I’ve discussed this on occasion before.
There are times when a crime is so egregious – the recent Southport murders, for example – when I would happily see the perpetrator executed for his crimes. Indeed the savagery we are importing from the third world brings out my inner savage, because I fail to see why we should allow the third world to pollute what had become a decent, civilised society. I watch in despair as it slides into the chaos of the places from which these people came.
However, I digress. The death penalty. The ultimate sanction. Sounds fine in principle – an eye for an eye and once executed, recidivism is solved – along with not having to pay for years of bed and board. I recall recently a post by someone I used to work with offering his services on behalf of the crown to pull the lever. I’m sure there are plenty of others.
This is, however, an emotive response. An understandable one and I do share it. But, but but… This is the state we are talking about. The state is not our friend. The state will, sooner or later, execute an innocent individual. It’s done it before, it will do so again if it has the power of life and death. After all, we know that innocent people languish in prison. We have seen enough of them released years later when the inevitable collapse of the case against them happens.
So, no, I don’t want a return to capital punishment. I dislike the state and do not trust it. I certainly am not willing to let it have the ultimate sanction. Life, however, should mean life without parole.
So, here we are, returning to this subject and my position remains unchanged from the last time we discussed it.
I suspect that miscarriages of justice are more common than we realise. How many innocents are incarcerated without us ever being aware? The police don’t exactly have a reputation for either competence or honesty now do they?
My feelings exactly. I simply do not trust them or the system in which they work.
Excellent post and one l agree with on every point – particularly pleased to see you recognise the emotional component and the unreliability of the state.
My concern is more to do with the human element in the process – always the potential for error, lies or simple bad intent and because of that there will (for me at least) always be an element of doubt which renders allowing the system to take someone’s life unsafe.
That said, l have no sympathy at all for the perpetrators of the worst types of crime only that those who are genuinely innocent have the opportunity to clear themselves at some point in the future.
I agree. For example the Derek Bentley case.
I used to support Capital Punishment,but changed my mind slowly as I learned how many innocent have been caught in the trap of the law. I just wish that Judges would give longer sentences , particularly when the victim is a young child.The whole life sentences served by Hindley and Brady were correct. As far as the increasing volume of criminality carried out by the new diverse population is concerned, I wonder if the politicians who seem to be encouraging or making no attempt to stop the flood of immigrants ,think that they and their families are immune from harm. Some of them may think again when one of their children is attacked.
There have been those given the death penalty who were later proven innocent by DNA, shows the fallibility of the justice system. But now, it’s going the other way. California is considering a bill that would allow prisoners sentenced to life without parole to apply for parole as long as they have served 25 years and only murdered one or two people. Not a joke. as long as the person did not murder an LEO or three or more people they can apply.
The risk of wrongful conviction is certainly a concern. But every convicted murderer who goes on to kill again (maybe in prison) makes another dead victim which might have been avoided.
The question is what number of wrongful convictions (that could result in execution) exist and what number of post conviction further homicides exist. Until you have a reasonable grasp of those figures all the conversations on the subject are driven by emotion. I’ve looked for such numbers and they are hard to find, possibly because some people don’t want to have the debate.
Perhaps because the state doesn’t want us to know just how fallible the system is. After all, ultimately twelve people have to make a decision based on the evidence before them and if that evidence is flawed or incomplete, then a miscarriage can occur. In the twentieth century, we have some high profile cases – Edith Thompson, Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans for example. James Hanratty used to be cited, but we now know that he wasn’t wrongfully convicted, so we can rule him out. Since the cessation of the death penalty we have the Birmingham Six and the infanticide cases in the nineties all of which in earlier times would likely have resulted in the death penalty. That’s rather too many for my liking. In the case of the latter two examples, the evidence was fabricated (although I’d cheerfully see Prof Meadows dangling from a lamp post), which makes it even more worrying.
Knowing that the system is flawed at best and at worst downright fraudulent, I am not happy to see the state granted the right to kill people. Nor am I willing to see a balance of numbers taken. I agree that there is a risk of post conviction homicide, as I mentioned recidivism in the original post. Don’t let them out again is the first step. Then it’s a matter of assessing the risk. Some prisoners are kept in permanent solitary confinement because of this risk. Sure, they might get it wrong. Nothing is completely risk proof, but as it stands, even playing the numbers game, I remain unconvinced that the state should be executing people.
