Some context for the death penalty debate

Publius

"...like me — you don't agree with the death penalty"

Now why am I not surprised?

DavidDP

Hurrah, let's be like China, Iran and North Korea!

Guido spends his life calling out the police et al for being corrupt, and he wants to give them the power to kill? And for someone who claims to hate big government, this is a huge power to give them.

Not to mention what happens when someone is found to have been wrongfully convicted after they have been killed by the state.

Terrible idea all round.

LibertarianLou

Thanks for the stats, really interesting.

I am absolutely 100% against the death penalty but I'm favour of debate about the death penalty (there seems enough public support for it that it's a legitimate use of parliamentary time).

I also think a really important part of the debate should be about harsher and longer prisoner sentences. Perhaps fewer people would get angry and want the death penalty if they felt that prison really was a deterrent, that people wouldn't be let out for good behaviour or get a drop in their sentence for admitting guilt, and if they felt that prisoners were working hard, a significant proportion of the time. That needs to be a part of the discussion.

Cogito Ergosum

Let's have the death penalty for the most serious offences when committed in the context of organised crime.

John Ball

As a supposed christian country are we to sink to the depths of Ruanda?

Vulture

Yet another issue - the EU and immigration are two others -in which our legislators are totally out of step with public opinion. Which calls into question what our 'Democracy' is actually about.

Hundreds of innocent lives are lost each year because of the state's failure to protect its own citizens - its first duty.

Only last week two law-abiding citizens were forced to take the law into their own hands and kill armed intruders, and this vigilantism can only increase because of the state's abdication of responsibility.

There are some crimes so appalling that only death will suffice as punishment. Hitler at one extreme, clearly - the monster who pulled out Baby P's nails with pliers and chopped off his finger ends for fun is another such. And the point of keeping him and his ilk alive is.....?

I predict a massive swing of the pendulum away from our sick liberal decadence and back to a sterner and more Draconian regime.

Probably under Islam. We will only have ourselves to blame.

John Böttcher

I recall a case from a decade or so back, where a man with severe mental impairment was bullied into confessing to murdering a child. He maintained his innocence, and advances in DNA allowed him to leave prison after spending years upon years of misery for a crime the poor fellow had not committed. (There was a very good documentary-drama about the case shown on television not long after he was proven innocent, although I don't recall off-hand the name of said person).

Had he been state-sanctioned murdered, the true culprit would not have been caught.

I personally think life imprisonment should mean life. Prisons should be dreadful in the true sense of the word. But for one man, woman or even child to be "executed" by mistake is a moral abhorrence.

and I'll go to bed at noon

@DavidDP

Hear hear. Why is it that the people most suspicious of government action are so often willing to grant said government the power to kill?

Also, we have a fairly spectacular counterexample for the idea that the death penalty is an effective deterrent: the United States. I admire the place in many ways, but the levels of violent crime accepted as normal over there would be considered scandalous in most European countries.

RW

No chance this would ever get through the Commons. Free votes on the death penalty were given in the 1980s when there was far more support for hanging both inside and outside of Parliament, yet a return to the death penalty was convincingly rejected each time.

Given that there is far too much evidence in recent decades of the police having fitted people up for would-be capital crimes (Guildford Four, Maguire Seven, Birmingham Six etc.) there is little likelihood of Parliament ever bringing back the rope.

robert williams

Stefan Kiszko (although it might have been less of a punishment for him to have been hanged rather than spending 16 years in jail for crime he could not have committed)

Baron

DavidDP, listen, sir, it ain’t the police that should, will have the power to execute, it’s the courts, for a dumb down individual the distinction doesn’t register, for ordinary folks it does.

and another thing:

has it ever crossed your pseudo-liberal mind that the police may indeed tweak evidence against a criminal because they know that if they didn’t the miscreant would get away with murder? Knowing that on their findings someone may lose life cannot but push them in the opposite direction, I for one refuse to accept that the coppers on the beat are corrupt, certainly not more that the average member of the unwashed, after all, they are recruited from the hoi polloi.

and remember, since 1964, around 130 murderers who served their laughable tariff murdered again, this fact alone should convince anyone that capital punishment on the statute books saves lives, even if it’s used sparingly.

StephenW

This article does not bother to mention the ratio of executions to the size of population. Is that for political reasons (i.e. author is biased) or pure laziness?

Also worth noting the number of people murdered by criminals who should have been locked up or dead. From Telegraph 12:01AM GMT 06 Dec 2006: "Between 2004 and 2006, there were 98 murders by offenders on supervision – 38 last year and 60 the year before – compared to 53 in the preceding two years.

The Home Office data also showed a surge in the number of rapes by offenders on parole or probation - 106 over the two-year period compared with just 18 in 1999."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536145/Big-increase-in-murders-by-criminals-on-parole.html

libertarian

Dear DavidDP,

Not sure if you've beamed down recently, but the Police in Britain have been killing for some time, er remember Brixton tube etc???

What execution for crimes has to do with the Police though I'm not sure, I thought it was the courts and judiciary that decided such things.

Not that I'm necessarily in favour but stupid, incorrect arguments dont do anything to help a sensible debate

ndm

The death penalty is not about whether a State can kill this criminal or that criminal - it is about whether the state can kill you. It is, of course, instructive that this piece of populist pandering comes from someone who takes his pseudonymn from a person who was killed by the state. Paul Staines is not worthy of the name Guido Fawkes.

Paul Staines petitions that the death penalty be restored for "the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty." Ah, the age old favourites - kids and cops - the traditional start of the vertiginous slope. What about social workers? - since they face a far more dangerous time in the line of duty than does the typical PC Plod.

What makes this idea even more ludicrous is that it comes on the back of a decade-long assault on our liberties achieved, not by Osama bin Laden, but by worthless leaders like Tony Blair and George Bush who used 9/11 as an excuse to drive us towards a Big Brother society. And it comes on the back of the hacking scandal which has so far cost the careers of two senior policemen caught up in at least the appearance of impropriety and bad behaviour. And it comes on the back of wanton killings by the British police - of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson. Perhaps Paul Staines has few qualms about the way in which the State has provided the police and other Government agencies increased rights to curtail the life and lives of ordinary citizens, but having grown up on a diet of Orwell and Solzhenitsyn I understand the perils of unwarranted state intrusion in our lives.

