The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?
It's a well known debate within the UK, and has been since its abolition since 1965, but the question still remains of whether the death penalty is morally wrong, or a necessary punishment for inexcusable crimes.
The sentence itself was abolished in the mid-1960's, but only for murder accusations. Now, it has been completely abolished since 1998, even for military offences and acts of treason. This was subject to New Labour signing up for the Human Rights Act, which denounces capital punishment for the reasons of all humans having:
-the right to life [and]
-the right not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment [*]
However, as much as I believe every law abiding citizen has the right to these ideologies, I cant help but state my own views on this matter, especially after recently discussing this with a few friends of mine the other day.
Lets take terrorists for example. There is no doubt in my mind that those responsible for the July 7th bombings should be sentenced to capital punishment. Why? Because of two simple reasons. The first being...why should someone (who has murdered an innocent victim, and denied that person his/her human rights of life) be allowed to proceed sentencing under the Human Rights Act itself? The terrorist clearly doesn't believe in Human Rights, so why should he be given the benefits of saving his life under this Act in the first place?
And the second is this......how is it fair that an innocent man is killed, but yet a murderer is allowed his rights of life, which no doubt, because of the politically correct Judges in this country, will also be allowed out of prison within 8 years?
I'm a firm believer that harsh punishment is un-necessary, but if someone has murdered an innocent British civilian for the cause of their own satisfaction...then the line has to be drawn some-where. In my opinion, the American legal system is exactly what Britain needs; where if an individual kills an innocent civilian in unjust circumstances, then that individual will be tried and sentenced to death (if found guilty).
As for the anti-death penalty campaigners...all i can say is this: you have obviously never known what it's like to lose someone close to you when terrorists tragically take their life away. Britain should have the death penalty, because in my opinion, those who have no regards for life get exactly what they deserve.
[*] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 3 and 5
What resource of punishment should Britain take for serious offences?
The sentence itself was abolished in the mid-1960's, but only for murder accusations. Now, it has been completely abolished since 1998, even for military offences and acts of treason. This was subject to New Labour signing up for the Human Rights Act, which denounces capital punishment for the reasons of all humans having:
-the right to life [and]
-the right not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment [*]
However, as much as I believe every law abiding citizen has the right to these ideologies, I cant help but state my own views on this matter, especially after recently discussing this with a few friends of mine the other day.
Lets take terrorists for example. There is no doubt in my mind that those responsible for the July 7th bombings should be sentenced to capital punishment. Why? Because of two simple reasons. The first being...why should someone (who has murdered an innocent victim, and denied that person his/her human rights of life) be allowed to proceed sentencing under the Human Rights Act itself? The terrorist clearly doesn't believe in Human Rights, so why should he be given the benefits of saving his life under this Act in the first place?
And the second is this......how is it fair that an innocent man is killed, but yet a murderer is allowed his rights of life, which no doubt, because of the politically correct Judges in this country, will also be allowed out of prison within 8 years?
I'm a firm believer that harsh punishment is un-necessary, but if someone has murdered an innocent British civilian for the cause of their own satisfaction...then the line has to be drawn some-where. In my opinion, the American legal system is exactly what Britain needs; where if an individual kills an innocent civilian in unjust circumstances, then that individual will be tried and sentenced to death (if found guilty).
As for the anti-death penalty campaigners...all i can say is this: you have obviously never known what it's like to lose someone close to you when terrorists tragically take their life away. Britain should have the death penalty, because in my opinion, those who have no regards for life get exactly what they deserve.
[*] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 3 and 5
What resource of punishment should Britain take for serious offences?
posted by James.R.Skinner at 7:56 pm
31 Comments:
Here is something I posted on Raw Carrot's blog some time ago:
"If a person is imprisoned for life (where life actually means life) then what is the point of keeping them alive in prison. They don’t contribute anything to society and they actually cost taxpayers money in prison upkeep costs, food bills etc. Except for the liberal argument that “oh they could have been wrongly convicted,” the only reason for keeping a prisoner alive in prison for life is to satisfy the morality of a few. Should taxpayers money be wasted on the dregs of society just because someone has a little sniffle at the thought that a mass murderer or rapist might hang?"
Murders, rapists, criminals forfeit their human rights (if there really is such a concept) when they commit a crime.
I quite agree with what you say Chris, alot of the tax payers money is spent on keeping murderers alive in prison...money which could be used else-where, and not on those who have "forfeit their human rights".
Cold blooded murderers should be given the death penalty, and not kept alive just because a Liberal minority feel it is morally correct to do so.
