... and an amoral nation.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
So when will the Tories bring back hanging?
(48 posts) (16 voices)
-
In my African story, they did find the right people. While I disagree with the punishment there from the comfort of my chair, I can understand why the locals reacted to protect the lives of their families & friends
I agree corruption is everywhere, but it's certainly not everyone. In extensive travels, I find the vast majority of people worldwide are polite, honest, hard-working, friendly. Cities are worse than rural areas, but most people worldwide are Ok. One doesn't hear about the good stories
Posted 10 months ago # -
Tonymc81
state organised murder cannot be right
So where does that leave the people who are specifically employed by the state to murder other people: the Armed Forces? Some people apparently approve of state organised murder provided it is inter-state and not intra-state.Posted 10 months ago # -
This is an example why I wouldn't support the death penalty.
Posted 10 months ago # -
A few stats, since I am a bit of an authority on capital punishment in post-war Britain if I do say so myself.
Between the end of the war and abolition in 1965, there were 201 capital cases in which 215 people were hanged - all but four were men. Of these 215, two were for treason, one for treachery and one for rape (US soldiers convicted of rape were liable to this under their own military code, which was transplanted here; it had not been a capital crime in Britain since Victorian times). The rest were all for murder.
To date, four of them (Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, George Kelly and Mahmood Mattan) have been posthumously pardoned because of the emergence of new evidence that rendered their convictions unsafe and/or proven irregularities in how the cases were handled. It's not exactly a record to be proud of and there are a couple more cases (most obviously Edward Devlin and Alfred Burns) where the same will probably happen. There were also two dozen or so who would have been able to plead diminished responsibility, which was not a thing in law outside Scotland before the Homicide Act of 1957 changed the law. There is no question that the vast majority were guilty as charged, but the law could and did get it horribly wrong.
As against that, two of the 215 had been convicted and sentence to death (John Alcott, Walter Rowland) before but were reprieved and committed murder again (though in Rowland's case the second conviction was dodgy) once they were out; a third (Patrick Carraher) had served time for manslaughter and was universally agreed to have got off lucky on that occasion, then committed murder once he was out and wasn't so lucky that time. And then there is the case of Christopher Simcox, who was sentenced to death twice and reprieved twice: the first time because hanging was informally in abeyance while reform was discussed in Parliament, the second because he was by then in a wheelchair and the logistics were just too horrific to contemplate.
Which of these bothers you more is up to you. I know what I think. I also note that, yes, it is something most Tories would love to do and which would receive a fair bit of support among working class voters. In fact, there is no stronger correlation between voting Leave and any other issue than there is on capital punishment. In terms of pandering to their base, who clearly want to take this country back to the 1950s, it would go down a storm.
Of those who were sentenced to death between 1945 and 1965, about 40% were actually hanged until the Homicide Act of 1957 came in. After that, fewer were sentenced to death in the first place but the reprieve rate fell. The decision on who swung and who didn't - assuming the appeal failed - always came down to the Home Secretary and there was no obvious rhyme or reason to how he decided. Some of these men (they were all men) were distinguished, some were not but they were at least serious figures. Frankly if you think Priti Patel could be trusted to make a decision like that, I would advise a long hard look in the mirror.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I think we may have moved beyond trail, sentencing and hanging for terrorists. The incident yesterday on London Bridge; Terrorist stabs 5 people, killing 2. Heroic public (including a murderer on parole!) pin him down and disarm him. Police take over, stand back and shoot him dead.
Now, I'm not taking a moral view on why they shot him. Standard procedure when you see what looks like a suicide vest I guess. But: I was chatting with someone this morning (A Brexit supporter by coincidence) who was creaming his jeans with delight. "We should do that to all of them" etc.
So, yes. I think there would be public support for capital punishment. Just as there was public support to leave the EU. The public are fuckwits.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I don't think the death penalty could be considered a cost effective step, such would be the costs of appeals, performing it, etc.
I have I suppose a slightly different insight in that I am very familiar with performing euthanasia, and it's no big deal in circumstances that are warranted.
