BBC has delighted in telling us that our more enlightened politicians effectively removed the death penalty from the UK statute book 50 years ago today. I listened to an item on BBC Radio 4 earlier which was ENTIRELY one sided, giving the impression that everyone supported this decision 50 years ago. The BBC remains MUTE on the fact that for subsequent decades, the majority of people in the UK favoured the death penalty, that they were never asked whether they wanted it abolished. By all means let’s discuss the issue but let’s have the debate from ALL sides. I am sure many British people will share my annoyance at the BBC showing such overt bias and taking the liberal anti-death penalty viewpoint as the sole viewpoint. Typical.
THE DEATH PENALTY — A CAPITAL IDEA…
Bookmark the permalink.
Noted this one on the Today show.
The “anti-death penalty” person was related to Timothy Evans…yet she didn`t play ball as the BBC were expecting.
Humphrys could hardly interrupt her…bur she clearly said that the likes of Hindley, Brady and West ought to have been hanged.
Oh dear-cue collapse of the BBC agenda-all to obvious as ever with the BBC.
I once heard some supercilious leftie politician rejoicing in the fact that Britain is not a democracy and using the death penalty to justify keeping it that way. Most people he said would support the death penalty but it us who know better who keep the country ‘civilised’.
In any event it cannot be reinstated until we leave the EU.
I’m old enough to remember the level of public outrage after the 1966 murders of three London policemen in Shepherd’s Bush by Harry Roberts and his gang – using pistols. The general view was that the murders wouldn’t have happened if the death penalty still applied.
The Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, was an abolitionist, so he distracted the public by introducing restrictions on the ownership of shotguns; even though he had recently been given a report showing that such restrictions would reduce public safety by wasting too much police time. A win-win for him – safeguarding the abolition of the death penalty and taking another step towards disarming the people.
As ever with “liberal” politicians, the public were seen as too stupid to know what was good for them. With the BBC hand in glove with the politicians.
In his private life Woy Jenkins was immoral,marital philanderer, unprincipled and completely untrustworthy.
Why would I think that he would make a correct political decision. It’s like asking Harold Shipment to give his thoughts on ‘the right to die’-voluntary euthanasia.
Jenkins was in my mind, and without question, the worst and most societally damaging Home Secretary this country has had. As a person, a complete fake and low life.
Wronged, quite agree, Jenkins was filth by any standards.
I’m 100% against the death penalty. If anyone can give a good reason why the state should kill someone because they have broken the law or killed someone, please state your case here.
It stops them doing it again .
Doing what?
Murder
Well said, Taffman. A murderer forfeits his or her right to life. Without the death penalty, a State is saying that the life of a murderer is worth more than the victim’s. A total moral inversion.
Good comment.
I regard the death penalty as the “gold” standard in the scheme of crime and punishment.
When the gold standard was removed, it allowed politicians to set the value of money, ie the value of honest work that other people do. Since then, we have seen the progressive devaluation of every currency.
Capital punishment was removed under the understanding that life imprisonement meant life imprisonement. Overe time that term is at most 25 years. In practice, it is 10 years, and the murderer is out in half that. Again the devaluation of punishment, and thus the devaluation of life.
The death penalty for pre-born babies was legalised in 1967.
It isn’t “A total moral inversion.”
When the state refuses to kill in revenge for a killing, that is not a moral inversion. That is a statement of superiority over those who kill.
There is absolutely no proof that a death sentence will deter people from murdering others. That is a simple lack of understanding of murder itself – murder is carried out with the full knowledge of the sentence that will be passed if the murderer is caught by the authorities.
Again, here is the hypocrisy – Sharia Law would be very welcome in a society that imposes death on those who sin.
I’m in favour of the death penalty. The reoffending rates in this country are ludicrous, thus showing that prison reformation doesn’t work! Dale Cregan, that lovely bloke who killed two police officers with a grenade in Greater Manchester not so long ago, pleaded insanity at a recent trial. The judge swallowed his guff and the offender will now live the rest of his life in what is essentially a nursing home. TV, art classes, cinema viewings, walks around the luxurious garden area. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Anyway, imagine being related to one of the victims. Would your view on the death penalty remain the same? I highly doubt it.
The death penalty has nothing to do with reoffending rates. The death penalty (as it is in Sharia Law too!) is there to prevent crimes occurring in the first place, or as a form of retribution against the guilty party. Once the state gets involved in killing people in the name of “justice”, you know you’re in a state where your own life could be threatened with a few tweaks of the constitution.