When presented with his petition asking for you to support the death penalty, remember that Guido Fawkes may have gone to the bonfire a libertarian, but Paul Staines came out of it as an anti-libertarian - for there is no greater loss of liberty we can settle for than accepting that the State can kill us. So, Paul, the question you need to ask yourself is not whether the State can execute kid-killers and cop-killers - no, the question you need to ask yourself is whether the State can kill Paul Staines.

libertarian

Dear John Ball, I don't really think we'd want to torture, main and kill as many people as the Christian church has done do you?

Baron

Peter, the graph ‘The League of Execution’ typifies the misuse of statistics, the absolute numbers mislead, you should have a table, graph that indexes the raw figures, the number per 100,000 is the usual base.

remember everyone: capital punishment on statute books saves lives.

Pete Hoskin

StephenW: Actually, I mentioned it implicitly by pointing out that China has a bigger population than any other country.

As for not mentioning it explicitly, I had two reasons:

i) I was just picking three charts that seemed, to me, to provide a decent overview. Obviously, there are plenty more charts and metrics that I might have used.

ii) The execution numbers used above are not perfect, as I mention in the post. They are, in some cases, only the know minimum - so China should actually run into the 1000s, not 1000. I was wary of combining these figures with population figures to produce something that might be even more imperfect.

MaxSceptic

I like the notion of a nation-wide referendum on capital punishment.

I also like the notion of referenda on our membership of the EU; the ECHR; and sundry other supranational organisations to whom we have ceded sovereignty.

In fact, I'd like us to be more like Switzerland with local and national referenda for every important decision.

The demise of representative democracy and its replacement by direct democracy has been made possible, inexpensive and immediate by virtue of modern Imformation Technology.

No wonder the political classes and their dependent industries are panicking.

Marky136

The debate on the death penalty has been and gone.Civilized countries recognize it has no power of deterant and is morally abhorrent. The list of countries which retain the death penalty is the biggest argument against restoration.

Paul Newman

The death penalty is not about whether a State can kill this criminal or that criminal - it is about whether the state can kill you.

Not so .The state can kill as many people as it likes provided we are at war and the killers are soldiers performing their duty. Similarly to kill certain people in the name of justice humanity and love is a duty .It is not a pleasant one and it may not be a cheap or convenient , but justice is not always either
Far from being a Libertarian to oppose the death penalty that is to be the willing dupe of the state and submit to bovine placidity in the face of the unforgivable.
If my child is abused murdered and left as trash then I require the murderer to pay a price that whilst not equivalent ( not an eye for an eye, the ancient limitation to revenge ) is at least symbolically of commensurate seriousness. If the state ( and this pre -dates the modern state ) cannot supply that justice then I will kill the killer if I have the means .

If those we trust and empower for all our good to regulate the process are to invertebrate to do so then there is no justice and we must all make out own decisions. At present the system spits on the graves of victims and its lackeys have convinced their parents this is acceptable. The faint smell of rotting meat easily perfumed over with the usual easy Liberal blandishments ..

Baron

ndm, as befits a genuine pseudo-liberal, puts up a smokescreen, twists the evidence, confuses the issue.

what state, it’s the courts, more preciously the jury of twelve men and women who pronounce, the state merely facilitates the place, administers the procedure, as things are the courts seem still to command the respect of the unwashed, the attack on judges in the media is more often than not misguided, they merely carry out what the law says, they are the appliers of the law, it’s not the judges, it’s always the law that needs changing because it has lost the respect of the law abiding, the restoration of the CP is one of such changes we need.

nmd’s right though, by default, one reckons, after 9/11 the agencies of the state that are charged with security have been given powers that encroach on civil liberties of the unwashed mostly to camouflage the failings of those in power to care for the safety of the unwashed before the atrocity happened, this is another matter that has bugger all to do with capital punishment.

when presented with his petition asking for you to support the death penalty, forget Guido Fawkes, he won’t save a life of anyone, you just remember the 130 or so of those who got murdered by murderers released after they’ve served their laughable tariffs for their first murder.

capital punishment on the statute books saves lives.

Rhoda Klapp

Leaving aside the death penalty itself, hands up all those who believe that the e-petitions will ever ever result in the government doing something it does not want to do. Not me, that's for sure. Bread and circuses rubbish, good for newspapers and media, absolutely not going to restore any democracy on any of the forbidden subjects.

Amd for the death thing, anyone remember that home office pathologist who was prone to calling child deaths infanticide when they weren't? I'm not inclined to support Guido's plan as stated.

David Ossitt

As is usual when mention of the death penalty (or lack of it) is broached we have usual lists of reasons why not.

Top of that list is always ‘what if you hang/shoot/inject the wrong man, this is usually followed by equally sloppy arguments.

In these days of improved forensic and DNA evidence finding the wrong man guilty is highly unlikely but I will grant it could happen and so the powers that be, must devise a system so that only when the facts are indisputable should the ultimate penalty be used.

Only this week we had the headline in the national press.

“The schoolgirl killed for a bet: Boy, 16, was dared by Facebook friends to murder in exchange for a free breakfast”

The link to the whole sad story is below.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019409/Joshua-Davies-16-dared-Facebook-friends-murder-Rebecca-Aylward.html#ixzz1TWISMkjo

Anyone who has read this link will have no doubt that this monster is guilty of the crime he was charged with, a truly civilised society would hang him forthwith.

Baron

Paul Newman, sir, I take my hat off to you, always and forever.

AJK

Buttoned up closet authoritarian Tories reverting to type. I thought Guido was a socially liberal economic dry.

The mask is slipping from the Tories' supporters, and what's underneath isn't pleasant.

Fex Urbis

Baron, are you a member of the unwashed or merely the undead?

Nick

While Guido may well believe in the death penalty, I can't help but suspect that this has more to do with exposing this e-petitions site as a PR exercise.

He picks an emotive issue that hasn't been publically debated in some time (unlike Europe, for example), and which polls show the majoriy of people to be of a different opinion to the majority of politicians, in the hope of getting the requisite 100k signatures. Due to all the international law, as well as our parliamentarians' general aversion to execution, Guido hopes the subject won't be voted on, and probably not even debated, and so he reveals the entire operation as a sham, possibly even sparking debate on the sovereignty of the people in a democracy and the sad state of direct democracy in our country.

