Scenes From An Execution

russell

Oh the Sir Bufton Tuftons won't like this Alex. Duck 'n cover......incoming from Angry of Tunbridge Wells!

calico

HEAR. hear.

John.

Most of the British people would almost certainly love to have capital punishment re-introduced onto the Statute Book here. I fear you may be in the minority Mr Massie. I am with the majority.

daniel maris

My objections to capital punishment are purely pragmatic.

But you are arguing on principle. Why? Is it really outrageous to extinguish the life of one who extinguished the life of another?

If we could be convinced that there was no doubt of innocence or that the execution would not become a circus that concentrated pity on the perpetrator, then why is it not a condign punishment?

Stephen Roberts

I do not believe in capital punishment. Texans do. The "ordinary" Texans I have spoken talk of "trying and frying", as if the crinimal human being was a hamburger. They offer no real intellectual argument for "frying" people,it is a cultural matter for them - just something they do and are proud of. Texans kill each other in large numbers and executed criminals are a small proportion of Texans killed violently each year. They are in the stone age and locked into a naive mindset reinforced by a strange but powerful Texan identity which is impervious to outside influence. Sad - they think they are God's gift to humanity.

Ian

Looking on the bright side, at least it should 'encourager les autres'!

Noa.

With incarceration costs at @£40,000 per year keeping the vile 37 year old King imprisoned for, say 50 years, will cost £8 million for no good purpose.
I'm be happy that you pay this personally to quieten the tender liberal conscience. However like the majority of the public I object to being forced to waste valuable resources otherwise capable of providing a genuine benefit.

Yam Yam

The state executing a convicted murderer with a lethal injection is deemed 'immoral' (a murderer whose appeals, by the way, have been rejected by all nine Supreme Court judges).

However, to many of those same coomentators the executing of Afghans, Iraqis or Serbs with bombs dropped from ten thousand feet is apparently not.

Either all life is sacred or one accepts that some forms of life have forfeited their right to such protection. You can't have it both ways.

cg

Actualy John, I am not sure that the British people support the death penalty. We always hear that they do, but the peitiotn for bringing it to parliament has been an embarrassing (for death penalty supporters) flop.

Greg

I agree. The death penalty is barbaric. There is no equivalence between killing people in a state of war and murdering someone already under lock and key. And as for those who say "well, it's the Texans' choice" - what a silly sentiment.

Baron

Our soldiers dispatched to distant lands in pursuit of those who allegedly threaten us here sometimes kill innocent civilians, people who have done us no harm, had no intention of doing us harm, their bad luck was being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, they almost never are killed intentionally, yet for the dead it matters not whether they got killed with or without intent, they are both equally dead and cold.

The master Massies of this world accept as a matter of fact such unlawful killings, can rationalize them, lose no sleep over them, oppose the death penalty as a matter of ‘principle’ for people who unquestionably have done harm.

To paraphrase Nicholas from another blog (not because he sides with Baron on this, it’s his supreme command of the language that fits here): what sort of dung heap of morality are they sitting on, ha?

Yam Yam has it about right.

Ryan Patterson

I remember studying this story during a current affairs class in school. The newspaper clipping depicted a prolonged, agonising and horrifyiing death.
I'm delighted that the deceased Mr Byrd and his family will receive the justice due to them.

Augustus

The real question regarding these villains,
is not the 'pro-life' argument, but simply whether the world is a better place without them. I'm sure the majority would say it is.

JD

The state currently doesn't "do justice" well at all. The 'criminal justice system' is well named. One might be forgiven for thinking that it only exists for the benefit of the people that work within it and for the protection of their precious criminal clients(cash cows).

Too much injustice, criminals insufficiently punished and people lose respect for the law. Retribution is not the sole preserve of the state and, given the lenient sentences criminals currently receive, I am surprised that victims and their families don't exact more of it.

Archibald

This is yet another case of theory and practice being two quite different and difficult things.