Most serious crimes are committed without any consideration of judicial consequences. If the death penalty was a deterrent, there wouldn’t be 3000 inmates on death row.
Edward, come on now , it stops re offending – simple .
BTW, what the hell have we got to do with Sharia Law? this is Great Britain, not the Middle East. You are posting on the wrong site, try Al Jazeera .
Edward, I respect your opinion, it’s one I held for many years until I realised that more lives would be saved if the death penalty was introduced.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html
I’d be quite happy to see Lee Rigby’s killers hanged, Harold Shipman, Dale Cregan, Yorkshire Ripper, the list goes on.
With DNA the possibility of making a mistake in Judgement is about 0.01%.
“Nearly 30 killers released from jail have gone on to kill again on Britain’s streets in the last decade.”
How many “killers” have there been in the last decade?
taffman – would you like to see the reintroduction of the death penalty for homosexuals?
Bingo. I wondered where on earth this line of demands to answer questions on anything but BBC activity was going, and look where it has arrived…
Homosexuality is legal you fool. The death penalty should only be used against convicted killers, who murder in cold blood and are likely to kill again, and where there is absolute and irrefutable proof of their guilt. Lee Rigby’s killers, Dale Cregan and other such cases would qualify.
Your, frankly ridiculous, strawman argument about homosexuality is simply a pathetic distraction.
Brilliant idea! I never thought of that!
Old Goat, LOL ! Quite how Edward makes the leap from murder to homosexuality is beyond me. Maybe he thinks they are the same ! LOL !
I’d be tempted to support the death penalty for internet trolls – especially if they worked for the BBC,
RJ ! Lol !! That is too much, but …..
Edward
‘would you like to see the reintroduction of the death penalty for homosexuals’?
No.
Edward
Yeah right! My life will be in danger if the death penalty is reintroduced… what pure guff!
As for those 3000 on death row, once they are done away with we can forget about them, because guess what.. they won’t do it again!
Edward, how do you know that , without the death penalty, there would not be 30000 muderers in prison ?
How do you know that, without the fear of God, there would be 30000 murderers in the first place?
“The death penalty has nothing to do with reoffending rates.”
Absolute bollocks.
Not really because those on death row have, on average, already reoffended!!!
How many released murderers have gone on to murder again?
Whether the death penalty deters re-offending re murder, is not the issue. The abolition of the death penalty, was like the abolition of the Gold standard. It has led to a break of the link between punishment and crime, and the devaluation of the effect of crime on citizens
When effective punishment for murder is now 10 years, and the murderer walks out in five, then it is difficult to argue that viscious crimes that should attract significant imprisonment terms, should have more then the punishment for murder.
Following from this, deterrence for all crimes is reduced. Though capital punishment may or may not not deter other would-be murderers, its existence allows proper punishment for other crimes to suit the crime, and thus deterrence for the vast majority of crimes that affect the public.
100% of executed murderers have never re-offended.
I would support the death penalty, but only in a very limited way. Proof of guilt would have to be beyond ANY doubt, instead of “reasonable” doubt. Cases such as Lee Rigby’s murderers could qualify.
Edward
What do you think about people that are released from prison having killed someone, and then going on to kill again, or is life cheap for you?
I’ve always believed that the people who are opposed to harsher sentences are generally guilty of something themselves.
Edward, any skeletons in that closet?
That’s the EU for you! That’s political correctness! That’s European ‘Human Rights’ for you!
Because they have killed someone.
Do you support the right of the state or the parents of an unborn child to abort its life for convenience? If so, then please state your case with reference to your blatant inconsistency in allowing cold-blooded murderers to live.
Careful! I detect there might be a lot of murderers here (according to your definition) and you would run a mile if only you knew how many!
In answer to your question; I support the right of a woman to abort her unborn “child”, but not the state or anyone else. I have no knowledge of any powers of the state to force an abortion.
This is very interesting. I wasn’t aware of those surveys that favoured the death penalty in the UK. Of course, it doesn’t surprise me that the BBC would ignore them, or the other side of the debate.
I once watched a documentary on the death penalty/death row in America a few years ago (I’m 99.9% certain it was a BBC production) and it claimed that the proclivity for the death penalty in certain American states was once very low but grew in the 1960s because of the debate over the issue in the UK. I took this information at face value back then, but of course I’m sceptical now. It makes little sense and it’s the BBC. I’ll have to research it a bit more now.