Which, in fairness, is better than letting the idea that direct democracy has been resurected limp on falsely for a couple of years before the next PM has to come up with a new wheeze.

Barry Bilge

Peter Hoskins wrote "And then there are the complicating factors that Guido mentions in his text: the various treaties and legal strictures — among them the European Convention on Human Rights — that currently prevent us from using the death penalty."

Point 1 of Article 2 of the ECHR says "1.Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

This clearly allows for the death penalty but any treaties that do prevent it are only a hurdle in the minds of our current MPs. No parliament can bind successive parliaments or so they like to insist. Just because a previous Government signed a bit of paper doesn't mean we must be held to that for all eternity. Treaties can be exited from or renegotiated.

Not having the death penalty is a condition of EU membership.

I would be uneasy for the State to have the authority to legally end a life in this way and am further uneasy that Guido thinks the death penalty should be reserved for only particular crimes of murder. On that latter point my view partly stems from thinking the State should be treating people equally. *If* the death penalty returned the life of *anyone* taken in a criminal act ought to see the courts and juries consider execution as punishment. It should not be reserved for two particularly emotive victim groups.

Neil Turner

I'm for the death penalty

It would be applied to terrorists, child murderers, serial killers, and those who kill the police in their line of duty

Why ?

1. Natural justice - a life for a life

2. It's merciful to the murderer - Ian Huntley has attempted suicide repeatedly

3. It is a deterrent to those, particularly terrorists, who think that the worst that can happen is a life imprisonment paid for by the State, with "trimmings" to suit your religion

4. Lastly, and by no means most importantly, it is cheaper than life imprisonment

Flashbuck

Of course the death penalty deters. In the States nearly every single murderer that's sentenced to death subsequently appeals for a life sentence instead! In other words, given the choice, murderers prefer life in jail to the death pen, which says all you need to know.

In2minds

@robert williams - July 30th, 2011 6:04pm -

Thank you for mentioning Stefan Kiszko. The police went out of their way to 'solve' this crime only after 16 years and despite the evidence,to hand all the time, showed that Kiszko could not be guilty.

Hence the term, "in the line of duty" can often mean more than you might think.

echo34

In the grand scheme of things, i'd rather a few miscarriages of justice than the cuddily hug a paedo world we live in now.

Your choice - deter child killers and let a few innocent adults die or let them carry on hurting and killing vulnerable children who cannot defend themselves.

It's normally women and kids first in an emergency, we seem to be holding them up as shields to protect ourselves these days.

Pete Hoskin

Barry Bilge: but we're also signed up to Protocol 13 of the ECHR, which prescribes against the death penalty. See here: http://is.gd/Ou455a

John Böttcher

@robert williams - Thanks for reminding me of the person's name - that was indeed the name I had forgotten. Your statement:

"(although it might have been less of a punishment for him to have been hanged rather than spending 16 years in jail for crime he could not have committed" -

confuses me: do you believe, then, he should have been put to death? If not, then the suggestion is that his miserable term in prison is worse than death.

If the latter, then proper sentencing and proper jails (in the P. Hitchens sense) would be a more dreadful punishment?

I'm just a tad confused by the ambiguity of your statement.

Regards.

Reed

Flashbuck @ 7:50pm

'Of course the death penalty deters. In the States nearly every single murderer that's sentenced to death subsequently appeals for a life sentence instead! In other words, given the choice, murderers prefer life in jail to the death pen, which says all you need to know.'

It didn't deter them from murdering and ending up on death row though, did it.
Unless you were being ironic. Poe's law?

Alleagra

Marky136 writes:-

"The list of countries which retain the death penalty is the biggest argument against restoration."

The biggest? It’s not even an argument. It’s based on faulty logic. 'Country X has many bad characteristics. It also has the death penalty therefore that is bad too'. Correlation does not an argument make.

There are compelling reasons to reject the death penalty but that's not one of them.

Jez

In the Tianemen Square Protests before the massacre, one of the protesters threw some dog shit (or similar) at a poster of Chairman Mao.

About 20 years later the guy who threw the offending substance was released from prison. He'd endured approximately two decades of physical / mental torture. He's a walking cabbage now, until the day he dies.

Ok. For throwing some shit at an image of a mass, mass murderer I think the only people who should be assaulted are the ones that feel this act deserves the punishment served out on the unfortunate fellow mentioned above.

It would (as an opinion) be an ideal punishment to any person who kills / prey's / destroys the lives of vulnerable children.

Stop the cycle.

Baron

Fex Urbis asks: “Baron, are you a member of the unwashed or merely the undead?”

Could I be both, please.

and one for Reed @ 8.46:

When you have a minute go out, ask people what would they prefer, a life inside one of Britain’s establishments we insist on calling prisons, but which resemble more 4-star hotels, or a noose tomorrow. When you’ve talked to a few, come back, tell us what it is they’d rather have.

Baron

the sleepy one, sorry, have missed you, but of course you would oppose it, wouldn’t you.

still, on the US, what a silly thing to say, I could take you to a place where the only violence is what’s on the TV screens, this myth that America is full of it is bollocks, it’s like saying Europe is full of bicycles because Holland has many people cycling.

and another thing: do what I suggested to Reed, then come back, we talk.

or, given your unusual sleeping arrangements, get on the Net, see the step increase in murders after the CP statute was scrapped here, and that’s after some fiddling, murderers charged with manslaughter to get the numbers for murders down.

Davey L.S

My heart tells me that some people deserve the death penalty for the crime they have committed, but my head says its wrong in principal.
I don't think I could vote for it in any referendum, not that its likely to happen

Fex Urbis

@Neil Turner

Sadly your last point about cost is a myth. In the States the appeal procedure is so long and so costly that keeping a prisoner in for life is actually cheaper.

daniel maris

Of course we should have a referendum on it. I would definitely vote against it,on pragmatic rather than ethical grounds.

My prediction would be that whilst the public MIGHT vote for the penalty, within a few years, following some hard case or a suspected miscarriage of justice, the public would vote to remove the penalty.

