If the death penalty was brought back, someone innocent would inevitably be killed at some point
Right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes (Paul Staines) is pushing a Number 10 e-petition to reinstate the death penalty. His campaign has already gained widespread support, from Murdoch newspaper The Sun to Tory MP Philip Davies (from ‘let the disabled be exploited at below the minimum wage’ and ‘can’t we bring back blacking up’ fame). Mr Davies said:
“It’s something where once again the public are a long way ahead of the politicians. I’d go further and restore it for all murderers.”
However, a quick google search and look through the ‘Innocent‘ database finds that murder charges are fairly regularly overturned in the British Courts. People whose original conviction for murder that have been quashed include:
Andrew Adams who was convicted of murdering science teacher Jack Royal in 1990. Members of the jury later come forward to say they had considered evidence not put before the court, the police had been in contact with witnesses during the trial, and that verdicts of not guilty were returned on others involved in the case, inconsistent with Adams’ guilty verdict
Soldier Andrew Evans, who was convicted of the murder of 14-year-old Judith Roberts on the basis of a dream he experienced
Sean Hodgson, who was convicted of the murder of bar worker Theresa de Simone in 1979, and served 27 years despite David Lace confessing to the murder in 1983
Josephine Smith, whose conviction of murder for her husband was changed to manslaughter, after it was established he had repeatedly beat her and subject her to sexual abuse. Smith had originally pleaded guilty to manslaughter
Tony Martin, whose conviction of murder was reduced to manslaughter for shooting burglars who entered his home, which he had done in a ‘blind panic’
And there are dozens more. It seems odd that a libertarian such as Staines thinks that the state is incompetent to do almost anything other than decide who to kill. Under Davies’s policy, all these people would have now been killed by the state in cold blood.
Under Staines’s plan (cop-killers and child murderers would be liable for the death penalty), Andrew Evans would now have been killed.
So what price a life? Is it right that some innocent people are killed so that others receive thier comeuppance? If, as MP Priti Patel believes, deterence did work (which would imply murderers rationally weigh out risks and benefits to actions, and that a life sentence is seen as a fair risk), how many is it OK to kill to ensure that murderers are put off?
All this ‘ends justifies the means’ thinking and trading of lives feels bizarrely stalinist for conservatives and libertarians. If the death penalty is brought back, it is only a matter of time until someone is innocent is killed – an odd outcome to a campaign based on abhorrence of murder.
85 Responses to “Five good reasons why the death penalty should not be reinstated”
Johann Koehler
You’re now making the case for ‘general deterrence’ – the theory that capital punishment deters people who were considering committing a crime. There’s no evidence to support that theory. There would be even less traction for the theory in the context of people as unhinged as the killers of Baby P and Victoria Climbié (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lqMZzZ7p3jIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA303&dq=deterrence+among+psychopaths&ots=mCW3X6Yuva&sig=vv1TegHZtqz8Mub5abVQdNML3uI). Your utilitarian position, namely that of the primacy of protecting the innocent, is simply not supported as strongly as you seem to think.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for you to seek to reform the sentence of life imprisonment to reflect ‘true’ life imprisonment (as is the case in plenty of countries) before you advocate in favour of state-sponsored killing?
Tom White
Anon E Mouse: 1) you don’t appear to know what ‘deterrence’ means. If you’re interested in that debate, go and look at the figures. If we’re talking about incapacitation, then execution is obviously different from incarceration: I’m not happy if innocent people are killed by the state. Are you? 2) I don’t use the same moral judgments as criminals in judging people’s futures, and nor should our state. 3) I’m not terribly interested in what lots of people think if you shove a microphone in their faces. Lots of people can be wrong about something. A huge number of people on this planet think that God exists – I don’t see it myself.
I don’t see that any of this is ‘bleeding heart’ either. I haven’t declared any position on length of sentence for murderers. I’m just supremely uncomfortable with state murder, and I query the *deterrent* effects of long prison sentences.
You seem to think that the death penalty deters. Where’s your evidence?
Anon E Mouse
Tom White – The “bleeding heart” wasn’t aimed at you specifically and no one would advocate murdering innocent people.
Agreed on point 2 but my response was against the comment from Dave Citizen…
Your belief or not in God (why not agnostic?) is your own but my comment is that the general public aren’t having the microphone shoved in their face in a referendum.
It seems we can have referendums on changes to the voting system, Scotland and the Welsh Assembly but not this or the Lisbon Treaty and we both know why.
Because this country would be out of Europe and would bring back hanging and the politicians know it. Which means they are not representative of us….
As to the deterrent effect you’ll have to give me until tomorrow – I have a train to catch fella….
Anon E Mouse
Johann & Tom – I’m going to miss that train. Try this from an anti death penalty fella: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/10/212452.shtml?s=ic
torieboy
never mind the death penalty, get rid of the human rights act and expel the
foreign nationals that are cluttering up the prisons ,
you middle class chattering classes are totally out of touch with ordinary
people