was a sensitive person to whom the condition of a criminal under punishment was
unbearable. It was committed to escape detection and capture. The police records also
showed that a good proportion of criminals were never brought to justice, thus
emboldening these perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. When looked
rationally, if a robber surrendered s/he would have to spend several years in penal
servitude. However, if he shot the victim and killed him, the punishment would be
replaced, that is either with the risk of being hanged or if lucky, a chance of escape.
This, Bernard Shaw said was a reasonable reason enough for the murderer to shoot
Constable Gutteridge.
When the words, ‘callous and brutal’ were used to describe the murder, Shaw
dismissed it, saying that it was a customary English habit to resort to vituperation in
order to relieve the strain they faced in life. Further Shaw interpreted the murder to be
business-like and says that the murderer was conceivably a good husband and a kind
father. He also justified the murderer saying that the murderer was sensitive and
imaginative because only such people could take the risk of being hanged to avoid
penal servitude. He added that the murderer had brains to calculate his chances of
getting caught.
He also said that the murderer was less vicious than the fictional Bill Sikes, the
sadistic, violent and most barbaric character in Charles Dicken’s Oliver Twist. Shaw
further said that such murderers usually lose the squeamishness about bloodshed that
could possibly make one think of peace before committing the murder, but this
thinking was similar to the psyche of the millions of men who were involved in a war.
A criminal who shot to escape detection was as homicidal as a soldier who shot an
enemy in a war, he argued.
Shaw ultimately blames the justice system calling it ‘brutal and callous’,which was
worse than a criminal who was forced to commit such crimes in order to be one up
on the law. The justice system threatened not only the police force but also the people
who were at the receiving end of a crime as there were chances that a police may be
called whenever such crimes were committed, thus leading to more chances of getting
killed in the process.
Shaw called these criminals much more tame than those who may not murder their
woman but in a cowardly and spiteful way entrap them into bogus marriages and
desert them after spending their spouses’ money.
Shaw felt that there was only one excuse for commuting a death sentence and that is
if the criminal in question was like a rabid dog or a tiger. He gave the examples of
different interpretations of punishment by law of the same crime being committed in
two different countries. The punishment for throwing vitriol in Scotland was death but
in England it was not, as vitriol does not cause death but may blind the victim. Shaw
called this distinction of punishment in two regions absurd. He pleaded that there
*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 2
should be no vindictiveness nor emotion in this matter and argued that an ‘eye for an
eye’ was not the answer to reducing the crime rate in a society.
Shaw begged to differ from the ‘deterrent theory’, which was the official theory that
the State followed in keeping a check on crime rates. He objected to this theory on
two accounts:
(1) “When detection is uncertain, no severity in punishment can keep people away
from committing a serious crime. This was seen in the times when people were
hanged in the gallows, where pockets were picked without the fear of being caught
even when a police man was looking on;
(2) The deterrence theory that led to the conclusion that somebody must be punished
for a crime, no matter who, to deter others from committing similar crimes. So, an
innocent may do as well as a guilty, one may just pronounce it to serve the purpose.”
Shaw’s point of argument was that he pleaded with the State to do away with capital
punishment which he called callous and brutal, as the State in its capacity should take
steps to dilute the punishment and must look at reforming the person if the person is
capable of being reformed. He felt that after reform, the person would positively
contribute to the welfare of the society. He rested the blame on the stringent and
unreasonable laws of the State for encouraging brutal and callous crimes.
“If the law is diluted and if there is fear of being watched, a criminal will deter
himself from committing a crime. Vindictiveness and emotions should not play any
role in meting out punishments. An innocent must not be punished just to set an
example”, he pleads as he concludes.

Comprehension:

Question 1: How does the response of Bernard Shaw strike you -

common/uncommon, usual/unusual, ordinary /extraordinary? Give reasons for
your answer.
Answer 1: Bernard Shaw’s response strikes us as uncommon, unusual and
extraordinary because he is justifying the act of murder of Constable Gutteridge,
terming the work apparently done by an out-and-out rationalist. He adds that the
murder has been committed by a person who was probably a sensitive person to
whom the condition of being labelled a criminal under punishment is unbearable. It
was committed by the person to escape detection and capture. His logic is that if there
is a chance of the criminal committing the crime and escaping thereafter to subvert the
law, he would do so by killing the victim. Such a rationalist person would rather
remove the obstacle from his way than serve penal servitude.
The common tendency of a person upon hearing a crime, that too, a murder, is to
appeal for punishment of the criminal and seek justice for the victim. This is why
Shaw’s response is very unusual, uncommon and extraordinary.

