Written by Classical Liberal
Capital punishment has long been considered a controversial issue: one of the significant ethical debates of our times, up there with abortion.
This article asks the often debated ethical question: should the UK bring back capital punishment? The arguments for and against the death penalty are both compelling.
Capital punishment was used in the UK from ancient times until 1964. The last executions, by hanging, took place in 1964. Capital punishment was suspended for murder in 1965 and finally abolished for murder in 1969 (1973 in Northern Ireland). Although unused, the death penalty remained a legally defined punishment for certain offences, such as treason, until it was abolished entirely in 1998.
The main arguments for the death penalty are justice, deterrence, and closure.
First, the death penalty serves justice. This argument is summed up by the cliché, ‘An eye for an eye’. Of course, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, such as murder. Murderers gave up their right to life when they took the life of another person, and their lawful execution can only serve justice.
And, why should murderers be allowed to live out the rest of their lives in relative comfort, paid for by the taxpayer? The UK prison population is over 80,000. More than 7,000 inmates are serving life sentences, plus more than 3,000 are serving indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPPs). It costs over £40,000 per year to keep someone in prison in the UK. About double that is spent on keeping the most serious offenders, such as murderers, terrorists and rapists, under lock and key. To keep a convicted murderer in prison at the cost of about £80,000 per year for the usual life sentence of twenty-five years would thus cost over £2,000,000. That is if they serve their complete sentence, of course. That money could be put to better use if it was left in the pockets of hard-working, law-abiding citizens; or spent on much worthier causes like education, social care, etc. The government does not have any money of its own. The money that the government spends has been taken from hard-working and law-abiding taxpayers. The government does need some money to pay for essential things that individuals cannot provide for themselves, such as national defence. However, the government has a moral duty to take as little money from its citizens as necessary; and make sure that whatever money is taken is spent as wisely as possible.
Secondly, the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. In the UK, 75% of ex-inmates reoffend within nine years of release. The threat of a prison sentence is not that much of a barrier to hardened criminals. Ultimately, only the most severe punishment possible will dissuade the most violent crimes. Would-be murderers have a better reason to think twice if they know their life is on the line. Thus, the death penalty saves lives.
And, thirdly, capital punishment provides closure to victims’ families. The execution of a criminal is the best way to provide closure to the family of their victim. They can finally put the crime behind them and move on, knowing that there is no possibility of the person who took their loved one ever leaving prison and walking free.
The main arguments against the death penalty are: miscarriages of justice, it gives too much power to the state, and killing is wrong.
First, there is obvious potential for miscarriages of justice. You cannot un-execute someone. Miscarriages of justice are bad enough, but the wrongful execution of an innocent person takes it to the extremes. If someone is wrongfully imprisoned, they can at least be released and compensated by the state. If they are executed, however, then a posthumous pardon won’t be much comfort.
Secondly, the death penalty confers too much power on the state. The three countries that executed the most people in 2016 were: China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. There’s a reason why the death penalty is favoured in authoritarian regimes: it is the ultimate form of state control. Troublesome political dissidents can be mixed in with murderers on death row, and any criticism can be deflected as being ‘soft on crime’.
Thirdly, killing is morally wrong. To use another cliché, ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right’. Taking a human life is unethical, whether it is a crime or done in the name of ‘justice’. Everyone’s right to life should be protected by law, including criminals. We should aim to set the example that killing is always wrong and that there are alternatives. Advocates of this argument contend that life in prison is not a ‘soft’ option.
What do you think? Should the UK bring back the death penalty?
I’ve read most of the comments and the argument that this present government couldn’t be trusted with that power stands out.
To be quite honest I would make the same comment about nearly every Goverment we have had since the death penalty was abandoned .
Unfortunately that really begs the question, I used to have misgivings about circumstantial evidence in any criminal circumstances, but as has been said about the appearance of “reliable” DNA tests perhaps that suspicion is somewhat mitigated, but circumstantial evidence for murder is a bridge too far for me, so hanging is too final, but life should mean life as I do think we were led to believe
However I am not against the death penalty per se, particularly for the “right” crimes, but I still have my doubts about Craig and Bently, however “thou shalt not kill” to me is particularly a Judeo/Christian concept and obviously can have no meaning to those without or a contrary faith
Life should mean life, yes. And make it ‘not a comfortable life’. Should be a deterrent surely.
Should the UK Bring Back Capital Punishment? Absolutely; it needs to be an option, even mandatory, for such as premeditated murder and gang rapes. Also, in these troubled times, we need the restoration of a robust Treason and Sedition Law with mandatory death penalty. Why? Because the perpetrators of such acts simply never give up and some idiot will always set them free to continue their evil deeds. Of course PMs over many years past up to the present day could well be eligible…
Good point
Definitely and unequivocally YES to the return of capital punishment – and the sooner the better! If they need a volunteer to carry it out, they can put my name at the top of the list too.