It’s funny how the old argument that “the US is the only first world country with the death penalty” as it’s somehow proof of their depravity and corruption this is repeated and reinforced in all media, like Hollywood movies, television, news media etc. Having read some of the arguments in favour of the death penalty recently it seems to me now to simply to be another stick with which to beat the USA in the cultural sphere. Overall, I think it’s been very effective, many young people with a social conscience will know all about injustice in the American legal system but little over the huge injustices elsewhere in the world, particularly in the Islamic world!
Speaking personally, I’m against the death penalty by inclination anyway. The main reason to me is something like Blackstone’s formulation “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. I think it’s horrible that people innocent of a crime could be put to death, which is always possible.
Still, it’s an interesting debate, and one worth having. For those who favour the death penalty, for which crimes would they favour it and how stringently should it be applied? Should the burden of proof be higher and how many appeals should be allowed? Pity the Beeb couldn’t allow a proper discussion, but also it seems that they couldn’t completely control the narrative as they would’ve liked reading what ChrisH wrote above.
“For those who favour the death penalty, for which crimes would they favour it and how stringently should it be applied?”
Simple answer: Any person who has deliberately killed another human/animal in a psychotic and deliberate manner.
It takes a certain individual to kill someone deliberately, regardless of whether it’s justified or not.
“It’s funny how the old argument that “the US is the only first world country with the death penalty” as it’s somehow proof of their depravity and corruption this is repeated and reinforced in all media”
Shows how the media have a severe lack of research capabilities. I would consider Japan to be first world as is Singapore famously called “Disneyland with the Death Penalty” by William Gibson.
Edward,
Harold Shipman killed over 200 people, surely one wilful murder, for no apparent reason, is enough. Many EU citizens entering this country have no CRB records or past criminal record checks. There will inevitably be multiple murderers amongst them.
I think the deterrent value in the reintroduction of the death penalty should in itself make murderers reconsider their actions more. I might make them think before exercising the dreadful deed and viciously ending another innocent persons life, often without any apparent motive. The exponential rise in murders since its abolition lend much weight to its reintroduction.
The many articles Peter Hichens has produced on the subject are always worth reading. Here is just one example,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2207121/PETER-HITCHENS-Of-course-hanging-wont-end-murders–make-criminals-afraid-carry-guns.html
This has got me thinking, I would suggest that the deterrent value used by advocates of having our own nuclear warheads is very similar to the arguments of deterrence for those advocating the reintroduction of the death penalty. Namely you attack us and we will kill many of you, therefore don’t do it. I find it anomalous that one can be pro nuclear warheads yet anti death penalty! The reasoning is much the same. Off topic a bit but I just thought I would add it into the mix.
Edward, I would be interested to know if you are pro or anti Trident?
You’ll find Edward is anti-Trident. The Left have the same views.
Dover, you are right. The Left have totally predictable identikit opinions.
Wronged, don’t bombard Edward with facts and statistics.
Like all bleeding-heart liberals, he values emotion above reality.
I’m very pro-Trident.
I have just explained (higher up the thread) that murder is blind to consequence. If you believe that a potential murderer will not murder simply because he/she will face the death penalty, then you are grossly naïve!!!
Murderers do not think about how long they will spend in prison or whatever fate awaits them! They murder because they have a NEED to satisfy. A score to settle. It makes no difference what the law states or does to them – murderers get their satisfaction from killing their prey, even if it means they suffer in the long-run.
I agree the BBC’s coverage was indeed one-side. It was then and for a long time afterwards a very controversial issue.
I need to declare my position – I have been opposed to the death penalty since I was aged about 16 when I thought about it seriously for the first time. I thought at the time that the risk of a miscarriage of justice was too high. But even so not every person who killed was hanged. It had to be brutal, planned and deliberate and even then there were exceptions I remember. Maybe with better forensics these days we can be surer we are not accusing the wrong person, but deterrence must be a fear, and the high likelihood, of getting caught. Punishment for this crime must be severe and the guilty should be locked up as punishment for the rest of their natural lives with no parole chances. Light sentences and attempts at rehabilitation only serve to alienate law-abiding people’s faith in justice, and help fuel calls for a return of the death penalty.