In theory, free speech is to be defended, but when it comes to the nitty gritty of doing it, say defeating the EDL, many such as Mr Massie don't have the stomach for it.

In theory, the death penalty is wrong. But Mr Massie, to counter your example, put yourself in the place of many of us who have had a loved one taken by another in a horrific act of inexplicable and unprovoked violence for which no remorse is shown. I can assure you that the picture is then not as black and white as you portray. I am against the death penalty in theory, but in practice it is much harder to defend if you are involved.

I am still against it, but I feel you quote Billy Rowles in a rather sneering manner, and I don't think any real victim would 'cheer' the death of a killer, not really. But I can understand why they might wish for it, and I'm quite sure Mr Rowles will understand more about the families left behind, their unbearable grief and rage, than I hope you ever have to imagine.

dearieme

"The death penalty remains a barbarous thing and a moral obscenity to boot": really that's just flinging insults at your opponents. Have you got an argument to advance?

Craig Strachan

daniel maris: "But you are arguing on principle. Why? Is it really outrageous to extinguish the life of one who extinguished the life of another?"

Well as the bumper sticker has it - "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong"?

Alex Massie

Thanks for your comments, people. Always welcome. But, for what litle it may be worth, pointing out that most people disagree with me is not a great argument and not likely to prove persuasive. If for no other reason (though there are others) that mjority views should be treated with suspicion, not reverence.

russell

In the end, the majority of death penalty supporters aren't interested in justice. They are really more interested in vengeance. Would be refreshing if some of them would just admit that.

Ian Walker

Well done, Alex. It's much harder to voice an objection to the death penalty in the face of such a disgusting crime.

Baron

Craig Strachan, my blogging friend, your bumper sticker errs badly you should replace it, a creature that does to a human what this monster did can hardly be called human as most of us understand the meaning of the word, it wouldn’t be killing him either, murderers kill, a just and fair society merely restores status quo by executing those who kill.

You follow?

Look, we’lll never slice it one way or another leaning on morality, what Baron finds totally irrational is this: capital punishment saves lives, any society that rejects it, loses more burghers than it would have done if it didn't, more to the point, it loses mostly the law abiding, keeps the ones who harbor evil at considerable cost. It makes no sense, notwithstanding the make of one’s moral compass.

Fergus Pickering

What is thehuge difference between locking an abominable person up for ever, like Ian Brady say, and killing him, like this guy? Explain the yawning gulf. I don't see it.

Craig Strachan

@Baron: It's actually not my bumper sticker, just one I've seen around.

My objection to the death penalty centers around concerns about what it implies about the relationship between the individual and the state. It seems to me that if the state can kill you, it owns you, and the only question is the circumstances in which it will refrain from so doing.

But if your trust in government is total, and you believe courts to be infallible, I suppose you might be in favor of the death penalty.

Mine isn't, I don't, and I'm not.

Craig Strachan

@Fergus Pickering: The difference between locking people up forever and killing them is surely this: if, say, they are subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence you can always let them out of prison. You can't let them out of being dead.

Simon Stephenson.

Craig Strachan : 6.00pm

Agree completely.

cg : 9.21am

Yes, 21,153 signatures to date, so only 78,847 to go until they reach 100,000. Despite the campaign of arch-blogger Guido Fawkes, it's perhaps become doubtful if this will happen "before MPs get back from their summer holidays" as Mr Fawkes asserted on these pages on August 7th. (*)

*
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7150378/voters-back-the-death-penalty-in-polls-but-will-they-petition-for-it.thtml

The petition to continue with the ban has now reached 29,612 - a gap of 8,459, which I fancy is larger than the last time I checked - although I seem to have lost the note I made at the time.

Archibald

@Craig Strachan
So you'd be in favour of the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt of guilt, from witnesses, DNA evidence and admission that the person committed the crime? There's plenty very definite cases out there as opposed to ones where the jury are torn.