Question 2. Comment on the use of ‘wildly’, ‘simply’, ‘popular’, and

‘customary’. How do they reflect on the mood or attitude of the writer?

1. Wildly - far from the truth, ridiculous

2. Simply - without any reason
*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 3
3. Popular - driven by ordinary people with emotion rather than driven by
experts with factual data or scientific thinking
4. Customary - as is the custom
Shaw observes that the English used the adjective ‘brutal and callous’ to describe the
murder of Constable Gutteridge. Shaw felt that the use of such adjectives was
exaggerated. He felt that these outlandish words were far from the truth or wildly
inappropriate, and represented in the most basic way without any reason the lowest
common denominator factor of angry public sentiments, which normally happened in
such circumstances, i.e; popular loss of temper over a murder. He added that it was
customary for the English to use such bitter and abusive language that he described as
‘vituperation to relieve strain’.
Shaw’s mood is reflective as he was given the task of giving his opinion whether
giving death sentence to criminals such as those committing brutal and callous
murders of the kind that was witnessed by England with the murder of Constable
Gutteridge.

Question 3: Has Shaw given reason for his calling the murderer a rationalist?
Elaborate.

Answer 3: Yes, Shaw has given his reasons for calling the murderer a rationalist
because rationalists are people who base their opinions and actions on reason and
knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. He logically
evaluates the situation and acts upon accordingly.
Here the murderer upon confronting the victim, who was a constable, would have
shot him not because he had an animosity against Gutteridge but because he being
caught in an unlawful act, would have attracted arrest and punishment thereafter. In
such a circumstance it was but natural for a rationalists to think that it would be best
to shoot the victim or the opponent, (that too one who was a part of the law system)
and face the consequences thereafter rather than surrendering and signing for years of
penal servitude.
The murderer didn’t shoot a human being but shot the ‘law’ and unfortunately
Constable Gutteridge was representing the law. The murderer just calculated the
‘cause and effect’ of the whole incident and took an action that a rational man would
do in such a situation. As per a rationalist’s analysis, there could be three situations
and outcomes:
1. Commit the murder and surrender - this would lead to years and years of penal
servitude.
2. Commit the murder and escape - the advantage would be a chance of never getting
caught and thus escaping from punishment for life. (this matches with the Police
statistics of criminal records)
3. Commit the murder and get caught - this would involve the risk of being hanged.
4. A rationalist would always try his luck for situation number 2 and in the worst
case scenario, not mind 3. Serving penalty after surrendering would not be an option
at all for him.

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 4

Question 4: What, according to Shaw, characterizes ‘reasonable murders’?

Answer 4: Reasonable murders, according to Shaw, all fell under the same class;
they were murders committed by criminals to escape detection and capture. It had a
very simple logic based on the statistics present in the Police department, which
revealed that the number of murderers/criminals never brought to justice is more than
those brought to justice. So, the odds were in favour of the criminal not getting caught
and thus getting punished. This meant that there was a greater chance of escape for
the criminal, provided all the evidence is removed. The greatest evidence would be
the person, who was a either a witness or the one who confronted him, who could give
evidence against the criminal. In this case Gutteridge, who was representing the law
was the man in question. So taking away Gutteridge’s life would be the best solution
to go undetected. Thus, the criminal would not be declared a state outlaw. The
reasoning would be if the caretaker of the law himself were to be removed from the
scene, there would be greater chances for the murderer to escape.
Basically, police statistics that revealed that very few people get caught after
committing a crime would be a great incentive for a criminal to commit a crime such
as a murder. On the other hand in case of a confrontation, because the victim would
provide evidence for the arrest and punishment thereafter, the best solution would be
to remove the evidence. These are the characteristics of reasonable murders.

Question 5: In what sense are reasonable murders very dangerous?

Answer 5: Reaasonable murders are dangerous because it is committed by a criminal

who thinks that a murderous act would remove the victim and thus there would be no
proof against him. How could a dead victim testify in front of the Law? If at all the
victim was left alive, the worst would happen to the criminal as the victim would
testify the act of the unlawful activity, thus providing evidence to the court to do the
worst to the murderer. So the criminal would justify that it was a natural instinct to do
the worst to the victim to prevent the law from doing the worst to him. He would
justify that, by concluding, that since the criminal law was more brutal and callous
than ever a criminal could ever be, it would be better to remove all evidence or kill the
opponent/victim. It was his callousness versus the law enforcement agencies
callousness towards him!
His rational would be that had the criminal system not been so brutal and callous, his
act against someone if caught by that person would not have been so brutal and
callous. The criminal would act in the same way not only against the police force but
also against the body of citizens in an encounter, who would call the police to report
such crimes. In both the cases, eliminating the victim/opponent would be detrimental
in the criminal’s freedom. Ultimately Shaw drove the point that had the criminal law
not been so brutal and callous, amounting to death penalty of the criminal, the act of
reasonable murders would also not have been so dangerous.

