|
« The judicial sister
Main An all-too British rubbing of hands » |
November 17, 2003
Life after death
Daily Mail, 17 November 2003 Probably the last thing anyone would have predicted in Michael Howard’s new Tory dawn was the re-emergence of the death penalty as an issue. Certainly Mr Howard himself, who is personally against capital punishment, cannot have been expecting it. One can only imagine his reaction, therefore, when he read yesterday that his shiny-new home affairs spokesman David Davis had supported the death penalty for certain types of murder -- prompting the immediate cry that the party had lurched terrifyingly to the right, and sharp condemnation from a brace of Tory notables. Since Mr Howard has been straining every sinew to convince us that he intends to lead the Conservatives from the centre, and since the party has been slapping itself on the back over its new-found unity, Mr Davis’s remarks are likely to have been about as welcome in the leader’s office as a kissogram from Jeffrey Archer. But any talk about a lurch to the right or a Tory rift is over-excited nonsense. Mr Davis’s remarks represent nothing of the kind. He was asked for his views on capital punishment in the course of an interview with the Sunday Telegraph. Since he supports it, he had very little option but to say so. But as he immediately went on to emphasise -- and repeated on the radio yesterday -- this was solely his personal view. It was unlikely, he said, that capital punishment would ever return in his political lifetime; he acknowledged that most of his colleagues disagreed with him; and anyway, his views could not become party policy, since the death penalty was always decided on a free vote as a matter of conscience for individual MPs. Indeed, for that reason he could not be said to be speaking against the shadow Cabinet line and provoking a rift, since there can be no party policy on an issue of personal conscience. It’s as if a front-bencher had said, in response to a question about his personal views, that he was against abortion – interesting, but irrelevant. Capital punishment is, to coin a phrase, a dead issue. What Mr Davis has done, however, is to revive for a fleeting moment the hoary old debate over the death penalty. For the majority of the general public, his remarks will have struck a deep chord. There is undoubtedly a widespread belief not only that the death penalty should never have been abolished and should be brought back, but that the failure to do so is undemocratic because it flies in the face of majority opinion. The arguments used by Mr Davis, however, are as wrong today as they always were. If capital punishment had not been ended in 1965, several people wrongly convicted of murder since then would have been executed. To counter this point, Mr Davis says the death penalty should be restricted to serial killings, because with DNA sampling these multiple murders leave no room for error. But this is not the case. There is always room for error. The DNA technique itself may be foolproof, but the capacity for mistakes to occur lies with the individuals who employ it. There have been cases, for example, where -- through incompetence or worse -- apparently eminent forensic scientists have given evidence in court that has been shown subsequently to be false, sometimes after the person who was wrongly convicted has spent many years in prison. If the death penalty had still existed, the victims of such gross miscarriages of justice might now be dead. In any event, the idea that the Yorkshire Ripper should be executed but not the perpetrators of terrorist atrocities would strike many as completely unacceptable. Mr Davis says serial killers show pre-meditated and cold-blooded intention. So, too, do terrorists and other murderers, whom he would apparently exclude. Moreover, reintroducing the death penalty is likely to produce fewer convictions, as juries might well be unwilling to reach a verdict that is likely to lead to an execution. The public may cry vengeance from afar; but once in the jury-room, it’s often another story. And it’s not even as if there’s any evidence that it is the deterrent Mr Davis thinks it is. The US, for example, is an exceptionally violent society, far more so than ours, despite the fact that many states have not merely the death penalty but the fearsome and barbaric electric chair. Personally, I believe it is wrong for the state to kill anyone unless it is defending itself against a threat to life and liberty, as in time of war or in self-defence against terrorism. As for the argument that it is undemocratic to ignore the wishes of the majority, this grossly misunderstands the nature of a parliamentary democracy. Our MPs are not delegates but representatives. That means we elect them to take decisions on the basis of what they think is right, not what the public tell them to do. That is because they are in a position that is not available to the public, to receive representations and information from all sides on an issue and debate it exhaustively. The crucial point is that they always have to account for those decisions to the public, who can throw their MPs out if they disapprove of the line they take. The public, by contrast, do