N J Mayes

Not long ago sheriffs in states like Texas would have turned a blind eye to racist murders like those; or perhaps the killers might have got six months in prison (as in the Bob Dylan song). I think the Americans should count themselves lucky and consider it progress that they've gone from one extreme to the other. This is surely a vast improvement on those bad old days, even if it's still very imperfect.

Archibald

Alex, I agree it is wrong as you argue (not because of possible weaknesses in evidence) but hope you take my point on board that the lynch mob mentality of Joe Public aside, it's not an easy thing for people directly involved, which is why I think you maybe need to show a bit more understanding for people like Mr Bowles while disagreeing with him - I may be being over-sensitive but it appears you ended the quote of the article on his words for effect. This, as you know, is what he found:

"the bloody mess found after daybreak was thought at first to be animal road kill. Rowles, a former Texas state trooper who had taken office as sheriff the previous year, believed it was a hit-and-run fatality but evidence didn't match up with someone caught beneath a vehicle. Body parts were scattered and the blood trail began with footprints at what appeared to be the scene of a scuffle.
"I didn't go down that road too far before I knew this was going to be a bad deal," he said at Brewer's trial.
Fingerprints taken from the headless torso identified the victim as Byrd."

Now, people who shout "hang 'em high" without any thought or experience of the situation I don't have much time for, but while I disagree with Mr Bowles he deserves to be heard in context. As does the victim's sister who stated she had no problems with the death penalty as she knew he was guilty. The adverse effects of dealing with that loss as a relative and working on a case like that is something which is often lost in heated debate between people who with any luck will never ever be able to comprehend what that is like.

Noa.

Modify the tax return accordingly:

" I the undersigned, agree to a deduction of £500 per annum to pay for the life imprisonment of murderers.
I understand that insufficient voluntary contributions to this Murderers Imprisonment Fund will result in the summary execution of unfunded prisoners, to be drawn by lot.."

Now, under what circumstance would you agree to such a levy, or not?

Mark Dowling

"With incarceration costs at @£40,000 per year keeping the vile 37 year old King imprisoned for, say 50 years, will cost £8 million for no good purpose. "

And the years of appeals and death row security costs £8? I think not!

Baron

Simon, have you ever applied your fertile mind cracking a seemingly perplexing duplicity of comport by the unwashed: why, when asked whether they would welcome the restoration of CP in a poll, i.e. anonymously, the majority answer in the affirmative, when asked to provide their name, address, the same unwashed hesitate, then mostly refuse?

Craig, Baron has no trust in politicians either, in fact he accepts the CP abuse by politicians as the only valid rational argument for not having it on the statute books, except that if we ever got a bunch in charge willing to kill in the name of a creed or stuff, the omission of CP would be unlikely to stop them going ahead anyway.

It’s however not the State, but one’s peers that would have the power to make the decision, the State is merely the facilitator, and you also mistaken thinking the State cannot kill one in ways other than using a rope, an example: if energy prices continue to be pushed higher, in part because of green taxes imposed by the State, it’s not unconceivable many on low income won’t be able to heat their homes well, will suffer from hypothermia, die prematurely, in the course of our combating global warming, sadly ironic that.

Craig Strachan

@Archibald: As a practical matter, I suspect cases with all three elements of certitude you mention - DNA evidence, eyewitnesses and confession - are a tiny fraction of all cases. But no, I wouldnt support it in those cases either, because it is not consistent with my view of the proper relationship between the individual and the state to have the state take the life of any individual.

Craig Strachan

@Baron: Yes, but if you don't trust the state to be responsible in routine matters such as what to tax and at what rate, how can you trust it in an extraordinary matter such as how and in what circumstances to execute its citizens?

Simon Stephenson.

Baron : 9.23pm

They answer "yes" or "no" because they are being asked a question, and subliminaly this takes them back to their childhood when they were expected to answer questions asked of them. On the other hand if indicating an opinion is entirely voluntary, like registering and signing an e-petition, they'll only do so if they really have an opinion one way or the other.