Question 6: What does the expression, ‘in the act’ mean in the sentence, “A
robber surprised in the act by a police officer or a householder has to consider
that if he surrenders, he will certainly spend several years in penal servitude”?

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 5

Answer 6: In the sentence, “A robber surprised in the act by a police officer or a
householder has to consider that if he surrenders, he will certainly spend several years
in penal servitude”, ‘in the act’ means the act of committing a crime. While
committing this act, the robber wouldn’t have expected that he would be caught by
either a police officer or a householder. That is, he was caught unawares. He would
have been confident of successfully committing the act. However, upon getting
caught, if he decided to surrender, the robber would also have to consider the
consequence he would have to face, that is; spending several years in subjugation to
the law as per the norms of that country or in other words spend several years in penal
servitude.

Question 7 : Where does, according to Shaw, the responsibility for crime lie - in
the individual or society, its laws and other compulsions? Point out the basis of
your answer.

Answer 7: According to Shaw, the responsibility for crime lay in the country’s law
and its other compulsions. If the law of the land happened to be too stringent and
advocated death sentence for a crime such as murder, it would compel the murderer to
kill a person so as to not leave behind any evidence. Shah strongly believed that the
severity of punishment did not deter the criminal from committing a crime. He gave
the example of two situations, where in he compared the severity of punishment.
1. He cited that when pickpockets were hanged, pockets were picked even under the
gallows.
2. When the penalty was comparatively trifling, pockets were still picked, but never
under the surveillance of a policeman.
This made Shaw conclude that the law and its compulsions were the single most
factor for the severity of the crime.
He also informed his readers that in Scotland people were hanged for throwing vitriol
whereas in England, throwing vitriol did not lead to death penalty as throwing vitriol
could blind a person but not kill the person.
He declared that such a distinction made for the same crime in different countries
was absurd as the law was interpreted in different ways in different countries which
would make a criminal behave according the law of land depending on the severity of
punishment in that land.
This is why he believed that the responsibility for the crime lay in the law of the land
and its compulsions. The society and the criminal would react according to it.

Question 8: In the beginning of his response, Shaw maintains that the murder
was a work of someone who was credulous as to “the marvels of science.” Where
is this view borne out of?

Answer 8: During the encounter which resulted in the murder of Constable

Gutteridge, according to Shaw, a situation would have been created that resulted in
the shooting and death of the constable. Further to this act, the murderer also
destroyed the dead man’s eyes with two more careful shots. This made people label
the act and murderer as brutal and callous. But Shaw felt that the murder was the
work of someone who was credulous as to “the marvels of science.
*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 6
The murderer was a rationalist, which Shaw believed. Shah also inferred that the
murderer had a sufficient smattering of physiology to know that the last picture that
was focussed on the constable’s retina would be a picture of himself. His modern
superstitious belief about the marvels of science led to the credulous response of
shooting the constable in both the eyes. The murderer was naive enough to believe
that the image of the person captured last by the retina would have been photographed
as two co-ordinated pictures in the two eyes, that could be processed in the laboratory.
He believed that, that would be used as evidence to identify him as the murderer and
therefore he thought of destroying the evidence by shooting in both the eyes. This,
according to Shaw was a work of someone who was credulous to ‘the marvels of
science’.

Question 9: Where in Shaw’s response do you come across the strongest

evidence of his capacity for sympathetic understanding even of a person charged
with the worst crime of murder?

Answer 9: Shaw believed that the murderer had committed the crime not from malice
but solely in the way of business. He was of the opinion that the murderer must be a
kind father and a good husband, which showed that Shaw was bent upon looking at
the murderer sympathetically. Shaw said, that he (assuming that the criminal is a
male), was sensitive and imaginative, because only sensitive and imaginative people
risk hanging to avoid penal servitude. Shaw also said that such a man was not the
‘Bill Sikes’ of popular imagination, that is, the murderer was no sadist, unlike Bill
Sikes, the fictious character in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, who was cruel to the
children of the orphanage and also had murdered his own girlfriend in cold blood.
The murderer in this case had the brains to be able to calculate his chances of
escaping the gallows and the presence of mind to act on his calculation to take the
ultimate step. Shah implied that such people thought rationally and had nothing
against the victim. The murders may not be acts of outrage but acts as precautionary
operations. He also went on to say that some of these people may be useful to the
society and therefore there should be no vindictiveness nor punishment nor any other
sort of sentimentality in the matter. The attitude of the State towards death penalty
should be apologetic and regretful. He also added that these people should be given a
better chance for honest employment of their talents than what the present system
offered.