The issues of the non-reversibility for the innocent are of course very significant.
But equally, repeat murder offences following discharge also involve an innocent death. So kind of quits there on the previous stated figures, unless you mandate total life imprisonment for murder.
My patients have no foreknowledge of their fate though, and for murder victims foreknowledge is also likely to be minimal, whereas the foreknowledge of death after a sentencing is likely to be very time considerable, through appeals etc, and that must be tortuous...But then for sadistic and premeditated murders, you can set the angst for their suffering aside.
Ultimately, perhaps the people we should really be consulting are the relatives of victims. What would they like to happen, what would make them feel better. Someone commented about a triple child murderer being released whilst the mother was still alive. I'd like to know what she would want to happen, what might have given her more comfort, and hear that voice the loudest in the debate.Posted 9 months ago # -
Good thought, but should someone who is already highly traumatised be involved in being the judge & executioner as well as victim? Would that help him/her?
As for cost, surely that's been done already in determining beyond all reasonable doubt that this person is guilty. This is a discussion about sentencing, and there would be guidelines to apply only in the most obvious & extreme cases. I'm not comfortable with cost being a factor; but severity of the crimes, lack of remorse & likelihood of reoffending given opportunity should be
Posted 9 months ago # -
... likelihood of reoffending ...
For me, the main reason why, in a tiny number of cases, life should indeed mean life (or death, if it saves the odd £million). Not as a more severe punishment or as 'revenge' (what's the point of that?) or even as a deterrent (how many serial-killing nutters are likely to say 'Ooh, I'd better not do this, I might go to prison for a long time if I'm caught!') ?
Posted 9 months ago # -
... likelihood of reoffending ...
For me, the main reason why, in a tiny number of cases, life should indeed mean life (or death, if it saves the odd £million).And, as it doesn't save the odd £million but actually costs £millions, we now have Titus, in a massive U-turn, arguing against the death penalty. Funny.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Another consideration...
We talk about restoring capital punishment as if it would happen in a vacuum. To hang a murderer involves a lot of people. Witnesses, if any, have to be prepared to testify against someone knowing that their word might help expedite his death. Jurors would have to be ready to convict, knowing the same. Prison doctors and psychiatrists, who have taken the Hippocratic oath to 'do no harm', must be prepared to certify him sane so that he doesn't get a reprieve for insanity - even the Victorians didn't hang the mad. Prison warders have to spend weeks with a man, knowing their task is to get him to the gallows in the pink of health. Oh and building contractors will have to be found to build the gallows in the first place, because they were all dismantled. Etc. etc. etc.
(As for 'Ultimately, perhaps the people we should really be consulting are the relatives of victims. What would they like to happen, what would make them feel better', that is one of the most appalling things I have ever heard. Justice is not, repeat not, about private vengeance and criminal law is not designed to help families of victims get closure or whatever other form of psychobabble we are talking these days, nor should it be.)
All against the background of the Sun and the Daily Mail screeching their bloodlust and the Guardian its angst. Satirists might even get their penn'orth in too. One thing we definitely wouldn't do would be to assume the Home Secretary knows best and when the Home Secretary is a callous right-wing sociopath, quite right too.
Does it really bear thinking about for a second?
Posted 9 months ago # -
Hi Geri.
Bollocks.
After a murder, there's a group of people who have lost a loved one.
I'm referring to cases if vicious, premeditated, cruel murder when I say I'm interested in what would help them than the rights of the murderer.I'm not sure what the answer is, but I've heard many reports if the angst the bereaved feel that the murderer who chose to end their loved one's life is carrying on living theirs.
And as for the angst of people having to care for prisoners on death row, and who would build gallows...firstly, i wonder again what prison warders might have to say. Mqybe they'd rather that than have to watch over the evil beasts for decades until their natural death?
And people to build a gallows? I suspect if you ask on a building site for a show of hands, you wouldn't even have to pay overtime. Certainly be the most watched episode of DIY SOS.Posted 9 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.