What are the arguments for and against pardoning these men? War time knowledge of battle trauma was insufficient. We can’t re-open cases now because the medical evidence is not reliable. We can’t prove now that men did have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or “Shell Shock”
The condemned men had a fair trail. They were found guilty and the punishment of the time was execution. Also many of these men did commit genuine crimes; murderers, repeat offenders, mutiny, sleeping on post! These men decided to join the army. They knew they would have to accept military discipline. They signed up to those regulations. Without discipline it would be impossible to beat the Germans. Every army needs discipline.
The documentation which survives is insufficient to review the cases. Too much has been lost. What remains is too little to prove an appeal.
To pardon executed cowards and deserters would insult the memory of those who died "honourably" on the battlefield. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting for their King and Country, unlike these cowards. You should not use today's standards of justice to judge the past. We have different standards and attitudes today. Life was much harsher then. Capital punishment was still used in Britain for serious criminals. Sometimes there were no witnesses at the original trials. If evidence wasn't available then, we certainly won't find it now. This makes it impossible to pardon those found guilty today. We have to let it rest and something from the past Britain was not the only country to execute its own men. So did Germany, France, Belgium, Canada and New Zealand. Also five successive British governments have rejected appeals to pardon the soldiers. They can’t all be wrong.
The executions happened a long time ago, it is ridiculous to raise the matter now. Also a blanket pardon is impossible because all the cases were different. Many might be found guilty again if we could judge the cases now
All the courts marital papers have been preserved and not sanitised or censored. The evidence used to condemn the men is exactly as it was when Field Marshals French and Haig ordered the men's deaths. Most people at the time disapproved of the executions. This is proved by the fact that the Army and Government chose to keep the details secret for so long. Also there is enough evidence today to make a judgement about the past. Many of the executed men had fought for over 2 years, often bravely. This was often ignored at court. Many of the men were brave at trial or execution. Drunks & suicides were remembered as heroes after the war, that’s not fair! After the first few months of the war officers did understand battle trauma. Generals wrote about it in 1915. However, medical information was rarely used by the courts or was ignored. Decisions were made by generals not doctors.
The British legal system means that one is innocent until proven guilty. If there is insufficient evidence then the verdict must be not guilty. This didn’t happen in the war when the evidence of officers was accepted. The war was beyond what anybody expected and we can’t blame men for the way they reacted. Also after 1916 men were conscripted into the army. The army probably needed discipline, but many of these men did not need to be disciplined.
Actually the details have only just been made available so it isn’t something old. Also, ignoring what happened in the past just because it is upsetting is a coward’s way out. The issue lives on for the families. Canada & New Zealand have recently decided to pardon their executed men. With the exception of France, other countries executed far fewer men than Britain, even if they had large armies like Germany. America and Australia executed none. Trials were run entirely by officers. The accused were not allowed to defend themselves properly. Medical information often was not used or considered relevant. Those on trial did not understand. Some trials were stupidly short.