My opinion is yes, bring it back for all pre-meditated murder where evidence is provided with no doubt whatsoever such as DNA and in many cases, camera footage, although this could be tampered with. Life should mean life and stop the holiday camp culture. The punishment is clearly not enough for most. All foreign criminals should be deported immediately after they have been prosecuted, why should we pick up the bill. There are too many bleeding hearts in the probation service, like all government departments it is bloated and past its sell-by date.
Too much POWER to the state. Is the number one argument against capital punishment. It used to be miscarriages of justice when those could be seen as genuine mistakes.
With the present day situation of ever more totalitarian rule the potential for abuse of a death penalty are obvious.
As for the cost of keeping people in prison – well perhaps that could be reduced by prisoners having less ‘leisure activities’ and doing more, productive work.
At the time the last execution was carried out there was not so much forensic capability available! DNA evidence was unheard of as far as I am aware. The demographic make up of Britain was nothing like as diverse as it is today. Diversity has undoubtedly increased the incidence of violent crime and with the violence has come increased murder. Only today I read of two incidences of young women (one in Bury) found dying in the street – burning to death! Certainly I never heard of that happening in the 60s!
Bliar abolished the death sentence for treason. I think we can all see why he did that! I believe that treason merits the death sentence. Betraying ones country is beneath forgiveness. But…it must be fully and incontrovertibly proven. Not just a crime cooked up against a dissident by a hostile government!
Where murder or extreme violent crime leading to subsequent death of the victim can be indubitably proved, there is a case to be made for reinstating the death penalty.
We currently have law that is not being enacted properly because of the fear of accusations of racism! We have a society where it is perceived that one can ‘get away with’ committing heinous crimes against the person without fear of having to forfeit ones life. A standard life sentence is I believe 25 years. Most only serve a fraction of that time! Where is the deterrent in that!
My only fear is that in the current climate of globalism, it would be possible for ‘political prisoners’ could be condemned to death simply because their views did not chime with those of the State! Europe already has the capacity for imprisonment for long periods without trial because the authorities do not recognise habeas corpus. Our current crop of politicians have already shown themselves to be hostile to those who resist their authoritarian leanings!
A difficult subject but one that definitely needs revisiting!
You have hit on a good point there; the quality of forensic evidence. It may be that the death penalty could be reserved not only for murder but also if the prosecution can satisfy certain defined standards of forensic evidence..
I have now sat on three juries and I can tell you that it can be a very hit-and-miss affair. Juries find it difficult to ignore inconclusive evidence, that is evidence that can be interpreted in different way, and I came across one juror who argued in all seriousness that the defendant must be guilty if the police prosecuted him and that we should support the police!
That person was probably a BBC devotee! Blinkered, blindfolded and deaf to anything other than the politically prescribed “truth”!
John Poynton – if you do check back!
I can well believe that, about someone arguing he must be guilty if the police prosecuted him!
The one time I did jury service I was the only one who said there was doubt about one case. Probably the rest thought the police were right.
Thinking back, this was a relatively trivial crime, maybe, the police knew he did similar crimes but got away with them. So they decided to ‘do’ him for this one. Who knows?
Once upon a time the police did deserve our support. But now?
The subject certainly does need revisiting. We now have people among us who do not value human life at all. They would be happy to have slaves, and to kill people who disagree with them.
With a death penalty should come very strict criteria – but not one which take into account “belief” or “different culture”,
Finally, whe the death penalty was abolished, it was done on the promise the “life means life”. Having gone back on that, no government has any moral high ground to oppose the death penalty, in very limited circumstances, at all.
Agree 100% with your summation AdiEu
I think it is fair to say that immigrant communities are not policed as such would result in ‘leaders’ complaining that such and such is ”not our way’ and imposing it too expensive on the street and in the courts and in the prisons. Only the most egregious offences will receive public attention. The rule of law, as developed by our people, is peculiar to us and whilst Common Law might ornament many another jurisdiction, iits proper fulfilment will evade them. Sorry, but they just have to go, or we do.
There is an equal deterrent available:- the whipping post (in public).
Victims could get to whip their transgressors too.
Or possibly stoning Harry?
If, by deterrence, we save the life of one kid, I think we owe it to our young.
The death penalty by ‘Police’ shirks our responsibility to and for our community.
Devices with a camera should have an emergency button to take and transmit a developing situation.
