Shakin' Stevens

  When you have a wringing wet liberal like Sir John Stevens calling for the re-introduction of the death penalty, you know society has gone way beyond what can reasonably be called a strategy of discipline.  This call, which I wholeheartedly support, has nothing to do (as David has already said) with the factor of deterrence here.  For example, some countries with the death penalty have a far lower rate of homicide than we do.  On the other hand, American states that do not have a death penalty statute tend to have lower murder rates than those who do.

That is why I don't want to get hung-up on the liberal mantra of punishment versus deterrence.  For me, this is about justice and atonement.  In my opinion the only justice for a person who commits homicide against another human being (except in the accepted circumstances of war and legitimate state force) is death.  We are no longer in an era where miscarriages of justice such as Derek Bentley, Tim Evans and Ruth Ellis would be possible.  Ellis, for example, was hung for shooting dead her 'lover' David Blakeley, a man who had beaten and emotionally tortured her beyond the point of reason.  Meanwhile, back in 2005, men who calculatingly shoot dead an officer during the execution of her duty will receive the far lesser punishment of penitential life interment.  At the moment, the United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment takes place (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin do not practice the death penalty).  How many more innocent lives must be taken by the scum of our society before we take the courageous step of seeing justice performed in its most absolute expression?

Comments

[Ultonian Scottis American]

Andrew:

I'm assuming that you mean premeditated murder, rather than the less precise "homicide".

Here in Texas, death penalty cases are extremely expensive, both at trial and on appeal.

A recent change was to allow either death or life without parole for first degree murder. The lifetime cost of incarceration is less than if the possibility of the death penalty is at issue during trial, or imposed upon sentencing.

Whilst I believe that the state has the right to impose the death penalty, it is cheaper to limit punishment to life without parole, both monetarily and PR wise.

I would then further suggest that all sentenced to life without parole be sent to a prison located far in the deserts of the American Southwest on a military base to die in isolation and obscurity.

[Andrew McCann]

USA

Indeed I do.

[Colm]

I don't understand why people think the death penalty is harsher punishment that (genuine) life imprisonment. Once you execute a person , they suffer no more. They simply no longer exist just as before they were born. Genuine life Imprisonment , which I favour for murder is ultimately much more of a punishment giving the sense of wasted life which will inevitably torment the prisoner .

I agree we don't have real life imprisonment at the moment, but that is what we should be demanding , A becasue it is the right thing to do and B because it is much more realistic than attempting to bring back the death penalty.

[FewsOrange]

We are no longer in an era where miscarriages of justice such as Derek Bentley, Tim Evans and Ruth Ellis would be possible.

Your faith in the ability of governments to be perfect is admirable.

Unfortunately I cannot share it.

[Aileen]

I'm against the death penalty. I just can't accept the idea of killing people unbecessarily. However life should mean life. There can be exceptions to that but the principle should be reclaimed.

[The Troll]

hang em, get a short rope and a tall tree.

[Monica-Philadelphia]

Agree with Troll.

We don't need to torture them for the rest of their life. We need to get them off of the planet forever. (I love the appeals from the bleeding hearts against the death penalty - who then want to make someone suffer for as many years as possible in retribution)

As far as the endless and expensive appeals I'm sure that there is a way that we can limit that and still be certain that all objections are answered. It doesn't HAVE to take 15 years and cost millions of dollars. How about 2 years and several hundred thousand dollars?? Could you live with that, USA?

I am pro death penalty. Yes I am worried about putting an innocent person to death and I object to someone being hung for killing another in self-defense. In this day and age of DNA evidence I don't think that innocent people would be put to death. We also know there is such a thing as justifiable homicide.

[hsbguzzler]

I tend to agree with Colms view; 'Once you execute a person , they suffer no more.'
But unfortunately people have lost faith in the British Prison system as an adequate punishment, and the perceived liberalisation of prison conditions and sentences has led people to react by wanting to see more definite and extreme forms of justice.

[smcgiff]

This is a tough one. I wouldn't shed any salinated water if Gary Glitter was put in front of a firing squad.

[Colm]

and that's just for his songs!

[RJM]

In America, interestingly enough, the numbers of executions has fallen quite steeply in recent years (there was a report in the Times last week on this). It seems that most juries are preferring the sentence of "life without parole",which is to be honest my preference in all but the more extreme circumstances.

I'm always aware of the horrendous miscarriages of justice which still happen today even with all the forensic technologies you can shake a stick at. However, in cases such as that of the murder of Anthony Walker, I have to say I feel that a rope would be justified.

Tough one I admit. But I do completely support a return to "real" life sentences.