I have to admit that in our circumstances today I am probably open to persuasion when it comes to the brutal terrorist murder of the kind we saw in Greenwich, and putting or attempting to put bombs on aircraft for example.
in my view, those who advocate the belief in the rehabilitation of multiple murderers merely show contempt for the families of the murdered and indeed the murdered themselves.
Like Cull the Badgers, I am not in favour of the death penalty, and I thought the report I heard on PM yesterday was disgracefully biased. It tried to give the impression (without explicitly saying so, to allow for subsequent denial) that a few cases had led to a groundswell of public opinion against the death penalty, which I know to be untrue. These cases may well have given some with loud voices a cause to protest, but they never represented public opinion.
“Punishment for this crime must be severe and the guilty should be locked up as punishment for the rest of their natural lives with no parole chances.”
My problem with this option is how do you keep control in the prisons? You’ll have a group of prisoners with no incentive to behave and who know that no matter what they do their punishment cannot be increased.
I’ve never seen this problem discussed in any BBC documentary on capital punishment.
The subject of this thread is capital punishment. Not capital punishment for murder.
In Europe, for many years, crimes have been, and are still being committed, not against individuals, but against whole peoples.
Many thousands of European people have been killed due to these genocidal acts and it is certain that many more will be killed in the future.
On behalf of the indigenous people of Europe I declare that the death penalty is mandatory for treason.
The traitors must receive the full force of the law soon.
(I posted this on the Weekend thread yesterday).
BBC TV 24 Hours News at 12.45pm Monday.
A five minute feature. Fifty years ago today the death penalty in the UK was abolished.
So, all we heard was the argument against the death penalty with many lingering scenes of the scaffold. Much about Ruth Ellis who shot her boyfriend. But no allowance was made by the court of course that the boyfriend had caused her to have a miscarriage. This elevates her to ‘feminist empowered wimmin’ status in the eyes of the BBC.
There was NO mention that most of the UK population supports a reintroduction of the death penalty, particularly for child murderers and terrorists.
As far as the BBC is concerned, they’ve taken the Left wing view (surprise!) that Capital Punishment is wrong and that’s it.
It’s a ‘Settled Science’ as in Global Warming with no debate allowed.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if the BBC took the opposite stance on Capital Punishment? But they never would.
Why? Because thy are heavily biased to the left. Hence Biased BBC!
..
Not that this really has much to do with BBC bias but just a personal view: I was at LSE in 1965 when the death penalty abolition was debated in and passed by the Commons. As you can imagine the students at LSE were mightily exercised and one afternoon Sidney Silverman – the great proponent of abolition attended a debate held by the LSE Students’ Union. He (as later did Roy Jenkins the Home Secretary) assured us and the great British public that “life will mean life” – no ifs, no buts. Manifestly (except in a very few egregious and, worse, highly media-driven cases eg Myra Hindley and Harry Roberts) that promise has been broken.
However, although I was a staunch supporter of the death penalty it was on the basis that a UK government and the justice system generally could be trusted to administer such a regime. I’m afraid my faith in UK governments (politcians and the civil service) and the judges has been sorely tested in the last 20 years and, unfortunately, both fail my tests at any rate. Of course, the BBC would not admit, let alone allow near a microphone uninterrupted, a view that restoration of the death penalty is worthy of discussion let alone should actually be restored. As an observation and returning to the purpose of this blog, the BBC, while censoring views it deems “islamophobic”, is quite happy to broadcast support for those administering capital punshment based on Koranic principles or, worse, simply not report (or not report fully) killings carried out by a Moslem or members of the BAME community. But allow discussion of a possible way to protect the wider, whiter community? Not a chance.
Just a little niggle. Harry Roberts was paroled last year and is out enjoying life and passing his driving test. So all promises of Life meaning Life are worthless , as the daughter of a retired copper and the wife of a retired copper I can breathe again unlike the wives and children of the police today.
My apologies: I thought that, in the end, he hadn’t been released. As we now know “life” doesn’t mean life except, of course, for the widows etc of Roberts’ victims who are forced to live with their loss for the whole of their lives.
Tangentially, what I find interesting are the grounds of his release. Apparently (despite evidence to the contrary cited here) he “posed no risk to the public” and was thereby eligible for release. Quite why those are grounds for release of a murderer defeats me. He wasn’t put inside because he was “dangerous” (although, obviously, he was); he was put inside for murdering 3 policemen. BTW a little light googling reveals why he might have been paroled: the indulgence shown to him is understandable if the Chairman of the Parole Board of England & Wales (one David Calvert-Smith) is typical of the panel which recommended his release.