Question 10 : What light (even if meagre and indirect) does Shaw’s response
shed on his views on war?

Answer 10: Shaw drew a parallel between rational murderers and soldiers who took
part in wars. He said that a soldier who fought defending his nation and eventually got
over his ordinary squeamishness about bloodshed and death, that would otherwise
disable a man of peace, was not considered by a State or its citizens as homicidal by
nature. Millions of men who were soldiers indulged in bloodshed in the name of
killing an enemy.
Shaw’s belief is that a rational murderer is also like a soldier who participates in a
war and handles her/his enemy without any emotion. The murderer or the soldier was
never familiar with the enemy to begin with, and if a soldier cannot be accused of
*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 7
malice towards the enemy, so can a murderer not be accused of malice towards his
victim. The act of murder therefore can be considered to have been done in an
emergency situation, as a routine self-defence mechanism.

Question 11: What glimpse, if any, on Shaw’s views on women do you get his
response?

Answer 11 : Shaw observed that in the society there were men who spitefully
entrapped their women into bogus marriages and then deserted them after spending all
their money. He called these criminals much more of a nuisance to the society than
men who were reasonable murderers, who may be kind and doting husbands
otherwise. He justified his belief that such men who entrapped their women
surreptitiously were more dangerous to the society because they torment the women
in a cowardly and spiteful way instead of murdering them ending their misery once
and for all.
He emphasised that the wicked and stupid idea of retaliative punishment and
superstitious idea of expiatory punishment should be removed from our thought
process for the reasonable murderers but instead the punishment for such dastardly
acts of torture by men should be death for wilfully and schemingly entrapping their
women and creating an intolerable nuisance in the society.

Question 12: What, according to Shaw, is wrong with the deterrent theory of
punishment? What is his remedy for avoiding the desire for murder?

Answer 12: Shaw said that the deterrent theory of punishment was only an official
judicial theory; that is, punishment was meted out to the wrongdoer to prevent
potential wrongdoers from doing anything wrong. He called it the vindictive theory
where the objective was to seek revenge.
He raised two objections to deterrent theory. The first was that no severity of
punishment could deter a criminal from wrong doing when the detection is uncertain.
He recalled the time when pickpockets were hanged, pockets would still be picked
without the fear of gallows. Eventually when the penalty was comparatively less
severe, pockets were still being picked, but never when a police man was looking on.
The second was that the deterrence theory that led to the conclusion that somebody
must be punished for every crime committed to deter others from committing it.
Whether that somebody has committed the crime or not is of no consequence. An
innocent person also could also be punished. To prove to the world that law and order
is being taken care of, the State may conclude that it is better to hang the wrong guy
rather than not hanging any fellow at all!
This is why Bernard Shaw pleaded for a much liberal approach towards criminals. He
suggested that the punishment must be handed over to a criminal with a purpose and a
human touch, not just for the sake of revenge or to deter someone from committing a
crime or to close a case by punishing an innocent person. He referred to capital
punishment as an official slaughter in cold blood. However, he also said that death
penalty may be served on those people who are like a rabid dog or a tiger who had no
chance of reform and would cause more trouble to the community than he is worth.
But otherwise the remedy, he said, would be to give up our cruel retaliative or

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 8

expiatory punishment. Instead the State must provide the criminal a better chance for
honest reform by rehabilitating him through the employment of his talent.

Reference:

1. Bhatnagar. R.P. (2016). . Law and Language. “In the Court”. ISBN:
978-93-5138-012-2. Bangalore. M.P.P House. pp.184-186
2. N. Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1925. “George Bernard Shaw -
Biographical". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB.2014. Retrieved on June 1
2018 from
3. Penguin India Blog (July 26, 2017). “5 Iconic Plays by George Bernard Shaw
That Show Us Why He is the Master Playwright”. Retrieved on May 30, 2018
from
https://penguinindiablog.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/5-iconic-plays-by-george-be
rnard-shaw-that-show-us-why-he-is-the-master-playwright
<http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1925/shaw-bio.html
>
4. Raevska Kristina. s.d. “George Bernard Shaw and the Fabian Society”. Retrieved
on May 31, 2018 from
http://econc10.bu.edu/economic_systems/Theory/NonMarx_Socialism/Fabian_so
c/george_bernard_shaw_and_the_fabi.htm
5. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica. s.d. “Fabian Society” Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Retrieved on June 1, 2018 from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fabian-Society

*Assistant Professor at Christ Academy Institute for Advanced Studies,Bangalore, India 9