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
Johann Koehler – Just noticed your previous post. Please don’t placate me – no one else does…
Ed's Talking Balls
Also, Johann, with regard to the question you addressed to Anon E Mouse in comment 16, I would respond that there is a world of difference between the state executing a murderer after due process and the murderer, for example, stabbing his victim in cold blood.
The former is (or at least would be, after the necessary reforms) authorised by an act of government, that government having been elected by the general population in free elections. Thus, capital punishment would be as legitimate a state action as imprisonment, that currently being the most draconian punishment in the judiciary’s somewhat limited armoury.
The latter is the destruction of an innocent life on a whim. In a civilised society, no individual has the right to take another’s life; conversely, hanging a murderer in accordance with the law is perfectly compatible with civilised society.
If you do not see the difference then I am genuinely surprised.
Johann Koehler
My goodness, such quick responses!
First, the expense issue: death penalty cases take up much longer, and more resources, than any other type of case. Stands to reason. More time is given for the defense team to prepare a case, pre-trial motions take long to process, and the case usually won’t see a courtroom until well over a year after the charge is made. Then you need to pay for Experts once the case has begun (they’ll charge a pretty penny), juries take *much* longer to compose based on preconceived notions about the appropriateness of the death penalty, and the trials take much longer.
You’ll then have at least one appeal trial, and innumerable habeas briefs. Sure, all of this is money paid ‘up-front’, so it’s worth looking at how that compares to the expense of prison for the rest of someone’s life….
Given that we haven’t had the death penalty in the UK for quite while now, let’s refer to data from the States: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/northcarolina.pdf. In North Carolina, they found that a death penalty case costs about $2.16 million more per case than a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment.
Not convinced? That’s fine. It’s tenuous to draw too much of a link with the States anyway. But the point remains that the cost is not the needles, or the rope, or whatever instrument of death. It’s the wider apparatus that causes the expense.
Johann Koehler
Ed’s Talking Balls,
I noticed you argued in favour of life imprisonment. It seems like an eminently sensible alternative to the death penalty, if incapacitation is the priority. I, too, would be intrigued to know how people’s opinions would change given the proposed alternative: criminological research has made some advances distinguishing between “public opinion” (what are people’s immediate appetites for punitive practise) which tends to be much harsher than “public judgment” (what do people want, after they’ve been presented with the full set of evidence on a given phenomenon). My inclination is to think that the overwhelming support in this country for the death penalty would be significantly moderated.
Johann Koehler
To Anon E Mouse’s Comment 17,
Surely one requires moral superiority in order to justify the action? You yourself claim that this is the “right” thing to do, and I can’t imagine that the death of Baby P was the “right” thing to do. So surely moral superiority has something to do with it.
Which is, I think, where Ed’s Talking Balls’ Comment 20 comes from too. I see the *legal* superiority that differentiates the two cases, but my question was about wherein lies the *moral* superiority? If it’s the manner in which someone was killed, then that’s the answer. But the fact that it is done by the state is not an ontologically moral position. So I’m asking for the moral differentiation between state-sanctioned execution and criminal execution.