Calvert-Smith is – you guessed it – a member of the Labour nomenklatura who was DPP in Blair’s first administration and then appointed in 2012 (after a stint as a judge of the High Court) to the Parole Board. As an insight into his core beliefs, in this Telegraph article he tells us why he considers that we’re all institutionally racist. Currently, pursuing his devotion to wrecking European civilisation, he is a member of Curriculum for Cohesion which, from its base at SOAS is “producing a theological philosophy of Islam in multi-faith societies and applying it to address the practical needs of the judiciary, the media and schools”: stirring stuff! As a template for a Gramscian and Common Purpose outfit designed to undermine this country, CfC couldn’t be bettered. With Calvert-Smith’s background and beliefs I’m amazed that any real criminals, especially Moslem ones, (except BBC licence-fee evaders, of course) are still in prison. Calvert-Smith is one of the many cockroaches who have spent their working lives seeking the ruin of this country. You can vote how you like, Calvert-Smith and friends will still rule.
When I was young and people could still be hanged I was passionately against the death penalty. I would not like to see it reintroduced but I do think that life is held more cheaply now. Just some random thoughts – hanging when done properly was a pretty quick death (see for instance Pierrepoint’s memoirs). Derek Bentley – the cause celebre seems to be regarded as an unfortunate young scallywag – but he carried a spiked knuckleduster. Who remembers the name of the policeman who was killed?
PC Sidney Miles, I think his name was. One thing which isn’t often mentioned in the death penalty debate is the arming of the constabulary. Had PC Miles been armed when he had confronted Craig and Bentley, he might well not have been killed, and Bentley might never have needed to hang. But when hanging was abolished, we effectively allowed armed criminals a free run to kill as much as they liked, knowing they would only serve 20 years or so in prison. It wasn’t such an issue at the time, but with our open borders we now have lots of firearms and lots of people willing to use them.
The irony is that the BBC support regimes where the death penalty is normal, even for being gay. Beeboids are the most disgusting hypocrites.
My next door neighbour in Gambia was brutally murdered by her , female, housemate, in cold blood. My wife was the main prosecution witness and I attended every day of the trial. The murderer was sentenced to death but it has not been carried out yet. Everyone who knows the case believes she should be executed. I mention this because I think that anyone who has direct experience of murder finds it more difficult to oppose capital punishment. To see the case, google ” Awa Sanyang, Isatou Bojang murder “
After the death sentence was abolished we were assured murderers would be given ‘life’ and it would mean exactly that. And for a time it did.
The trouble is, give the left-liberal hand-wringers an inch and they’ll take a mile and even then keep on going.
So ask yourself where those ‘life’ sentences are now.
Johnny, Just another Leftie establishment lie. The Left will always side with criminals so long as it does not ruffle their own precious feathers !
G
“The Left will always side with criminals”
Because the Al Beeb types have a criminal, genocidal, history which makes the best efforts of the Mafia, Mexican drug cartels etc. look like apple scrumping.
I believe there’s a strain of opinion in cultural marxism that says all criminals are really just victims of capitalist society. There’s a book, I think called ‘He Kills Coppers’ which touches on this.
The ‘England riots’ really frightened lefties because the gangs came marauding about where they live. It was amazing to see right wingers being eagerly listened to for a spell. Amazingly the Courts actually did their job for once, working around the clock. Back to ‘normal’ now though.
It would seem to be generally accepted that not all killing is the same. Soldiers killing their opponents as an act of warfare is legal, accidental killing is dismissed or classed as manslaughter.
The spectrum of killing ranges from complete accidents, where no reasonable person could have been expected to have acted differently, through to carefully planned and considered cold-blooded killing.
I can’t think of anything more cold-blooded that going through a whole ‘legal’ process to put an individual to death ‘on behalf of society’. At least the conventional murder takes some responsibility for their actions whereas the rest of us would just walk on the other side and leave it to a professional executioner.
I don’t see this as a ‘left/right’ issue either, certain ‘animal rights activists’ and ‘climate change campaigners’ would quite happily see opponents killed. Lamposts lean neither to left or right.
Eli Lap: “Would you kill another man?”
Samuel Lapp: “I would only kill the bad man.”