[Chris Palmer]: when you say rapists should be given capital punsihment, do you mean those that rape and then kill their victims?
If they dont kill their victims, then i feel giving them the death penalty is pretty harsh; they havent killed anybody after all! I think a life sentence would be more appropriate for this sort of crime. I would be interested to hear your opinion on this matter.
anonymous, my original on Raw Carrot's website was in reference to Ian Huntley style raping/murdering - so in that respect, people such as he, if guilty, should receive capital punishment.
As I explained above, why give someone a life sentence? They are an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer - and usual their crime is so heinous that they deserve far worse than prison. Obviously the circumstances might differ from case to case.
Perhaps you might like to login/add a real name to your anonymity next time?
Im all for the death penalty, but we also have to consider that there maybe a slight chance that the wrong person is found guilty and sentenced to death. What if we do get it wrong, and convict an innocent man to death for a crime we didnt commit?
A good point you make there Peter, but then again...we also have to notice that these days, where forensic science is growing stronger and stronger, convicting the wrong person is very unlikely indeed. When you consider the amount of potential evidence there is these days (forensics, DNA testing, CCTV camera's, Tyco Testing, e.t.c) then convicting the wrong criminal for a murder is very unlikely, so there is very little chance of putting an innocent man to death when you consider these circumstances.
The terrorist clearly doesn't believe in Human Rights, so why should he be given the benefits of saving his life under this Act in the first place?
Well, I take your point, but frankly I don't give a monkeys what the terrorists believe, it's what we believe that matters (imho) and I don't believe in murder, period. And state conducted or sanctioned execution is murder. This implies that we should have enough confidence in our own beliefs to stick with them, but some of the tactics being employed in this 'war on terror' show clearly that we don't - a very minor example of this was the failure of the police immediately to arrest those inciting hatred and murder in public on our streets a few weeks ago when protesting (which they have every right to do, peacefully) against the publication of some cartoons offensive to them. The increasingly tortuous logic used by the US administration to seek to justify the continuation of a policy of holding terrorist suspects at its base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the sole purpose of keeping this matter away from the jurisdiction of the US justice system is a far more serious blemish on our self-proclaimed devotion to democratic norms of justice, because the US administration clearly belives (perhaps justifiedly) that its justice system is insufficently robust to deal with the very real threat that terrorists pose. Personally I am at least as uneasy about the quasi-dictatorial powers our own government is seeking to railroad through Parliament - these will still be on the State Book long after the 'war on terror' is won, if it ever is.
State Book should of course have read 'Statute Book'
"...state conducted or sanctioned execution is murder".
Wrong, in my opinion, merciless exectution by the killer himself is murder...state execution is simply justice.
And i would also like to refere to when you said you "dont give a monkeys what the terrorists belive"...call me paranoid, but i do care what the terrorists belive; if they believe that bombing innocent civilians and threatening our security is acceptable, then i can see no other alternative suitable for these cutthroat murderers other than capital punishment.
I do feel that murderers should be given the death penalty, but where do we draw the line? After all, its all very well saying that those who kill must be killed, but what about if some radical (from the BNP for instance) wants pedophiles to be humg by the neck. Should they be killed too?
I'm sorry, is one of the arguements for the death penalty that humans an be expencive to look after? It seems to me morally abhorant that you wish the state to be able to execute someone because they cost the taxpayer money. James, you claim to be Christian, but you seem to have never heard of the sanctity of Human life. Fine, if they commited murder, then they should recieve life a life sentence, as there are very few circumstances where murder would be the most loving thing to do (killing Hitler before he came to power would, perhaps be ethically justifiable). But to then say that the murderer should be killed because they cost too much to look after is beyond belief. Retribution should not be the basis of a justice system, as "an eye for an eye, and the world becomes blind".
"But to then say that the murderer should be killed because they cost too much to look after is beyond belief." - Anthroprax
Why? As already discussed, if they receive a life sentance, is there any point in keeping them alive? Why not give the money that would have gone to pay for prison costs for that person to charity?
Murderers do cost alot of money to be kept in prison Anthropax, but that is not the main reason why I feel they should be executed. They should be executed because they have taken away the life of an innocent civilian. If an innocent civilian is denied his right of life, then why should a murderer be allowed his?
Furthermore, you claim that i am an unworthy Christian because I have never heard of the "sanctity of Human life". Before you make such remarks again, I would ask that you refere to Revelation 13:10...
