Death Penalty: The Debate Is On...

Noose

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 04/08/11 20:30 BST Updated: 04/10/11 11:12 BST

Nearly 42-years after execution was officially abolished in the UK, and 47 years since Peter Anthony Allen and Gwynne Owen Evans became the last recipients of the state’s ultimate act of retribution, the death penalty, it seems, is back on the agenda.

The first act of the e-petition, designed to prompt government into providing greater representation for its citizens, may well be to re-open an issue that many thought had been assigned to history… or at least marginalised to the Letters Page of the mid-market tabloids.

Apparently not, with capital punishment topping the list of demands on the government’s new website, which offers a parliamentary debate to suggestion that receive more than 100,000 signatories. Some commentators have suggested that the inclusion of the death penalty it is nothing more than a publicity stunt, a product of the right wing blogosphere looking to rile and rankle their opposition.

Still, the issue deserves investigation, even if some of the other proposals – a bread and water diet for prisoners and the reinstatement of Formula 1 to the BBC – suggest that the e-petition project may not engender the most lettered deliberations. Of course they won't. After all, who could possibly support the return of the death penalty?

Actually… quite a few.

Writing in today’s Daily Mail, Leader of the House of Commons Sir George Young argues that some people have strong opinions and it “does not serve democracy well if we ignore them or pretend that their views do not exist."

Quite right. The counter argument suggests that the e-petition affords those with fringe views the chance to set the agenda. There is, of course, the possibility that people do want a genuine debate on capital punishment.

The move has some political backing. Speaking to The Huffington Post, Simon Darby of the British National Party said: “we certainly are in favour of the death penalty but only in certain cases, for example the murder of children where evidence was substantiated by DNA.”

UKIP has a more measured view. “We would certainly put it to a referendum”, a spokesman said.

UKIP member Paul Nuttall, an MEP from the Wirral, has added his name to the e-petition, saying "I am in favour of restoring the death penalty for child and serial killers. I think capital punishment is needed for such heinous crimes and I know that many other people feel the same."

Moving in from the political fringe, Conservative MP Priti Patel has also come out in favour of the restoration of capital punishment, as have her Tory stable-mates Andrew Turner and Philip Davies.

Writing in today’s Times Newspaper, Paul Stains, the blogger who tabled the petition, argues that “capital punishment is the classic example of the disconnect between politicians and people. Most MPs oppose it while a majority of the public has supported it ever since abolition in the Sixties.”

He may well have a point. The death penalty does appear to have some traction with the public; a YouGov report published last year found that 51 per of UK citizens would support the reinstatement of the death penalty for murder, with only 37 per cent opposing the move.

So is the public clambering for the death penalty? Not according to Neil Durking of Amnesty International. Speaking to The Huffington Post he said: “Snap opinion poles are usually taken after a particularly horrible crime, and even then participants are usually only asked a very simple question. That’s not a real debate – when people learn more about the issues they’re not so keen. You only have to look at the human right’s implications, or the miscarriages of justice to know this is a non-starter.”

The human rights implications are indeed profound. One of the cornerstones of the European Union human right’s policy is the abolition of the death penalty. In fact, it’s a pre-condition of entry for new countries. Plus, however much perceived support there is amongst the masses for the return of the gallows, it is unlikely to garner much interest inside Westminster.

David Cameron is already on record voicing his opposition to the death penalty, telling Dylan Jones: “…there have been too many cases of things going wrong, of the wrong people being executed, of evidence coming to light after the execution, and sometimes there is just too much of an element of doubt. And I just don't honestly think that in a civilised society like ours that you can have the death penalty any more.”

History is also a guide. The death penalty was last debated in parliament in 1998 as part of the Human Rights Act. The house rejected restoration by 403 votes to 159.

Durkin continues: “This debate comes up periodically in parliament, and each time it gets kicked out by an increasing number of votes. We have nothing against the e-petition or having a balanced debate, we already debate this around the world. From doing so we have surmised that the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and arbitrary punishment.

"You only need to look at the number of miscarriages to see that it’s a flawed system - there have been 139 exonerations in the US alone since 1973. That’s why two thirds of the world has abolished it, leaving only a handful of states - China, North Korea, Iran, the US and so on – who retain capital punishment.”