Eli Lapp: “Only the bad man. I see. And you know these bad men by sight? You are able to look into their hearts and see this badness? ”
Samuel Lapp:” I can see what they do. I have seen it.”
Eli Lapp: “And having seen you become one of them? Don’t you understand? What you take into your hands, you take into your heart.”
And how does ‘The Witness’ end? With a violent conclusion or a peaceful one?
For the gun-totting police, three end up dead.
For the gun-abhorring Amish, no-one dies and life returns to normal the moment the cars drive away.
If John killing Peter is wrong why is it right for Tom, Dick and Harry to pay Albert to kill John? John at least carried out the killing himself; Tom, Dick and Harry just hide behind each other and pretend they aren’t complicit in taking John’s life.
Edward, if the state has no right to kill, has it also the right to imprison or arrest its citizens? Is that not simply state-ordained kidnap? Not trying to impose a strawman – I’m genuinely interested in your view. Personally I am indifferent to the death penalty as I am not sure how much of a deterrent it is. The arming of the constabulary and the control of borders against the import of firearms and foreign criminals is, nowadays at least, a more important issue.
It’s the everyday flouting of the law that concerns me more – cases which are just shrugged off as being a sad sign of the times – such as the recent case of girls on a bus attacking an 87 year old woman. I would prefer to see offenders like that harshly punished with hard labour and the chain-gang.
Cranmer, You sum it up perfectly. I would put it further. If the State has no right to to kill, what right does it have to do anything ? I say this from the view that “The State ” is the servant of the people
If the state has no right to kill, then surely NICE has no right to choose who should live and die based upon the cost of a particular medical treatment? A person with a certain cancer might survive with a treatment that NICE decides is too expensive for the rest of society to provide. NICE has decided to kill them.
Surely no one should be allowed to drive, as there’s always the chance a driver might kill someone through mistake or not through their own fault at all. Does that mean a driver has a right to kill? Certainly many drivers who kill do not get even a prison sentence.
The hypocrisy of the left is well illustrated by their attitude towards abortion. They have no problem with over 200,000 babies being killed each year through abortion but become squeamish when it comes to killing known murderers.
Why do states have a military and armed police if not to kill? Do nuclear weapons ‘wound’? We can no longer execute an evil murderer after a fair trial, but we can threaten to kill millions of civilians with nuclear weapons and that’s moral?
No, the state has a right to remove criminals from society for the safety of everyone, but not to kill them. Is that really a ridiculous position to take?
Edward has no individual views, simply the will to disrupt, as per previous identities shillng for the beeb and taking their shilling.
Their editorial lines are decided by the beeb.
Trolls ar best ignored, but never fed.
What is so offensive about him expressing a different view? The issue of the desirability of capital punishment is hardly clear cut.
I would support the death penalty for what I would call ‘religiously inspired rape or child abuse’.
Regarding certain people who rape children, emulating their supposed prophet, I do not think they add anything to our society. Nothing.
I believe the death penalty would provide a powerful deterrent for them. The current climate sends entirely the opposite signal “we don’t really approve, but please keep it a secret between those in the know, and we’ll turn a blind eye. Just make sure you stick to working class children. Oh yes, remember to vote Labour. Thanks.”.
I wonder how many youths would be slightly less inclined to viciously retaliate with their knives if the crime of wilful murder was punished by death.
There seems a general lack of respect for life by these feral youths, could this be that they have little respect for their own lives because they feel no risk to their lives? If they realised the state held the power to do away with them, an ultimate sanction, they might just feel a bit more vulnerable & thus learn that a life (their own & other people’s) has a value. The problem now is that people feel no risk, an accident is of course someone else’s fault, the state will look after a criminal in cushy modern prisons (when they get built). We are molly-coddled in such a way that the consequences of our stupidity, laxness, or crime has no effect now.
I am though only in favour if a death sentence when there is absolutely infallible proof of the guilt of the suspect. Forensics are getting more & more accurate as decades go by so I hope the risk of an innocent person being given a death sentence should be getting less & less.
Some people consider the consequences of everything they do, to the extent that they can do nothing. Some people would saw off the branch that they were sitting on. Most of us are somewhere in between.
What makes people criminals? Could it be that they are incapable of associating an action with its consequences? It is ‘obvious’ to me that that if I was caught on the street with a sheath knife I would find myself up before a magistrate at the very least. In fact, I hardly need to think about doing it, I just know it isn’t a good idea. Probably any policemen seeing me would also know that I wouldn’t be carrying a knife, so chances are if I did I would get away with it.