not have to account for their opinions to anyone. That is why holding MPs to those opinions would be a recipe for oppressive power without responsibility. The fuss over Mr Davis’s remarks about the death penalty has overshadowed a rather more significant – and very welcome – shift he has signalled in the party’s attitude to cannabis. Not only has he said robustly that the mistaken decision to downgrade it sends out the wrong message, but he wants the police to arrest the drug’s users as well as dealers. This is not another ‘lurch to the right’, that meaningless phrase used to damn any policy which dares contradict the prevailing libertine consensus. It is instead essential to protect vulnerable children, to reassert communal responsibility, and to prevent the law from descending into farce. If Mr Davis really does go into battle over cannabis, he can badly wrong-foot the Home Secretary. Parents who are desperate when they watch their children’s school performance or mental health take a disastrous dive through cannabis use will be relieved beyond measure that at last a politician is prepared to tackle this scourge. The crimes and disorder which so worry the public are rising because there aren’t enough police on the streets; because of the failure to enforce a ‘zero tolerance’ approach; because of the demoralisation of the police into serial incompetence and political correctness. They are rising because of the uselessness of the Crown Prosecution Service; because of the impact of the Human Rights Act and Children Act; because of ‘inclusive’ education policies leading to truancy or school chaos; and above all, because of family disintegration. These causes have nothing whatever to do with capital punishment, the spat over which will almost certainly prove to be a twenty-four hour wonder while serious crime and disorder continue their inexorable climb.
Posted by melanie at November 17, 2003
Comments
Very much appreciate Melanie's comments on cannabis and law enforcement generally but I must disagree on capital punishment. Execution of murderers is a biblical injunction, e.g. Genesis 9:6 that is not open to legalised repudiation. Hanging the wrong man is a risk but (as Melanie points out) that relates to the competence of the investigators, not the validity of the punishment, i.e. what do you do when you've got the RIGHT man? Otherwise, the same argument could be used to forbid punishment for any crime. The gruesome effects of the electric chair are not to be compared with the gruesome effects that Sutcliffe wrought on his victims, possibly while they were still breathing, the effects of IRA bomb blasts or the shock of finding 2 ten year olds in a shallow grave. Melanie states that capital punishment is not a deterrent, even where it is retained in the US. The present day situation in the US is undoubtedly influenced by the OJ trial and the effects of pcness that began over there with civil rights, so called, that have resulted in a great many condoned civil wrongs, e.g. the riots following the Rodney King affair that left over 50 people unlawfully killed, with (I understand) no one brought to book. Before the modern era, the chair undoubtedly did deter murder, at least for the perpetrator. Moreover, one should also remember that repeal of the death penalty has not decreased the murder rate. Like the outlawing of handguns, another gross miscarriage of justice for decent folks (it should have been sodomite/paedophile sympathisers who were outlawed, Hamilton was one) repeal of the death penalty only assures the capital criminal that our state has his best interests at heart in helping him to succeed with his chosen vocation or 'lifestyle'. Posted by: alan o'reilly at November 17, 2003 12:43 PMThe death penalty has no place in a civilised country. It must never be reintroduced to the UK. Posted by: David Jonhson at November 17, 2003 01:31 PMThis piece is a welcome breath of fresh air in deflating the uproar about Davis's statement. Like Melanie, I am an opponent of the death penalty, but I am also opposed to a constitutional barrier to its reintroduction. The necessity of minimising democratic support for its reintroduction is an essential discipline on legislators shaping criminal justice policy. As in Trollope's retelling of the story of the Luck of Edenhall in the opening pages of 'The Small House at Allington', it is an expression of liberal chivalry that legislators have the power to reintroduce capital punishment, but that they abstain from doing so. Posted by: Alan Peakall at November 17, 2003 02:15 PMK.H. Strueffling, H. Remlinger, E. Böhom, E. Sommerfeld, H. Jannike, E. Skotki and E. Geherer were German Officers hanged after the Nurmberg Trials for the massacre of Polish Officers at Katyn; a crime which the USSR then knew, and is apparent to all was conducted by the NKVD under orders from Stalin. These 7 officers were executed, a further 3 were handed over to the USSR and 'disappeared'. Perhaps this shows the futility of such War Crimes Trials and the ones in Rwanda or The Hague should be abandoned; where international politics is involved evidence is often manufactured. Is the International Criminal Court really going to avoid political contamination of evidence ?