Most people only care about things if they affect them personally. They really haven't got an opinion about whether or not we should restore the death penalty - this sort of thing they leave to politicians. If asked in a survey they'll likely as not give the answer they think the questioner wants to hear.

Baron

Simon, sounds about right except that Baron believes their behaviour may be doped with a bit of cunning pragmatism, too, the unwashed prefer not to be associated with the losing side.

Craig, you keep banging on about the State, on taxes, it’s indeed the State, the plebeians are anywhere near the decision making, in the case of CP, it’s the jury, isn’t it?, people like you, Simon who would have the decisive say, does Baron take it you have little trust in yourself, hmm?

Fergus Pickering

So, Craig Strachan, your only objection is that the chap might be innocent. But in the case of Brady he isn't, so it's OK to kill him.

Craig Strachan

@Baron: Yes, the jury will be made up of people like myself and Simon. I can't speak for Simon, but personally I make no claim to infallibility, and I wouldn't want anybody killed based on my vote.

Craig Strachan

Fergos, no it's not my only objection, and it's not ok to kill him. He should die in prison, as I expect he will. Mind you, I had the same expectation about Megrahi.

Noa.

Craig

"..I wouldn't want anybody killed based on my vote".

erm..a point of order perhaps, but the jurist's decision is based on whether the defendant is guilty, based on the evidence put before him, and of course the case has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentencing are the responsibility of the judge. Again the judiciary is, supposedly, independent of the state, and can act in the public interest, if appropriate discharging the jury or stopping the trail for mistrial.
The 'compartmentalisation' of decision making is meant to address the issues which rightly concern you.

Craig Strachan

@Noa: In a number of US jurisdictions the finding of guilt is separated from the penalty phase, with the jury crucially involved in the latter also.

Edward McLaughlin

According to the account I read of Davis's final moments, it all seemed unnecessarily painless.

A few of the victim's relatives with baseball bats would be much more fitting.

Brewer and Co, same thing.

Baron

Craig, the prime reason, if not the only reason for Britain to retain CP in the days of ‘barbarism’ was that it deterred some from committing murders, not all, no man-made construct ever could be that ideal, but some, the deterrence value of CP is unquestionable, those who meticulously plan the execution of murder want to avoid capture, but above all, they want to stay alive, no point in battering someone to death only to end up swinging.

It would save lives even if we had CP on the statute books without ever invoking it, Baron reckons, of course, the burghers wouldn’t be told it will never be enforced, they’lll think ‘there may always be first time’.

Fergus Pickering

Those other arguments, Craig, what are they?Don't keep them to yourself. Incidentally, I consider revenge to be a perfectly proper part of the judicial system

Craig Strachan

Fergus, well other than the possibility of a mistake, my main concern is about the horrendous expense of the process (at least as it plays out in the US, and esp. in California, where I live).

And then there is what I suppose is my philosophical objection to the over-mighty state, which reveals itself very clearly when it starts killing it citizens.

JamerG

Article on point by Christopher Hitchens if anyone's interested: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/christopher-hitchens-staking-a-life.php?page=all

Baron - the death penalty is not a deterrent. Those who commit heinous crimes would not stay their hands at the thought of execution rather than life imprisonment: they are either not considering the consequences or don't think they'll be caught.

Don't take my word for it: nearly 90% of expert criminologists in the
States agree that there is no evidence that the death penalty over there has any deterrent effect.

If you support the death penalty it has to be because you think it is an appropriate retribution. I find the idea of the state calmly taking another's life to be repulsive, both morally and for the reasons Craig gives. I also know that there is no such thing as a perfect justice system. If you agree with the death penalty you have to accept that on occasion the state is going to execute innocent citizens: I can't accept that.

Noa.

JamerG

"...there is no evidence that the death penalty over there has any deterrent effect..."

Perhaps criminologists are a) naive, or b)have a vested interest in keeping murderers alive for academic study?