This is too emotive. How about partial death for some types of murder How about All your teeth pull out for swearing at a lawyer… Chop the goolies off for rape etc A menu of punishments for the sadistic judge. I am sure that there must be a judge clever enough to think of new ideas as well as looking judge-like
And as if that’s not enough, consider the case of Jamie Bulger and two very different killer children and its implications. I am pretty sure I could not have coped as a Juror. Evidence ! Forensic ? There is no answer! But you are in charge. ! No fudging.
TGS Chop the goolies off for rape! I like that idea. No anaesthetic of course.
Blunt hatchet!?
The Homicide Act 1959 was about right. Life now seems cheap and law abiding citizens have become the prisoners. Home doors locked and barred, alarm and cctv on most private houses. Defensive weapons carried by police officers are now getting more and more offensive and used almost without any control or sanction. The entire concept of justice is now lost and until criminals and terrorists are punished properly early in their nefarious chosen career, we will be either have to accept a growing culture of crime, terrorism and drug use or crack down hard with maybe the ultimate punishment for those who casually take life in the furtherance of crime and criminality.
‘The main arguments against the death penalty are: miscarriages of justice, it gives too much power to the state, and killing is wrong.’
The British Government does take peoples lives – Iraq, Balkans etc!! And it kills people on a vast scale and people at that who present no direct threat to British people. Personally, I think Blair who took us to war on a lie is an evil man who should be given the death penalty for his responsibility for the death of over 200,00 Iraqis civilians/soldiers and nearly 179 British soldiers.
Also, I don’t agree with those who suggest a limited return of capital punishment be reserved for the killing of police officers. The killing of a lonely old widow in the back streets of Leeds is of equal evil to that of killing a police officer.
They already have. If I understand the globalists plan right, anyone refusing the jab will be eventually starved out of existence. in other words subjected to death penalty. Other dissidents ditto.
Ah but Mary…….genocide by politicians and global psychopaths doesn’t count as murder!!! Surely you have realised by now The State knows best and can do no wrong. Neither may it be questioned or sanctioned by the plebeian animals who are too stupid to understand that rules must be obeyed without question. It’s all about saving the planet… right?!!!!
This is of course extreme sarcasm and not to be taken seriously in any way! Hysteria will out!
It is actually a simple calculation.
On one side:- How many victims would still be alive . How many perpetrators would not be in prison.
On the other side:–One dead perpetrator and costs
All the wailing, tearing of robes, Mums and dads starting charities,, Harrowing political speeches adding nothing. False tears,.the emotions of the newspapers, And can you imagine the BBC ( I shudder to contemplate the stuff they would grind out. to make US undertsand our faults. )
Does anyone else remember the horrors of the police and state murder of a supposed culprit while the instigator lived on. All in the Bentley case. Whether or no I have got the wrong slant on the case ( I was in my twenties ) makes not a farthings worth of difference. The horror of it and the attitudes of everybody was too much.
But at the time we all saw that not executing would open the floodgates , and so it did, and we are where we are. Frightened. But we live in our communities. But our communities are not obeying any lawsbecause nobody any longer knows what the law is. It is over fussy and pernikity to be real. There is no authority on the streets or in the classroom.
So, I am sorry. There is going to have to be a change.
And it may be gut wrenching. There .has to be punishment.. Some or all of us have to suffer for half a century of mismanagement, plain refusal to face up, and politics.and evil run riot.
TG Stokes……….contradictions reign supreme in your post. You cannot sit on the fence here, its either one thing or the other.
Whether to have the death penalty can be seen as a decision taken along a continuum. For example, at one end, in a society with genuine common values, genuine social cohesion, and so a source of shared morality, the incidence of murder is relatively low. Such a society could afford to imprison. At the other end, we have not true society but a hotel of different cultures sharing very little, and increasingly with competing or antithetical values. The murder rate, and violent crime generally, is higher. No shared values or common source of morality exists to contain the murder rate. In that case, a death penalty is needed for murder (and stiffer penalties for the high rate of attempted murder – e.g the many stabbings that are survived). Where between these two extremes is the cross-over point? Wherever it is, I think the UK passed it some time ago.
Well put Stout.
Only politicians , ( or unacceptably,or the army or the police) can solve this problem.But they haven’t solved a problem since Churchill.
Where’s Alexander the Great and his Gordian Knot when its needed.
Well Stout, if we got rid of the stupid multiculturism ideas and stopped importing those cultures there would be less need for a death penalty.
I can see the argument that improved forensic evidence can reduce mistakes but haven’t we seen that any kind of evidence can be easily corrupted.
I’d like to see some politicians and others hung but our whole system is so corrupt top to bottom, at the moment, I hesitate to give it any more power.