I can only conclude that someone who acts like the ‘bad guy’ profile and carries a knife in the sort of places that the police patrol is either an idiot or, more likely, doesn’t do joined-up thinking. I don’t think introducing the death penalty would make much difference to them. Indeed it ought to be obvious to every ‘boy racer’/’joy rider’ that there is a high risk of self-execution yet they still do it.
Best response so far!!! Agree 100%.
JimS, The boy racer example is very good. They actually don’t believe they will crash. People who plan a murder as opposed to crimes of passion do not believe they will be caught so it doesn’t matter the punishment. You must however acknowledge that there are a certain percentage of folks who will consider the possible result of their actions and forego killing to avoid the death penalty.
I forget the details as it was over 40 years ago but a man in New England drove his wife to a neighboring state which did not have the death penalty. He pulled the car over and shot her and quietly waited for the State Police to come along and arrest him. This was long before prisons had cable TV and Internet and college courses and lawyers who were willing to sue the state if you are unhappy with the cuiisine or prayer accomodations.
I know many people say capital punishment is not a deterrent. Wish we could ask that guys wife her opinion.
Let’s just suppose 5% of folks would be deterred and hope our spouses are in that group.
Having said that I believe it should be reserved for really heinous crimes and only in absolutely beyond any doubt as opposed to reasonable doubt.
“People who plan a murder as opposed to crimes of passion do not believe they will be caught so it doesn’t matter the punishment.”
Not true. Most murders are not carried out for the sake of killing someone – for the fun of killing. People murder irrespective of the potential punishment, and for many reasons. They murder because they have a NEED to kill their victim, regardless of the consequences.
Interesting to note that Washington DC in the USA has the death penalty but the HIGHEST rates of gun violence.
But don’t take my word for it, take a look at this link and make your own mind up: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
The relationship between knowing you will die if you kill someone, and being in a hopeless situation, is toxic! It’s a no-lose gamble! If you don’t get caught you win – if you get caught you win. Like putting a lame dog out of its misery.
Edward
The message at the end of the day from the ‘posters’ on this site is………………….. ‘your slip is showing’ .
You are Al Beeb’s duty officer on ‘nights’ .
Why we do we all think that Al Beeb comedy is not funny any more?
Well Al Beeb may have the answer ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34766361
Notice that the number of unlawful killings increased after the death penalty was abolished .
IE; even though some crimes were graded down to for example manslaughter, the amount of souls extinguished went up .
A simple way to concentrate the parole boards minds when deciding whether to allow another criminal to be free on our streets is to make them go into prison for the same length of time as the b@$t^d they inflicted on us if he reoffends .
It’s interesting to know that capital punishment is written into EU legislation; for, I think, activities against this communist entity. So, for normal people, the death penalty is anathema but for the EU communists it’s quite all right.
My only argument against the death penalty is the risk of executing the innocent. More so if the executed person is considered better for everyone to be out of the way, someone who might point to the real culprit. However, cases like the murder of Lee Rigby are clear cut examples where death is deserved.
This aside, I follow the Kant/Hegel retribution view. Punishment should neither be to reform or to deter; it is the criminal’s right, and in being punished the wrongdoing has been justifiably rewarded. Punishment, including the death penalty, treats the murderer as a rational being, capable of anticipating the outcome of his or her actions. It should not be therapy.
As for the best way to execute – I did some research on hanging. When carried out correctly, as under UK requirements, hanging did not choke the prisoner to death, it severed the connection between the brainstem and the spinal column such that instant death occurred. The twitching of the body had no connection to residual life – unless you share the medieval view of an additional spinal soul.
Here is a link to a study of hanging. Note that in many countries, eg Iran, hanging is performed in a deliberately cruel way. But as this report concludes, British judicial hanging is the most humane.
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/hanging2.html
From the report
Conclusions.
Carried out carefully and humanely, using an accurately measured drop and modern noose, hanging is arguably the least cruel way to execute a criminal. In 20th century Britain, the whole process was over extremely quickly and every effort was made to minimise the person’s mental and physical suffering. However, as can be seen from the examples cited above, it can also be a very cruel death, if either botched or carried out in such a way as to intentionally cause suffering. It is probable that the countries that execute criminals using little or no drop in public do so in the hope of achieving maximum deterrence and feel that the criminal should be made to suffer for what they have done.