As the deterrence effect reduces the number of murders it is evident there will be no direct evidence of its efficacy.
Nor, of course will putative murderers admit that the threat of execution prevented them from killing, lest they give effect to what is preventing them killing.

Fergus Pickering

Those are not good arguments, are they Craig. A state which calle up its citizens in time of war, a state which locks them up for ever, a state whih has its stately nose in my private affairs at evry turn, is already sufficiently mighty. And the expense is a purely American thing. In China the state doesn't even pay for the bullet. I suggest the deat penalty for those who have already been convicted of a murder and served a term and been freed. That will do for starters. I do not consider the killing of policemen or children to be intrinsically worse then the killing of anybody else.

Craig Strachan

Fergus,

Well if you're content to have that stately nose in your affairs and are happy to import the Chinese model of quick-and-cheap execution to Britain, along with other aspects of state control that would doubtless be required to make that work, then have at it.

I'll look on with interest from the land of slow and expensive executions. ($20 million per in California!)

Craig Strachan

(That should $200 million per BTW).

Fergus Pickering

So, Craig, you don' want to allw the state to lock up murderers for ever. For along time? At all? I think you might tell us. Pil0sophical anarhism is quite respectble, but I can't see the party sweeping to power any time soon. No need to import the Chenese way of doing things. Ours pre the abolition of hanging would do very well and is quite cheap.

Baron

JamerG, listen, you’ve got to brush up on this, sir, reading some of the other blogs on the same subject may help.

When you are next out meeting friends, do ask what would their preference be, the noose within a month or so, or a life imprisonment in one of HM establishments we still lovingly call prisons, )for a continuity sake?), run by governors who when asked ‘what do you see as a priority in your job?’, answer ‘to make the life of those inside as comfortable as possible’. (The inmates of this particular prison were serious offenders, not grannies failing to pay their TV licence).

Also, have a look what happened to the murder rate after we scrapped the thing in the late 60’s, a step function hike that has been trailing the time series ever since, and that understates the true increase as many cases that in the barbaric past would have been pursued as murder were reclassified.

And last, you speak from experience, or just from what the ‘experts’ tell you? have you met, been around murderers, just one will do, have you? If not, please avoid answering Baron’s first point saying ‘but murderers think different, are different’ and stuff like that.

Fergus, Noa, boys, you’re on the right track.

Craig Strachan

Fergus - yes I think life without the possibility of parole is justified in the worst cases. (An option which, when offered as an alernative to the death penalty in opinion polls in the US, significantly reduces the percentage who favor the death penalty).

Noa.

If one follows Craig's original reasoning; that the state isn't fit to be trusted with the execution of its citizens, the logical conclusion is that there should be no police, judges, courts or prisons for all are elements who would be involved in the potential persecution and detention of the 'offender'.

In fact justice then become executable only by the victim, who may seek to prevent it, when he has been a witness to the criminal act.

Craig Strachan

Not really, Noa. I trust the system enough to make revocable decisions. Just not irrevocable ones.

JamerG

Baron - I don't think murderers think differently from everyone else. I stand by my point: I don't think anyone committing a seriously heinous crime calmly weighs up the potential consequences if they were to be caught and, if they do, I don't think life imprisonment vs execution makes a massive difference to their thinking (it wouldn't to mine).

I notice you've entirely ignored the inevitability of innocent people being put to death by the state by the way (which would be all the more likely if we chopped their heads off in a month or so as you suggest). Do those individuals not matter to you in the greater interest of the state (as you see it)?

If you're really serious about deterrence why not introduce the death penalty for less serious crimes? Or chopping hands off etc for stealing?
Now that, I agree, would have a deterrent effect.

And, if we're not worrying about the occasional innocent getting executed, why not change the standard of proof in criminal cases from "beyond reasonable doubt" to the civil standard of "on the balance of probabilities"? What's a few thousand innocent people languishing in prison if we get all the bad guys off the street eh?