Incidentally, does anyone agree with me that - with the exclusion of gang-related murders - there seem to be far fewer horrible murders than there used to be. I suspect this has a lot to do with the spread of mobile phones which offer a lot of protection to children and women.

Justicia311

The death penalty does not deter.

All the armchair criminologists and hawkers of 'common sense' may say it does, but there is absolutely no difference in murder rates (the only hanging offence) either between US states that do and do not have the death penalty, or within a state as it repeals or reintroduces it. This have been shown in study after study, to the extent that even pro-death penalty legislators in the US now shy away from peddling it.

I'll repeat. Factually, the death penalty does not have any impact on crime.

So the only reason to have it is to satiate the outrage of a society that has been wronged. It clearly isn't to punish the individual; if that was the case why only punish child killers and cop killers? Isn't the murder of any human being just as deserving?

The reason people want it back, after we exclude the flawed argument of reducing crime, is bloodlust. You may well argue for that, but it is not the hallmark of a civilised society.

ButcombeMan

The very best argument against the death penalty is the reluctance of modern juries to convict for anything serious. Far more important to actually get the conviction.

Modern juries of twelve people, good and thick, are frequently worthless.

Jez

Hi 'Fex Ubris' (or as we say in Yorkshire; 'F*ck Head')

"Baron is not the great unwashed droid you are looking for"

What's your qualified take on what we should do here?

Reed

Baron @ 9:38pm
'When you have a minute go out, ask people what would they prefer, a life inside one of Britain’s establishments we insist on calling prisons, but which resemble more 4-star hotels, or a noose tomorrow. When you’ve talked to a few, come back, tell us what it is they’d rather have.'

The point I was making, and that you seem to have missed, is that all those prisoners that Flashbuck was refering to who are awaiting death for committing murder didn't seem to be put off by their potential fate if convicted.

The fact that our prisons 'seem' like 4-star hotels is possibly a good argument for prison reform, not for the death penalty.

Occasional Ostrich

Flashbuck @ 7:50pm

Ah, but you know that's not the purpose of having the death penalty as an option.

It's supposed to deter people from committing the crime in the first place.

Do you think it does?

escapedRoger

The theoretical re-introduction of the death penalty is a sure way of getting us kicked out of the EU, therefore i support it.
Actually i promote a 'civil death' sentence, the person is locked up until dead, cremation and ashes dumped etc., but the media would not be able to publish anything about them after their sentencing and the family has said goodbye. I was always sickened by the 'Myra Hindley has a lover' type stories.

Frank P

Judicial execution is the most cold-blooded and barbaric of all homicides. It debases any country that employs it as a way of dealing with murderers. There are alternatives which should be adopted in any civilised country, regardless.

It will never be reintroduced in the UK, so stop getting off on the notion of restoring it. It simply isn't going to happen, regardless of the 'majority in favour of it'.

Fergus Pickering

Frank P, what is your opinion of the Nuremberg trials? Since the State can force me into the army and send me where I will be killed, what is the big step to capital punishment? And if the state can imprison a murderer for ever, what is the big step required to kill him? If a child killer killed my child I would certainly believe that Justice required his extermination. After torture? Well perhaps.

Ruby Duck

Never could understand why people that happily tolerate the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of unquestionably innocent unborn infants throw a fit of the vapours at the thought of executing a dangerous individual found guilty by due process of law.

I'm not arguing against abortion, or in favour of capital punishment, I just can't stomach the inconsistency.

Alic

Please, the state should not murder.

It should lock up scum bags for life if they are proven guilty though. /Not let'em out after 6 years.

Mr Commonsense

So following on this thinking our military should fire blanks and our political masters that have sent British boys to kill and die in foreign countries should not face hanging for what some people think are their criminal decisions and actions.

Blaster Bates

It will never happen, Brussels will not allow it.

Fex Urbis

I have to pinch myself but I agree 100% with Frank P.

Ron Todd

Neil Turner.

Death penalty for child murder, kill somebody 16 years minus one day old and get executed, kill somebody 16 years plus one day go to prison. Is your life worth less now than when you were younger?

The deterrent effect is debatable especially since many terrorists are willing to die anyway, and many other murders are not thought out calmly in advance with all consequences considered.

Cheaper than life in prison. Do we now dispense justice on the basis of what is cheaper? And I suspect that the cost of execution would not be that cheap. Look at America with endless retrials and appeals before execution all involving expensive lawyers on both sides.

Frank P

Fergus P

We could engage in the polemics, pros and cons, forever. I'm just applying Occam's Razor to the data.

Frank P

Fergus P

We could engage in the polemics, pros and cons, forever. I'm just applying Occam's Razor to the data.

Frank P

Fergus P

We could engage in the polemics, pros and cons, forever. I'm just applying Occam's Razor to the data.

Publius

@Alic
"the state should not murder."

Aren't you rather begging the question?

The usual understanding of "murder" is "unlawful killing", no?

Or do you count our troops in Afghanistan as murderers if they shoot and kill?

Publius

@Nick (July 30th, 2011 7:34pm)

Good point.

Baron

Frank P’s God-like voice solves it for us, no more debate, no more soul searching: “Judicial execution is the most cold-blooded and barbaric of all homicides. It debases any country that employs it as a way of dealing with murderers”.

Baron would rather live in Winston’s debased Britain that went for the most cold bloodied and barbaric homicides, than Frank P’s Britain that lets murderers out so that they can murder again.

capital punishment deters, it cannot do otherwise, those who meticulously plan the execution of a murder cannot but ponder the possibility of their being apprehended, tried, sentenced, only a mind glued to some shitty libertarian principle, broken freely and often anyway, could be blind to it.

those against the CP consider only the perpetrator of the vile act appearing in court, subdued, cringing, asking for mercy, they never ever imagine the horror a defenseless child may be going through, the pain, the agony, the cries for help that never come, they never come because libertarians like Frank P, a man who can easily stomach our boys killing in foreign lands people who have done us no harm, but who feels his hands would be bloodied if the society were to dispose of a man, after due process, who was raping again and again, then killed a four-year old girl, whilst taping it.

Baron may not command the language skills of Frank P, but his take on what human justice is, or rather should be, more than compensate for it.

Easyyoke

Has any abolitionist nation ever reinstated the death penalty or would this be as unprecedented as it sounds?