One of the interesting things in the film ‘Let Him Have It’ about the execution of Derek Bentley was the way the execution was showed without Hollywood emotion. Bentley was allowed to pray briefly with a clergyman, and then given a shot of rum and marched briskly to the gallows. The whole process took only a couple of minutes. I don’t know how correct this is – the film was probably trying to show how clinical it all was – but it struck me that if ever there can be such a thing as a humane execution, that was one. Indeed one of the great achievements of 19th century reformers was to cease the practice of execution as a form of public entertainment.
Bloody Nora! Is that an admission that the death penalty should be quick and painless? Yeah, great!
Why go all the way to Dignitas in Switzerland when you can kill someone you don’t like here in the UK and get a painless death sentence.
Isn’t there any solace in being imprisoned for life and being forced to actually live in misery than to be exterminated by the state swiftly and painlessly, saving you from years of suffering?
Or do you actually believe that Satan will deal with them?
Blimey, early start or what?
Sorry, that’s a question. I know they are only permitted one way from certain quarters.
This living thing… a condition denied the victims… Does it by chance involve room, board, three squares, the company of like minded psychos, parole and free tv, licence paid?
You are right, with that latter, misery indeed.
I work late shifts. Probably an alien concept to you, but some people do work through the night. I haven’t been to bed yet, so I’m actually late – not early.
I understand the prison luxury argument. But that’s a civilised society for you – rehabilitation. If the system isn’t successful, you don’t automatically bring in the death penalty – you change the system.
Isn’t there any solace in being imprisoned for life…
It rarely means life these days (see my post above). Don’t say you hadn’t noticed?
I did notice, and I read it. It didn’t warrant a reply.
Ah, so you ignore my post saying life no longer means life in the vast majority of cases i.e. the facts, then later in the thread do your own post saying it does i.e. in denial of the facts.
How very odd, but typical of Leftie Logic Deficit Disorder where if reality is too uncomfortable you can always retreat to your fantasy comfort zone of inverted truths and rewritten history.
I used to be in favour of judicial execution of murderers but not so much now. The Birmingham 6, for instance, would have been executed but enough doubt was thrown over their guilt, and if they are innocent it would have been too late to save them. Although I have very strong doubts over their innocence, there is enough to query the original guilty verdict to agree that their execution would have been a judicial calamity. That’s why I am less convinced by its re-introduction although the Woolwich murderers were clear enough and should have been rubbed out.
I do believe that anyone committing murder in cold blood should be locked up for life (whole life until death) and placed in single cells, more like dungeons where they are fed on starvation rations. Only one appeal allowed. They can never be allowed out of their cell for exercise, visitors or anything which would prevent prospect of escape. Edward and fellow-lefties wouldn’t be able to complain: after all the state is not executing these people, but as long as they are inside they cannot kill again and by keeping them alive this way the taxpayers are only funding bread and water. These awful prisons would have to be built as there is nothing so draconian left.
If the prisoners smear excrement around their cells (like some IRA ones did) they would have to live with it or clean it themselves. Reduced rations for a week if they do.
So Edward, judicious execution or allow these evil people to live for up to 70 years, maybe, in these inhumane conditions? What would you choose for them? Anything softer would be an encouragement for them to murder, and any who believe murderers should come out in less than 10 years, as now, should proudly consider themselves as accessories to the crime.
Excellent post Demon!
I’m not a leftie. I did vote Conservative last election and voted UKIP in the European election. You might not believe that, but if you think that standing up for people’s rights automatically makes me a leftie (socialist even?), you have a lot to learn about libertarianism. That’s why I’m here at the Biased BBC blog. Because I believe (and have done since the 70’s) that the BBC is biased towards the left of politics.
But there is also bias amongst the regulars here. I would also say there is bias amongst the admins here too.
I agree with your proposal that prisoners are left to clean up their own shitty mess. If they infect themselves with their own disease then tough shit! However, I don’t agree that they should be locked up in dungeons. It’s a balancing act between removing criminals from society for the safety of the nation and making them pay for their crimes in a civilised manner.
If someone said to me that killing a serious offender was necessary to avoid the costs to the taxpayer of trying to rehabilitating them, I would say KILL THEM!
But the rhetoric here is always the same – kill them because they deserve it!!!
That is Sharia Law speak.