With a bit of work we could give the most totalitarian dictatorship's justice system a run for its money...

Baron

JamerG @ 7.22;

now you’re talking.

Noa.

Craig.
My point stands. If the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' the sentence is immaterial. Are you really prepared to accept second rate justice just because the punishment is imprisonment rather than execution?

Baron

JamerG, my blogging friend, last shot from the blue veined barbarian, then let’s agree to disagree.

It’s your, Baron’s responsibility to ensure than you survive, Baron survives, the responsibility of those in charge ain’t to make sure than either of us survive, but that as many in their jurisdiction as possible do. Since capital punishment unquestionably saves lives, it should be their duty to have CP on the statute books.

With DNA, other forensic tools available today, the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice is miniscule, particularly as CP should only be invoked where the evidence is irrefutable. You doubt the Soham murderer did it, do you?

And last, it may matter not for you whether you swing, spend your life inside or whatever if you murder, get caught, sentenced, you are not everyone though, you haven’t answered Baron’s question, have you ever met, talked to, lived close to a murderer?

JamerG

Baron My blogging friend

@8.19pm made me laugh. As did "blue veined barbarian", which I shall have to resist the urge to cal, you in future.

@12.15am: "capital punishment unquestionably saves lives" - this is where I came in (and will bow out). I simply don't accept that. I have never (to my knowledge) talked to a murderer, but even had I my perspective on one individual wouldn't outweigh the conclusions of experts who have studied the evidence and who overwhelmingly agree that there is no evidence for what you say is unquestionable. I know, like many on here, you mistrust the conclusions of experts when their analysis of the evidence doesn't fit with your preferred ideology (see also climate change).

Even if I'm wrong your whole premises sounds disturbingly utilitarian to me. I don't think the state is supposed to take a coolly numerical view of human life - I believe in the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Verity

Stephen Roberts 6:48 a.m.

The "ordinary" Texans I have spoken talk of "trying and frying", as if the crinimal human being was a hamburger.

Texans ... and I lived in Texas for several years ... do not "speak of trying and frying" because the electric chair is ancient history. The death penalty in TX has been by lethal injection since 1977. Coming up 40 years ago!

So your pathetic attempt to elevate yourself above the citizens of the great state of Texas is 40 years out of date.

Uppity ignorance.

By far, far, far the most gun deaths in Texas are perpetrated by, well, perps. The remainder by citizens legally protecting their property with a licensed gun. If you have a criminal record, you cannot legally buy a gun.

Have you ever been outside Britain?

Tom Callaghan

I feel I have to post to reply to those advocates of the death penalty. I suspect that many if not most of them have ever been unfortunate enough to be personally involved in a case where the death penalty is a possibility. My wife was very brutally murdered just under three years ago, in a Central Asian country which does not impose the death penalty. If he is ever found, her murderer will receive a sentence of no more than 18 years (albeit in the sort of prison where TB and violence are rife). I was told, unofficially, that if he were caught, he would be handed over to be and I could 'do what you want'. At such a time, the desire for revenge is very strong. But I eventually came to the conclusion that having his blood on my hands, literally, would only sully me, without bringing back my wife. I hope he is caught, if only to stop him committing similar crimes. I hope prison is a living hell for him. But I don't want to kill him, either myself or by the state on my behalf.

Tom Callaghan

APOLOGIES
My second sentence should, of course, have read:

I suspect that few of them have ever been unfortunate enough to be personally involved in a case where the death penalty is a possibility.

ThigArLatha

Ultimately the abolitionists sold us one prospectus and soon after Woy Jenkins and his "civilised society" came and corrupted what was promised.
Life should mean Life. Hard conditions until they die.
If they are not getting out then there is no need to worry about rehabilitation or re-offending. So all the arguments about training or conditions become void.
So Life means life, no TV, sports, educational facilities or pleasures engaging in back-breaking work. Food would be sufficient for their health only.
Try this and I suspect that objections to abolition would be minimal.