Frank P

I didn't stutter there folks, the software did, moreover it cut me off in full flow. Obviously hoist me with my own Occam's Razor.

Ruby Duck

I agree, but there there are myriad inconsistencies in the human condition. At present the State demands by statute (and by Common Law, I believe) that the only excuse for killing somebody is self-defence or defence of others under attack - and even then, 'no more force thank is necessary' comes into play - a very ill-defined proviso and left to the eye of a beholding Judge, ultimately - although cops and prosecutors also have a prior bite of the cherry .

Incidentally , most abortions are illegal in law, as they are life-style orientated and not really necessary. But the State turns a blind eye for very ambivalent reasons.

We would all like to reek revenge, from time to time, when we, or those we love, have been grievously wronged. But for the State to coldly perpetrate in cold blood that which it proscribes by individuals in hot blood, or even in pursuit of cold blooded wickedness of various kinds, strikes me as an egregious inconsistency.

When it comes to combat in War; I guess self-defence and defence of one's Country is valid (always provided that one's country is actually under threat (rather than notionally under threat in the minds of political leaders with hidden agendas).

But, does the State have to murder someone who has been captured and immured? In my humble opinion - no. For all kinds of reasons which we could discuss forever and never resolve to the satisfaction of all.

My over-riding reason is that I could not put someone to death who is under under restraint, with a rope, an electric chair, a needle or a glass of hemlock, come to that. Therefore I would not demand that anybody else should do it.

However there are some forms of wickedness that demand incarceration for natural life; that's the price we have to pay for human frailty.

But again, all of that is irrelevant; the death penalty will not be re-enacted in the UK. End of story.

Slim Jim

I think this is a red herring. What is required is a root and branch reform of the entire Criminal Justice System. When the death penalty was abolished, my understanding was that a life sentence for a convicted murderer was just that - throw away the key. What happened to that concept? Perhaps the same thing that happened to the law pertaining to abortion? It would be interesting to know if those who oppose state-sanctioned murder are for the murder of unborn children, or the 'putting down' of extremely ill people. Of course, the use of language is all-important in political debate, but I do not think that we need to go down the road of 'putting down' every murderer, but there is a strong case for ending the lives of people who are simply evil, and will never reform or apologise, or are highly likely to reoffend. Like the Yorkshire Ripper, or Ian Huntley. One final point - those who oppose the death penalty say it isn't a deterrent, and it is uncivilised to do so; your way doesn't work either, does it?

John Nevill

I have no problem with the death penalty all I ask is what happens if the executed person is later proved innocent? Never forget Stefan Kiszko

daniel maris

Well I think we have to respect Frank P's opinion as an ex Police officer. Presumably he saw plenty of horrible crimes in his time which would have justified the death penalty, were there good reason to apply it.

Personally I don't see anything wrong ethically with the penalty as such - it is just the pragmatic side. In this day and age you'll hardly ever get a jury to convict if they know by doing so they will send someone to the gallows. The dangers of miscarriages of justice; the fact that any execution will become a media circus that will focus attention and pity on the murderer not the victim...the list of pragmatic objections is very long and compelling in my view.

daniel maris

The Guido Fawkes site comes up with a warning on my computer that it's got malware/phishing software on it.

Personally I'd like to see much tougher penalties on people who F with your computer,if not necessarily the death penalty.

S J Hawkins

This shows the danger of referendums. We would be back to hanging, flogging and heaven knows what else if this sort of 'democracy' became accepted. The average person has neither the intelligence nor the ability to specify how we should be governed. We vote for those who are hopefully more able and knowledgeable than we are to decide such things - and kick them out when they fail to deliver on their manifestos. Let them get on with government - and not have the excuse when things get out of hand that they only did what the referendums told them. Referendums are nothing but an abrogation of parliamentary responsibility, and if permitted at all, should never be binding on governments.

Frank P

Baron,

'Justice' is another slippery concept; having worked inside the machinery of so-called Justice for most of my adult life, I have to assume, from personal experience and observation, that it is an impossible ideal, which varies from person to person and country to country. As long as human beings are the arbiters of it, it will remain elusive. As for 'The State' deciding - well, just look at who runs the State!

If 'God' dispenses it Universally, then I have yet to understand His Sense of Humour. I'm a bit of a piss-taker myself, but if Himself actually exists, in whatever Form, then I acknowledge his Superiority in the piss-taking department. The King of Kings is also the Universal and Supreme Piss-Taker. These blogs alone should suffice as evidence for that. Who could've created Telemachus (or Diane Abbott come to that), other than the Pisstaker-in-Chief. And who, other than a cruel God would keep plastering these pages with photies of the Milibrats?

I just think that shit happens - and it's best to just clear it up and bury it, rather than recycling it and presenting it as 'Justice'. Let him cast the first stone.

Btw, have you ever done Jury duty, Baron? At one stage at the Old Bailey, when a massive rebuilding programme was under way (in the late 1960s), it was possible to sit on a bench in one of the hallways and, because of an acoustical phenomenon caused by the reconstruction it was possible to hear what was being discussed in one of the Jury rooms. I availed myself of the opportunity to listen on several occasions and heard the deliberations of at least three different juries. I concluded that there is no Justice and that the 50-50 chance of coming to a correct verdict was what decided Justice, rather than the deliberations of the Jury, which had precious little to do with the evidence. And having since been privy to what goes on during Counsel briefings and in Judges' Chambers, my conclusion was reinforced beyond any possible test of destruction. I wouldn't hang a mangy cat using our Criminal Justice system; particularly the current one, manned by the worst examples of enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial individuals that I have seen in my lifetime. But then that's just one viewpoint - and that of a leathery old cynic, to boot (so to speak). And the fact that I read your opinions for yonks and mostly agree with them should give you pause for thought, too. :-)

Baron

Just as Baron thought, the great libertarian shuts an eye, both eyes, when the state kills in war: “When it comes to combat in War; I guess self-defense and defense of one's Country is valid….”

what is a country if not a way of life, so if one is graciously allowed to kill, often very innocent people, to preserve one’s way of life under threat from a foreign invader in war, shouldn’t one occasionally be also allowed to kill, after due process, to preserve the way of life of the law abiding under threat from vile murderers, child rapists, killers?

there ain’t anything ideal in this world, no ideal TV, girlfriend, cup of latte, criminal justice system, things only get close to an ideal, and it’s the great unwashed who more often than not get it right, in this country the masses have been subject to the most vicious brainwashing by the likes of the BBC, derived of even debating the validity or otherwise of the CP, the libertarians of Frank P ilk have also thundered ‘you thick barbarians’, and yet the core of the unwashed keeps clinging to what they know is the right natural justice. Thank God for the unwashed (or is it undead, Fex Urbis? U deicde)

Baron’s will rather bow to the judgment of the many than to the wisdom of the anointed few. If the people of this land go against it, Baron will taake it, not before.