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

Nearly 42-years after execution was officially abolished in the UK, and 47 years since Peter Anthony Allen and Gwynne Owen Evans became the last recipients of the state’s ultimate act of retribution...
Nearly 42-years after execution was officially abolished in the UK, and 47 years since Peter Anthony Allen and Gwynne Owen Evans became the last recipients of the state’s ultimate act of retribution...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 39
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilkesgm
05:23 AM on 08/06/2011
"About time a democracy is actually listening to what the people want.".... We are not a democracy. We are a constiutional republic, or what's left of it. There is a difference, or was. Now it's simply oligarchy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilkesgm
05:22 AM on 08/06/2011
"If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill whether it's state "sanctione­d" or not. You really can't have it both ways."..................It's not wrong to kill - you have created a specious argument. If Allied soldiers had not killed Nazis, there would be no more Jews in Europe. Would you prefer that? Is there some benefit to letting vicious people kill the innocent? By the way, it isn't "state sanctioned" killing. It is execution of a death warrant. Look up the word warrant. A synonym is "earned" - he "warrants" death. If you systematically kill young men and boys for years, you warrant execution. Is the world somehow worse off for the death of John Wayne Gacey?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Crabtree
03:21 AM on 08/06/2011
Always wonder why liberals support everything america does not stand for..codell the murderers.. eliminate any harsh sentences..cater to minoritys.. entitelment programs.. that have bankrupped this nation.. free college free medical care if you qualify or if indeed you fit there critera.. a communist form of goveremnt... open borders....abortion on demand....the list goes on and on,,in other words principles that this nation was founded on...,they do not support..Like some sort of mental illness..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:22 PM on 08/05/2011
My God, America's idiocy is spreading.
10:17 AM on 08/05/2011
If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill whether it's state "sanctioned" or not. You really can't have it both ways.
09:08 AM on 08/05/2011
Most morally decent people are cynical about politicians who will support the death penalty to their advantage. Most civilized politicians believe the death penalty is ethically and morally abhorrent - a barbaric act that has no place in a modern-day civilized society.

Then, there are politicians who wish to make a name for themselves (aka publicity stunt) by calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment and Sharia laws. There are some politicians wh will support legalized floggings, limb amputations, public executions, and even torture.

But what these same politicians won't tell the public is the high costs associated with capital cases. The important issue of the death penalty brings a 'responsibility' by politicians to fully inform the public that legally killing people is extremely expensive to taxpayers - much more expensive than life in prison without parole.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Crabtree
03:20 AM on 08/06/2011
feed house clothe and supply all the little items for life such as health care dental care..all out of the working mans pocket And as far as the high cost associated with the appeals process your party the democrats insisted way back in 1964 that the appeal process cover every venue.. in other words some 20 + years of sppeals in most cases..your party the democrats..Everything but punisment you guys are for it..sick..
photo
European1919
I am the PigmⒶn
05:55 AM on 08/05/2011
About time a democracy is actually listening to what the people want.
The old ruse of being able to change policy at elections is just that, a ruse. It is common knowledge that pre-election promises are usually just a way of getting into power. Once there, governments pretty much do what THEY want and immediately forget who got them there, who pays their salaries and who foots the bill for their decisions.
With DNA testing today, the chances of miscarriages of justice are minimal to zero. An execution promptly following sentencing will have a deterrent effect - and even if it does not ... at least it will reduce repeat offending and permanently remove those who have decided to set themselves outside our society. Joffan's stats pretty much prove my point.
"Joffan
59 Fans
Become a fan
5 hours ago (8:15 PM)
After the UK abolition of capital punishment­, 9 convicted murderers went on to murder someone else."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Derek Lantin
Writer.
08:33 AM on 08/05/2011
Well said
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
01:15 AM on 08/05/2011
Interesting stat I picked up from somewhere around the internet: After the UK abolition of capital punishment, 9 convicted murderers went on to murder someone else. In the same period, 10 people originally found guilty were pardoned from what would have been hanging offences.

And anyone arguing for execution as a deterrent needs to swim against a tide of stats that show it does not have any such effect.
01:22 PM on 08/05/2011
Since 1964 there have been far more than 10 cases of life sentences for murder which were subsequently overturned as unsafe: I make it at least 34, including Stephen Kiszko, the Birmingham 6, Stephen Downing, Andrew Evans, Judith Ward, the Bridgewater 4, Sean Hodgson, Winston Silcott, the Cardiff 3, Michelle and Lisa Taylor, Colin Stagg, the Cardiff Newsagent 3, Sally Clark, the Gurnos 3, Donna Anthony, Angela Cannings, Barry George, Suzanne Holdsworth and Sion Jenkins.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
02:36 PM on 08/05/2011
Thanks for the update... even more convincing.
12:01 AM on 08/05/2011
During the 1970s the Conservative MP Ian Gow changed his position on capital punishment.
He supported capital punishment for terrorists.Unfortunately his terrorists killers were not deterred
neither have any of them been brought to justice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
01:09 AM on 08/05/2011
Terrorists are the last people who would be deterred by the death penalty. They would seek it out; it's their grand chance to become a martyr and achieve more for their cause.
photo
Tom Horne
Enroh Mot
10:54 PM on 08/04/2011
Use the Guillotine for all the Tax Cheats.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
12:18 AM on 08/05/2011
Although I`m not in favour of the death penalty, perhaps I might be capricious and make an exception for the banksters (or at least tar and feather them before running them out of the country).
photo
Tom Horne
Enroh Mot
12:40 AM on 08/05/2011
I went to the bank to get a loan to start a guillotine manufacturing business, got turned down, but they did give me a cake.
12:39 AM on 09/03/2011
?! would we have any politicians left?
10:01 PM on 08/04/2011
Currently the top Four e-petitions are
1 Retain the Ban on Capital Punishment (4624 signatures)
2 Keep F1 Free to air in the UK (2598)
3 Restore Capital Punishment (2203)
4 Britain wants Referendum to leleave the EU (1112)