"if any man puts to death with the sword, with the sword will he be put to death".
Or alternatively, if you happen to be a Christian, Jesus said:
"Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword."
"Let him without sin cast the first stone"
"Forgive them not just seven times, but seventy times seven"
"Hate the sin, Love the sinner"
oh, and 'he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword' is not a call for the death penalty. It is a warning against violence. Christ argues againt the retributive nature of justice at His time. You may have heard of "turning the other cheeck" perhaps?
Well, since I'm not a Christian, none of the above is applicable to me.
I quite agree with the Bible on these points Anthropax, after all, the Bible does teach us to forgive.
However, the Bible also claims that he who sins (but repents) shall be forgiven. What if a murderer doesn't repent?
As an obvious example, take Osama Bin Laden. He has no remorse for the pain and suffering he has caused through terrorist attacks, and because of his evil beliefs; never will. Does that mean that he should be forgiven by the rest of the world, and if caught, sentenced to life imprisonment? Surely not. The only sentence for a man that evil is death. After all, in your last comment, you claimed that Hitler should have been killed, so why should it be any different for Bin Laden?
At the request of James I will throw my penny-worth in.
My feeling is that the Death Penalty is wrong. Life is sacred and I struggle to find any good reason to kill someone.
I prefer to take the forgiveness approach myself, but maybe I am being naive in thinking that everyone would repent of their actions and not reoffend if you give them a second chance.
Now that I have voiced agreement with Royston I need to sit down and have a breather before continuing to prepare for an interview tomorrow.
As a Christian, I am naturally horrified by the very notion of capital punishment. It is utterly barbaric that a State should murder one who has murdered.
You seem to suggest that prisoners' lives are not worth living. I think you are wrong. Prisoners are given and indeed take up the Christian faith, and repent for their sins, thus opeing the way to Eternal Life.
May the Lord enter your life, as you are obviously in need of a bit of grace, my dear chap.
"Prisoners are given and indeed take up the Christian faith, and repent for their sins, thus opeing the way to Eternal Life" - John Browne
This one always makes me laugh. How many of those "born again Christians" actually believe, and how many are just saying such so they can get an early release?
James,
I have a few problems with the death penalty.
Primarily, I believe in trying to create a better future. The idea that someone can repent and reject the acts they carried out, and become a better person. Prison acts as both an effective deterrent, protection and punishment.
Secondly, science moves on. Nothing is ever completely proven. Only as far back as 1991, it was shown that the Birmingham Six evidence was discredited. I could cite the recent case of Roy Meadow and Sally Clark.
Thirdly, the death row option is no cheaper.
Fourthly, it does not act as any greater deterrent. Is murder less frequent in states with the death penalty?
Fifthly, there is the risk that people will not convict murderers, on the basis that they consider it likely that the murderer will be executed. That juries may have members who object to the death penalty, and will choose to release a suspect instead of convicting them.
"Primarily, I believe in trying to create a better future. The idea that someone can repent and reject the acts they carried out, and become a better person. Prison acts as both an effective deterrent, protection and punishment." - Tim Almond
Yet, if a person has murder another, the dead cannot be brought back to life.
Using your own analogy later on, you say that the death penalty has not deterred criminals. In this country, proven by a rising crime rate, prison does not deter either.
The problem is, in this country, that prison sentences when applicable are far too lenient. It goes beyond belief that a murder can be given "life" and then be let out on "good behaviour" after only 7 years - if that.
"Secondly, science moves on. Nothing is ever completely proven. Only as far back as 1991, it was shown that the Birmingham Six evidence was discredited. I could cite the recent case of Roy Meadow and Sally Clark." - Tim Almond
You cite a very small minority of cases. As a whole, evidence gathering and science is allowing sentencing to be far more accurate as time progresses.
"Thirdly, the death row option is no cheaper." - Tim Almond
Quite why you think this..? Which do you think is cheaper for the taxpayer, a one month visit to death row with an injection at the end, or perhaps 40 years plus of comfort in jail?
"Fourthly, it does not act as any greater deterrent. Is murder less frequent in states with the death penalty?" - Tim Almond
Crime rates in the US, like in the UK, have been increasing - though would have increased further if it had not been for the death penalty.
Of course, the death penalty will not deter all - but then no punishment will deter some. However, the types that will not be detered and will commit murder, deserve death.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the comments. I'll just post my final thoughts on this. We may just have to disagree on this.
Using your own analogy later on, you say that the death penalty has not deterred criminals. In this country, proven by a rising crime rate, prison does not deter either.