Frank P, please do not go away, will tell you a thing or two about your other point, that of killing in self defense, hhave no time, now..

Barry Bilge

Pete Hoskins said: "Barry Bilge: but we're also signed up to Protocol 13 of the ECHR, which prescribes against the death penalty. See here: http://is.gd/Ou455a"

Thanks for that. A Protocol is optional isn't it? We did not have to sign up to it but at a guess it was all but automatic as we are in the EU.

The intent of the original Articles is clear enough imo. They recognise national sovereignty in deciding what is and isn't an acceptable punishment from criminal acts.

Craig Strachan

No doubt Guido will be volunteering to be the hangman?

Frank P

Baron

Heh, heh, heh! Never been called a libertarian before - probably because I am not. As you well know, you have misrepresented what I have averred above. But if you are looking for an argument, you'd better take on those who have sway in Parliament, where a majority have been against CP in my lifetime and will remain so for as long as I can envisage into the future, certainly well after you and I cease to blog around the clock, regardless of what you and I think.

I have wavered over the years, when confronted with particularly gruesome slayings and evil bastards; but hard cases make bad law. And reason always prevails when the pros and cons are put in the balance.

As for war, it is in some circumstances the ultimate form of self-defence (there have been some justified wars - not many, I admit) and it would be puerile to deny that right, unless one is a Stoic, or a turn-the-other-cheek Christian or some such equivalent.

Personally I'm against Judges in fancy clothes including sometimes, beneath their gowns, frilly knickers and a suspender belts (and that's just the male Judges - God knows what the female ones wear to get off) donning a black cap and playing God. You can't have known as many Judges as yours truly, or you'd be less keen on their potential arbitrary powers over life and death. As for juries - see above. And as a member of the great unwashed, of whom you speak so fondly ... I do not want people like me deciding who shall hang (etc) and who shall not. So there are the multiple dilemmas ingrained within this hoary ishoo.

Then there's the people who investigate murders, I would have thought the chronicle of cock-ups over the past few years would have indicated to you that the CID is not peopled with a band intelligent saints. I remember once in West London when a local nutter waltzed into a Police Station and confessed to a murder that he clearly didn't do. The DS who took the statement from him was quite pleased with himself for a day or so. Even when I pointed out to him that his 'murderer' was prone to delusive episodes, he replied, "He'll do!"

Luckily his DI was prone to taking good advice from those with local knowledge and eventually caught the real culprit, but the Sergeant remained in post. S'funny old world, Baron. Just think about how it must feel if the full panoply of the law has nicked you, charged you and sentenced you to death when you didn't do it. Then being walked along the corridor to be put to death in the full knowledge that those about to top you are safe in the knowledge that "Justice has been done". A little disconcerting perhaps? It has happened a few times; not as many as "Rough Justice" would claim or Shami Chakrabati would have us believe, but it has happened. Just one of those is enough for me to vote to keep 'judicial execution' off the books. That and the DS from yesteryear. "He'll do." Indeed!

Frank P

And another thing Baron, your way of life isn't being 'killed' by aberrant murderers who emerge from time to time, whether there is a death penalty or not. It is being destroyed by academics who poison the minds of the young an impressionable and who seek to destroy tradition and continuity for ideological purposes. Now if somebody lined those bastards up and gave me a gun, I might just be tempted; but then, as I watched them piss their pants and plead for mercy, I'd most probably relent and try to think of other solutions to their stupidity and wanton destruction of our heritage. Unless of course Gordon Brown was among them and went into one ... again. Now that just might be the straw that ....

escapedRoger

All those who are interested in JUSTICE and the death penalty/whole life debate should study the case of John Strafford. Child murderer, condemned and reprieved due to insanity/low IQ, THEN RELEASED (THE MISTAKE)to commit double child murder and them shuffled from Broadmoor to prison until he died a few years ago after 50 or more years inside, where he couldn't kill again.

It's the exclusion from society that is the answer and release while potentially dangerous that is the problem. Released killers, even those who had special excuses, are no longer held by any mental taboo.

daniel maris

EscapedRoger,

Well yes, it is the separation from society that is very important where there is risk of reoffending in relation to serious crimes.

There's no reason, why the exclusion has to be deeply unpleasant in the longer term. Many of the worst offenders have had appalling childhoods and it is hardly surprising they end up offending. It is cruel really to punish them further. I personally would favour the use of islands where people could lead relatively normal lives, in normal housing under close CCTV supervision (including indoors). I think most prisoners would choose to behave reasonably well in return for such living conditions. I think the cost would be much lower than for conventional prisons.

We have to remember with many murderers there is no chance of reoffending. They may have killed a spouse or a relation.

Publius

daniel maris writes: "I personally would favour the use of islands where people could lead relatively normal lives, in normal housing under close CCTV supervision"

You mean the UK?

Corinium

I remember the exact moment when I changed from supporting capital punishment to being opposed to it - when it was reported that that poor man Stefan Kiszko, who served sixteen years for killing Lesley Molseed, could not have done it. I have no doubt that when he was convicted I was saying 'String him up'.

Even with the latest advances in forensics the danger of hanging an innocent man is the ultimate argument against capital punishment.

But the punishment for murder must again become life imprisonment, not the absurd fifteen years or even less that is now served.

John.

MaxSceptic: The Swiss have the answer to another contentious issue that politicians refuse to address, namely immigration. Under Swiss law if one or both parents are non-Swiss the children receive the nationality of the non-Swiss parent or parents. Legislate thus retrospecrively back to August 1945 and the immigration question is solved - no eligibility for any state benefits and then pass further (non-Swiss) legislation granting limited time work permits only to same number of applicants as the number of British who have similar work permits in the country of origin of the applicants.
Justicia311: Hanging would prevent convicted murderers from being released to then murder again - a common occurence.