So all those predictions seem a little out...........
photo
french queen13
my beloved is mine and I am his
04:42 AM on 08/05/2011
What would a Should Bernie Ecclestone Be Guillotined poll results be, I wonder?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:09 AM on 08/05/2011
Vectra, I just checked. Since you posted that, the Retain the Ban petition now has well over 7000 signatures. That's more than twice as many as the petition launched by rightwing blogger Paul Staines -- in spite of the fact that he is already fairly influential in the blogosphere and has received an inordinate amount of publicity in the media for his "cause".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim Haselden
An Enemy of Rupert Murdoch, since 1984.
09:32 PM on 08/04/2011
I really hate to say this, I mean it. I really hate to say this. "I agree with David Cameron". No I haven't lost my mind, or been bought off by Murdoch and his supporters (fear not, THAT will NEVER happen).
But I agree with his stance on the death penalty. With recent revelations about the police, would you trust them to do the job right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
12:19 AM on 08/05/2011
No way!!!!

Make up some `evidence` and you`re laughing: sanctioned state murder.
08:57 AM on 08/05/2011
Evidence? They don't even identify people correctly, they just shoot them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miserable Swine
09:01 PM on 08/04/2011
Does this mean that only those with access to the internet are now going to be able to petition the government? Given the security implications and so on, this seems pretty iffy as well as perhaps marginalising those who do not have internet access. It`s also very easy to play on people`s emotions and the paedophile or child abuser are very effective means to harness public outrage. No doubt, those who commit terrible crimes should feel the full weight of the law.

My biggest concern is a total lack of integrity on the part of the police (I cannot trust their word any more), and an innocent person being given the death penalty on shaky evidence. Checks and balances may well exist, but I`m not convinced. Once someone has been put to death, there is no bringing them back. As for Paul Staines - the serial drunk-driver has a right to - but not grounds for being taken seriously - an opinion. What kind of sentences should we e-petition the government for in the case of drink-drivers?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:17 AM on 08/05/2011
"Does this mean that only those with access to the internet are now going to be able to petition the government­? Given the security implicatio­ns and so on, this seems pretty iffy as well as perhaps marginalis­ing those who do not have internet access"
Yes -- it is "iffy". This has less to do with "people power" (as it is being touted in papers like the Daily Mail) and more to do with rightwing blogosphere power. Thank goodness a counter-petition has been launched... but even so it's a total waste of time: they can vote on it all they want, but they can't have it anyway, unless they leave the EU.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Derek Lantin
Writer.
08:55 PM on 08/04/2011
Sir

I think that Paul Staines is probably correct and that there is a major disconnect between the politicians and the public on this issue. The politicians will probably vote against it, - for fear of making enemies. The members of the public would probably vote for it, - for fear of their own safety.

Is the public clamoring for hanging to be restored? Probably not. But I think that the British public is clamoring for this government to display leadership and decisiveness in dealing with the appalling state of law and order in the UK.

There are several measures that the government could easily implement, - if it has the courage to do so.

The first is for the Attorney General to instruct the judges to hand down maximum sentences for violent crime. Soon most of the criminals would be locked up and out of harms way.

The second is to build more prisons. The government can do several things to provide the funds. It can stop providing aid to countries that can afford to maintain nuclear weapons programs, and it can sell off city-centre prison sites to fund construction of new prisons in remote locations.

The third is to bring back flogging for violent crime such as public disorder, mugging, and carrying offensive weapons. Flogging is cheap and effective. Is it barbaric? No; it is practiced in highly civilised countries such as Singapore and Malaysia and it is found to be very effective.

Sincerely, Derek Lantin. http://dereklantin.booksabuzz.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ijgibson
10:54 PM on 08/04/2011
Things that appear to work in one society, don't necessarily have a similar effect in a totally different society. Derek Lanton is obviously unaware that in the 5 years after birching was abolished in the UK, the crimes for which it would have been administered reduced in frequency. It was a sign of bravado to be birched, just as its now a similar sign to have an ASBO ! The problem with all theories of deterrence is that the people who believe it works, know it would work to deter them. They fail totally to understand that when people commit crimes they all believe they're going to 'get away with it'. With current detection rates a great many of them are right - they will get away with it. It isn't a sentence that would deter, if you aren't going to get caught - you'll never face it. The thing that would really deter is the near certainty of getting caught ! If you aren't going to get caught no sentence - however severe, can possibly deter !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Derek Lantin
Writer.
07:02 AM on 08/05/2011
I beleive birching was abolishd in 1948?

With respect, the UK is a very different society now, compared to then. I also do ot think one can compare the threat of flogging to having an ASBO.

You are entirely correct, however, that criminals must beleive that they could get caught. With the absysmal standardss of policing in this country it is quite likely that most criminals beleive they would not get caught.

Regards, Derek .
08:19 PM on 08/04/2011
Diversionary nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Derek Lantin
Writer.
08:30 PM on 08/04/2011
Democracy in action
10:26 PM on 08/04/2011
Its not democracy just a bunch of sheep repeating slogans without thinking about the questions or answers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:19 AM on 08/05/2011
It's not "democracy in action" -- it's just rightwing blogger Paui Staines in action, and getting attention for it.