On one hand, perhaps the state is already executing people? David Kelly’s ‘suicide’ after he challenged Blair’s weapons of mass destruction announcement, springs to mind.
On the other hand, the now revealed apparent weakness of Lucy Letby’s conviction for infanticide shows the state may not always be right.
A debate that could go on for ever.
I agree with your statements. I don’t trust the state at all.
My view is that anyone who has murdered someone never gets out. They serve their time in a 6×6 concrete cell with a toilet and a bed. They can have access to books and a phone but they never leave that cell unless they need medical treatment or are dead. Visitors can be on a video call once a month max and they don’t get any calls otherwise.
Then if they are found innocent they can be released and the case examined and if plod or anyone else lied or set them up they serve the sentence the innocent person got.
For ordinary crimes they get time which they serve fully and bad behaviour adds to the sentence rather than good believer reducing it. The downside of this is people won’t go easily but if you know the punishment then you are less likely to do the crime. At the moment people are getting off and that isn’t a deterrent. Two Tier Kier is destroying the justice system.
“…we know that innocent people languish in prison.”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-01/fontana-police-coerced-false-murder-confession-with-lies
If the police can get a man to confess to a murder that didn’t happen, how much more likely is it that they can get somebody to confess when there really has been a crime? And having confessed, what are their chances of a fair trial?
For what it’s worth I have no fundamental problems with capital punishment, I certainly have no moral issues.
It’s true that people have been wrongly executed, but people have been murdered by murderers who have subsequently been released (around 150 since capital punishment was abolished, I believe). Yes, I know if life actually meant life, which was the “understanding” when capital punishment was abolished, but that clearly was never the intention…..a sign of what was to come perhaps.
But I don’t think the issue actually is capital punishment. I would posit that arguments about capital punishment – one way or the other – are a rather subtle form of gaslighting for “rights”, which in practice means the accursed and poisonous ECHR (I know it was founded with good and genuine intentions, but of all the institutions that have been polluted, it is surely the one that has been most destructively weaponized).
The judiciary – like the police – should not be directly political and should be distanced, and in the case of the judiciary, independent of government (at least that’s my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong).
On paper, I’m sure they are, but in practice they are a prisoner of “rights” which can be and constantly are used to override any principle of justice, ACTUAL rights and established law.
“Rights” these days appear to be applicable only to “minorities” (the obvious ones, but anybody – apart from the majority white men – can be deemed a “minority” when it suites).
I believe this essentially is why we are where we are, and I would be very interested to know how “rights” have been misused in the recent events (as they so screamingly, obviously have been).
Farage did raise the issue of a referendum on the ECHR, and if he wants an issue on which he can focus and which can genuinely separate reform from the globo-filth and its uni-party whores, this surely is it.
A manifesto pledge to hold a referendum probably is all that is needed.
It would be THE red rag to the globo-filth bull and I can only imagine the hysteria it would generate. I can think of nothing else that would have them crawling from under their rocks into the light of day.
Many years ago at school, I recall an experiment to measure the number of worms in a given area. A potassium permanganate solution was poured into a measured area and the worms came very quickly (for worms!) to the surface to be counted.
I don’t see why these far more insidious worms can’t be similarly flushed out.
If we accept that the system is imperfect, which it is, then the death penalty is not acceptable, we must leave provision for a faulty verdict to be corrected.
But murder is the ultimate crime, so should carry the most severe sentence. I suggest a minimum of 25 years, plus however many years of life the victim was denied. So if I kill a 60 year-old, I would get the basic 25 years, plus another 20 or so. If I kill a 5-year-old, I would get the 25 years, plus another 75 years. Multiple victims would be counted separately for that second component.
A further refinement would be that anyone convicted of murder would be able to request euthanasia at any point in their sentence. That way, the state isn’t ever killing anyone, they had the option to live in jail until their natural death occurred.