Baron

Frank P @ 3.49 & 3.59

Baron would be hard put to fault your argument except perhaps to point out that if one had a car with punctured tyre, wobbly steering wheel, but thought the car was useful what with getting one around, one would try to fix the things that were making driving the contraption unsafe, wouldn’t you? The rest of what you say is fine, very much in agreement with you there, down to the knickers, how the hell do you know, you peeped?

a small point, what if the Guido’s courageous, deadly un-PC effort did yield something, those in charge couldn’t ignore the wishes of the many, a referendum won it, came close to winning it, could that not wet people’s appetite, bolster the resolve of the unwashed to have a go at the other things that worry not only you, but many others?

here’s the self defence conundrum:

imagine: Baron’s on a stage, ranting in favour of the CP, suddenly, in the middle of the crowd, a man pulls out a gun, shoots at him, misses, runs towards the stage shooting, missing, then reaches the stage few feet away from Baron, pulls the trigger again, the gun misfires, Baron, in the meantime, regains composure, picks up a heavy ashtray, hits the guy, kills him.

imagine further the dead man is a solid family man, uxorious, loves his kids, cares for them, no criminal record, no past breaking of the law, not even a endorsement on his driving license, but a deep, very deep resentment of anyone who favours the CP.

one can never be sure of anything given what you say about the CID and the knickered judges, but it’s quite probable Baron would be let free, if there were a court case, agreed?

think now, the law as it stands allows one to kill a law abiding guy who merely wanted to kill, but didn’t, yet the same law shirks from killing an individual who did rape a defenceless child, did murder a man whose duty it is to prevent people from murdering, raping innocent kids.

what do you think of that, ha?

Baron

S J Hawkins @ 12.43 says: “We vote for those who are hopefully more able and knowledgeable than we are to decide such things.”

you also a member of the Flat Earth Society then?

Baron

escapedRoger @ 4.46:

when the CP was removed from the statute books (1969) the deal indeed was that those who would have been sentenced to hanging would instead be jailed for life, it hasn’t happened, there are fewer than 30 prisoners who are likely to die inside.

the papers may shout ‘life sentence’, but life means the max 25 years, moreover, almost without exception each ‘lifer’ gets a minimum number of years he must serve, hence the release of murderers who then murdered again.

even those 130 or so who murdered again must have got tariffs, if they didn’t, the number of true lifers wouldn’t be fewer than 30.

on average, a murderer serves just over eight years inside, all Lord Chief Justices from Woolf on (he retired in 2005) have expressed their desire to have the average reduced further, since the average life expectancy is around 80 years, murdering someone offers itself as a rational option to dispose of those one hates.

the young thug who recently stoned his former girlfriend to death over a bet might as well have smirked in court, he should be out within few years. Madness.

Baron

Corinium, sir, Baron has absolutely no knowledge of the Kiszko case, but would say you were wrong then saying ‘string him up’, as you’re wrong now saying CP’s no good.

nobody’s suggesting every murderer should swing, only those who murder a child, a policeman on duty, and only if the case is copper bottom DNA safe.

you doubt Huntley didn’t do it, the bet winner stoning his former girlfriend didn’t do it, the baby P murderer didn’t do it? Hmm.

HampsteadOwl

There will have been times lately when David Cameron would have cheerfully strangled Sir Paul Stephenson, John Yates, Andy Hayman &c.

An understandable enough impulse and it would seem a little mean-spirited to hang the bugger for it.

Frank P

Corinium (and Baron)

There is a strange connection or perhaps coincidence in the case of Stefan Kiszko.
His defence counsel during his trial was David Waddington (later Baron Waddington) a Conservative MP and erstwhile Home Secretary.

From Wiki:

"Kiszko's defence team made significant mistakes. Firstly, they did not seek an adjournment when the Crown delivered thousands of pages of additional unused material on the first morning of the trial. Secondly, in court, Waddington maintained the inconsistent defence of diminished responsibility which Kiszko had never authorised. Kiszko was finally released in 1992 after the Court of Appeal was told forensic evidence showed that he could not have been the murderer. Ironically, Kiszko's appeal was first lodged on the day Waddington was announced as the new Home Secretary in 1989."

So not only do you have to guard against bad coppers, dodgy juries and kinky judges: even defence counsel cock it up sometimes and had Waddington's predecessor in Parliament not been such a dogged campaigner, Kiszko may well have been topped.

Waddington orginally came into Parliament when he was elected as MP for Nelson and Colne in 1968, a by-election caused by the death of Sidney Silverman, whose private bill secured the partial abolition of the death penalty in the UK, after years of campaigning. Waddington later lost the seat to Labour, but he was returned to Parliament at the by-election in March 1979 for Clitheroe, the constituency being renamed Ribble Valley in 1983.

In his dotage he was awarded a sinecure as Governor of Bermuda, which must have helped him to forget the terrible cock up of the Kiszko affair. Still further into his dotage and his defence, the Waddington Amendment in the Upper House to the anti-homophobic hate laws was a useful defence of free speech:

" ... in this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.[6]"

Well said that man!

I S

Interesting to see the number creaming themselves at the thought of bringing back state executions. Children and cops - this is true NOTW sentimental crap. GF should GTF.

BJK

So let's get this right!

Those against the death penalty are arguing to save how many lives taken in error ..... 6? ..... 10? ...... 15?

Against how many lives taken by re-offenders ..... 130 and counting.

ndm

BJK writes:

-- Those against the death penalty are arguing to save how many lives taken in error ..... 6? ..... 10? ...... 15?

-- Against how many lives taken by re-offenders ..... 130 and counting.

Looks to me as if BJK is volunteering to be one of the 6 or 10 - or whatever the number of innocent people he thinks should be executed to satisfy his bloodlust.

Blinkers on - Check

I'm with Baron. Frank P is a bleeding Sean Connery's Sykander on this one. You're not seeing the wood for the trees sunshine. Difficult for a copper to do I know but for once I suggest you consider the possibility that you're wrong. Not that it matters. None of this prose does.

