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”
Anon E Mouse
Leon Wolfson – Since we do not have the death penalty and the only other country similar to ours is the United States, who else would you suggest we get the data from? Iran?
You still haven’t addressed my point about the 121 murders and 44 manslaughters carried out by reoffenders who had been released from similar crimes.
Those individuals would still be alive if the RE-offenders hadn’t been released. Which is because prison works.
Please tell me where you can show that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. I have shown that in this country alone 121 and 44 people would be still alive today with capital punishment in place (or lifelong incarceration).
Your comments on causation are wishy washy liberal nonsense and mean nothing. I have produced links to studies proving it does act as a deterrent and the families of the 165 dead people are directly evidenced here.
Well?
Leon Wolfson
I haven’t addressed it because it’s not related to deterrence, of course, your claims are incoherent.
You have not “shown” a single thing – it’s notable that the North Eastern states of America, where the death penalty is rarest, have the lowest murder rates. And that is, of course dealing with the much higher homicide rate of America.
If, like you, I was willing to abandon the causative link, I’d be able to very easily “prove” that murder begets murder with that… but as I am actually intellectual honest I can’t, I’ll just say that you’re simply calling for death for the sake of death.
Never mind those pesky “evidence” things when people are railroaded into the death penalty, eh? And never mind that it would undermine the UK government when UK nationals are accused abroad, in regimes where evidence is strictly optional.
No, they have to go, for the sake of blood red hands.
Anon E Mouse
Leon Wolfson – It is very much related to deterrence since the punishment that the RE-offenders were given for similar crimes did not DETER them from committing similar crimes on their release.
I can say with a 100% certainty that if they were unable to have access to their victims they would not have RE-offended again.
And anyone else considering malice aforethought may have been dissuaded by considering that they may end up swinging from a rope. Because what we can say with a 100% certainty is that the current system isn’t working and those people would be alive if capital punishment was in place.
I can accept you have the right to hold a minority opinion on this matter but you have not produced any “evidence” to substantiate your position, pesky or otherwise.
What you have done is to look at the tactics involved in the punishment and the not the strategy of the concept of the punishment.
To my knowledge no one has advocated murdering people who are innocent of the crime but that is not the topic of this article – the topic is the rights and wrongs of the state to have the right to execute those who it deems necessary of such punishment. Personally I would have natural life imprisonment which would achieve the same thing although perhaps not acting as such a good deterrent.
Anyway now we know that you disagree with capital punishment. Fine.
But where’s your evidence it doesn’t act as a deterrent…
Leon Wolfson
No, as mentioned in this very discussion thread, it’s incapacitation, which is really not the same thing at all.
Where’s your evidence that, outside America, which has rates of murder disproportionate to the rest of Western society, that it does? And moreover, more than a few isolated studies that it does, even in America?
And considerably less than half the population support murdering people as acceptable. Polls show that a majority do NOT support the death penalty in practice…more do in theory, yes, but there is a significant proportion of the electorate (even, and especially, in America) who accept that it’s not practical, without it being sometimes used on innocents – murder – and they can’t support it.
“Because what we can say with a 100% certainty is that the current system isn’t working”
Of course it is. Crime is at near historic lows, including homicide. Deterrence doesn’t work on the mentally ill, who carry out a significant proportion of homicides, and neither does it work in “heat of the moment” situations, another huge percentage.
It’s about red-handed vengeance, not deterrence. And it’s accepting murder, because of the failures – in practice – of every system designed to stop innocents from being judicially executed, where it’s allowed.
Far-right wingnuts like you may accept this as valid, but those of us who are civilised…
Anon E Mouse
Leon Woflson – Your emotive words like “murder” are not the issue.
You are also incorrect on people that are mentally carrying out a “significant proportion of homicides” – From Wednesday, 29 June 2011: http://www.publichealth.hscni.net/news/suicide-and-homicide-people-mental-illness-launch-challenging-report
The NSPCC states at least one child a week is murdered in this country. That statistic is significant since most people in favour of capital punishment certainly want it for child murderers.
Anyway now we know that you disagree with capital punishment. Fine.
And along with your usual New Labour smearing Wolfy Boy, you have not shown a single piece of evidence that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent.
Well?