Mostly because prison too often fails in one important respect - reforming prisoners. Incarcerating prisoners for a time and then releasing them later does not mean that their behaviour has been changed. Confronting a criminal with the victims of their crimes is almost never done, for instance.
The problem is, in this country, that prison sentences when applicable are far too lenient. It goes beyond belief that a murder can be given "life" and then be let out on "good behaviour" after only 7 years - if that.
Often, sentencing is too lenient, I agree. I'm not against more sentences for life, I'm against executions.
You cite a very small minority of cases. As a whole, evidence gathering and science is allowing sentencing to be far more accurate as time progresses.
So, you don't mind if it's you, a friend or relative of yours that is a victim of such a mistake? At least a life sentence allows for a mistake to be somewhat rectified.
Which do you think is cheaper for the taxpayer, a one month visit to death row with an injection at the end, or perhaps 40 years plus of comfort in jail?
Except that in the USA this doesn't happen. There is a long process, because if you're going to execute someone, you want to be even more certain of the conviction. I don't believe that any home secretary would approve a death without such a process here.
Crime rates in the US, like in the UK, have been increasing - though would have increased further if it had not been for the death penalty.
If you compare states in the US that have the death penalty with those without, has there been a drop in the crime rate? If not, then it doesn't work as a deterrent any more than prison does.
"So, you don't mind if it's you, a friend or relative of yours that is a victim of such a mistake? At least a life sentence allows for a mistake to be somewhat rectified" - Tim Almond.
How would you feel if it was a friend or a relative of yours that was victim to a murder? You surely cannot tell me that the death penalty wouldn't cross your mind.
That's why justice is not administered by the relatives of victims, or the victims themselves.
Is this the message board of the BNP. I've never read such facist disgusting views. The Tories are pure racist, fascist war-mongering scum!
Your entitled to your views, but please inform me how agreeing with the death penalty is "racist, fascist" and "war-mongering".
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
At its base, the death penalty is barbarous, and so has no place in a civilized society. That is the first point: it is simply wrong.
The feeling of needing revenge, while very natural, is one that tends to drive the next murder, and so on. "An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind." Civilized people should be able to lift themselves above that, although losing a friend or loved one by murder is extremely difficult.
Wasting money on keeping people in prison for life is another fallacy. Governments waste vast sums on far more ridiculous things at far greater rates, and any rational approach would assail that waste first. And I am not convinced that a life in prison is all that comfortable.
What drives many murders is stressors from the other parts of people's lives. Most of those stressors are things which our society imposes on people, forcing them to do things that are not natural for healthy human beings. Deal with that and the rate of muders will generally fall dramatically.
There is absolutely no credible evidence that the death penalty reduces rates of murder, and to decide to kill people for convenience and to reduce taxpayer expenditure has overtones of political systems we don't want to be part of. Why not euthanase people in government hospitals that will cost above some set amount to deal with? Why not euthanase the unemployed, those on welfare and those retired and living on the pension? Does one forfeit one's human rights is one costs the government money?
No state has the right to take a life, especially where any doubt about the guilt of the intended victim exists. As an all-too-high proportion of people on America's death rows are often shown to be either innocent of the crime or to have mitigating circumstances which would have precluded any consideration of the death penalty, the system is far too open to misuse and abuse. The criminal code stipulates "beyond reasonable doubt", not totally without doubt, and doubt is all too often present. If you want to dispose of this as "the morality of the few," where does the state's killing spree end?
I am sorry, but If completely proven with evidence in all cases such as witnesses, camera's and D.N.A, I do not see how anyone think's that the person caught in the act of murder is worthy of being kept alive.
I feel murder is wrong - yes, when killing an innocent person. But when the person has killed someone, they are NOT innocent. How do they deserve the rights of what they have just taken away from someone else?
This country is full of hypocrocy. There are so many people that spend their lives saying killers should be forgiven, and then as soon as one of their relatives is killed they suddenly change their mind and feel the killer should be executed. So basically they think it's fine for someone to murder, as long as it does not affect them.
As for remorse - Firstly any killer who is not an idiot is going to show remorse even if they are not sorry, as they think it gives them a better chance of being kept alive. But secondly, if they are truly sorry - who cares. Is a guilty murderer showing remorse going to make the family of the murdered person feel better? No. Is it going to bring back the dead person? No.
"An eye for an eye and the world is blind!" - Well better a blind world with justice, rather than a world with one eye full of hypocrocy and injustice.
Post a Comment
<< Home