Given the level of dysfunction being imposed on European countries it is inevitable that the death penalty will return in due course. But it's highly likely that you won't like it when it does because it won't be aimed at those who predate upon the public. As ever, it will be the state protecting the state, everything else is collateral damage.

John Munro

There is a better website than the governments epetiton website go and see Digital Democracy. You to start campaign that is local, national or for the UK.

You can gain support online and it has many social network tools to help promote you campaign. It also is linked to local MPs and helps them to engage with their local constituents.

This is a much better system. This gets your MPs to disuss and support your campaigns and they can ensure directly that it is brought up in the House of Commons.

Take a look today digialdemocracy.org.uk

ButcombeMan

I for one agree absolutely with Frank P and like him have also been accidentally privy to the secrets of the jury room and shocked by how juries misunderstand the weighting of evidence and Barrister's argument.

As I said earlier, it is more important to get a conviction than have the death penalty. Juries and indeed the UK legal system are too flawed to have the death penalty.

Apart from modern juries reluctance to convict, it is clear that in many cases and Kiszko is a great example, they have sometimes convicted and been wrong. Further, whole teams of Police Officers have been wrong about their suspects.

CID is nowadays generally not a career enhancer for the brightest and best in the Police. The clever ones tend to skip through it just to get it on their CV.

What goes on in a UK criminal trial is very far from a search for truth.

bjk

ndm @ 7.36

Despite your trite response the basic premise remains.

The no of innocent lives taken (or damaged) never seem to enter into the calculations of those arguing against the death penalty?

Are the lives lost (or damaged) by re-offenders worth so much less than others?

Is it really the case that people such as Sutcliffe, Huntley, Bellfield, Beggs, Rose West, Whiting, etc. have any shred of doubt about their convictions? All of which are afforded the possibility of future release and, as proven in many other cases, the considerable possibility of re-offending upon freedom.

Why is the life of any of the above (or their particular kind) of more value than the 100s who have (and will continue to) needlessly lose their lives to re-offenders?

Despite your superficial altruism, it is not I who is accepting of the higher body count.

Frank P

bjk

Surely the answer to re-offending murderers is to preclude it by ensuring, through legislation and practice, that they remain incarcerated. This would entail rejecting bleeding heart policies that have allowed dangerous psychopaths back into the community in the past, when liberal reformers and psychiatrists who are madder than their patients insist that have been 'cured'. Dealing with dangerously anti-social people will always remain problematical; but I still shrink from agreeing that the State should perpetrate what it condemns: cold blooded murder (dressed up as 'judicial execution'). And to put 'mistakes' into some sort of statistical set of scales is a very dodgy premise, surely?

It often seems to me that logic and consistency is impossible when dealing with the human condition. Victims and victimisers can change roles at the drop of a hat, but 'putting down' another human being who already had been subdued, regardless of what he or she has done, is surely an act of barbarity? I couldn't do it, could you? If not, why should I, or you, be allowed to pay someone else to do it? As I said above, I have wavered case by case, from time to time, but in the end, it's the 'mistakes' and the notion of the State Executioner that makes me draw back from reinstating the death penalty. We can never have perfection in the Criminal Justice system, because it relies on humans to implement it, but surely there are some extremes of imperfection that we can avoid? War is a different kettle of fish, which should be set aside in this debate.

Frank P

Baron

I tried to answer one of your questions with a little anecdotal, satirical skit that for some reason wouldn't 'send'. Pete Hoskin has tried to post it for me and he too has failed. The software on the Speccie blogs is quite often perverse. Pete has submitted it to the techies for a solution. We await the result with interest. I fear that it may be SFA.

Frank P

Butcombe Man

"What goes on in a UK criminal trial is very far from a search for truth."

Sadly 'twas ever thus, and it will remain so ad infinitum. Mainly because lawyers control the apparatus of he CJ System and have a vested interest in ensuring that is too complicated for the laity to understand. I sadly assert this with all due respect to our resident legal beagle, Austin Barry, who displays remarkable perspicacity, integrity and wit, despite his professional training. So there is hope for the human race.

Ian Walker

I wonder what the results would be if the e-petitions were to allow people to disagree with the proposal.

Legally, I am all in favour of the death penalty, providing it comes after we implement that 100% infallible justice system.

Oh.

bjk

Frank P @ 9.08

I would agree, in cases such as those I offered previously as an example, that the optimum solution would indeed be to preclude the option of release.

However, there are two factors that would perpetually undermine this option.

1. Those incarcerated are seen as nothing more than a cash cow by the legal establishment to be milked, at the state's expense, for every last drop of income. The fact that a proven killer is not rehabilitated does not enter into the equation when a state funded lawyer can find the mere possibility of a technicality upon which to make a case. You need only review the case history of such as William Beggs as proof of this assertion.

2. The state will NEVER be prepared to spend the monies required to build, service and maintain the penal establishments required to allow permanent incarceration. The ever increasing number of lives lost or damaged to re-offenders is testament to this assertion.

It is not "bleeding heart policies" and "liberal reformers" that need to be tackled. Such policies and activists are merely employers of the systems available to them.

Finally, whilst I agree that "to put 'mistakes' into some sort of statistical set of scales is a very dodgy premise", to fail to do so assures a greater loss of life.

In every area of life, risk assessment forms the basis of ALL decision making whether it be personal, professional or commercial. Furthermore, every risk assessment is considered in it's own context and within it's current environment.

Why on earth should it be precluded from any discourse regarding capital punishment when the failure to include such considerations very obviously leads to a greater loss of life?

Barbara

Why should politicians decide if we have the death pelnalty, the people should decide. MPs don't do as we wish, they ignore us blatently, and continually. WE should have a referendum if we demand one on such an important change in law that it would require. As for the EU, I don't accept the EU at all, we elect our own politicians to lead us, the owe no one or institution aligence only us the British people. Trouble is they have no backbone when it comes to the EUSSR, Cameron lacks it in all areas, I've yet to hear him say NO and mean it. Osbourne is the same, weak, and agrees and gives in when demands are made and says, 'we have no choice it's EU law', he's mistaken, we do have a choice say NO, or come out and refuse point blank. Again, it comes down to courage and belief in one's own nation and it's people, it's obvious these so called MPs don't believe in our nation.