Does someone who has spent 20 years in gaol really appear innocent after the case has been quashed because of a 'technical flaw' in the trial procedure ? Before Silverman introduced Roy Jenkins Bill to abolish capital punishment there was an absolute penalty for an absolute crime; now it is all relative. The Europeans have a relaxed approach to abortion but a strict one to capital punishment; the Americans are entirely opposite. However now we have the notion of rehabilitation after committng murder...."life after life" so to speak, and people like McVicar can appear on televsion, yet he cannot interview his victim. It is strange that 10 years is the penalty for murder, a bit less if you are in Northern Ireland; and the absolute crime now ranks alongside larceny for penalties. It is strange to think that a child victim can be long gone whilst the adult murderer will live to a ripe old age well cared for by the taxpayer. It is a good job Britain does not have the kind of sadistic murderers that the Us falls victim to, but with the opening of the European borders no doubt there will be more Russian Mafia killings as in Germany where limbs are truncated and heads go mising....still, by then no doubt it will be a community service penalty.
The relativism of the post-Jenkins world has led to a decline in respect for anything, especially human life; which was at the centre of both Bible and Torah, and indeed most ethical systems, but in an era where the victim must live in fear and imprison himself in his home, the perpetrator has free run of the community. The values of society have been inverted, and the law-abiding live in fear of the delinquent. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 17, 2003 02:19 PMMr O'Reilly, you truly are a repugnant individual. Perhaps you would be happier if 'sodomite sympathisers' were stoned to death in front of baying crowds? It amuses me that you feel the need to quote the Bible, that rather fatuous piece of fiction that has no place in modern society. Whatever happened to 'turn the other cheek' eh? Posted by: D.S. Jenkins at November 17, 2003 03:00 PMPeter Williamson, as usual, provides several arguments that evoke serious contemplation about the inconsistencies in most arguments both for and against capital punishment. My own life long repugnance for the death penalty has mainly derived from the fact that I would not myself be prepared to carry out the sentence in cold blood and would therefore not ask anyone else to do it. Moreover, I have no more in common with anybody that would be prepared to carry it out, than with the perpetrator of any murder (except I suppose the families or close friends of victims, who rarely, in their deep despair cry for more blood anyway). As for the grisly ritual of the whole process that leads to judicial execution, surely society can find a better way of dealing with inhumanity than exercising it - with interest? But then, I would be perfectly prepared that others and myself should kill enemies of our country in times of war to defend our freedoms. I can’t square that; it’s just a fact. As both homicide and war seem to be an indelible stain on the human condition, both will remain a source of not only political controversy but also of internal personal conflict, for most of us as long as our species survives. Posted by: Frank Pulley at November 17, 2003 03:41 PMDid anyone see that clip on TV about Evelyn Waugh ? He was being interviewed and asked about his support for the death penalty, and whether he would carry out the sentence himself. "What a strange thing for a novelist to be asked to do. If there is really noone else, I believe I could." or words to that effect.
Then again, I would not want to be a surgeon, so I presume oone else does either. Such a messy business. Then again, I once enjoyed the hospitality of a man whose business was as an abortionist; I am not sure I could do that either. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 17, 2003 04:42 PMhttp://www.abbotshill.freeserve.co.uk/Frankly%20Speaking.html So, for instance, you would not be in favour of capital punishment? Indeed I would, I think it’s one of the kindest things you can do to the very wicked, to give them time to repent You are in favour of capital punishment? For an enormous number of offences, yes And you yourself would be prepared to carry it out? Do you mean, actually do the hangman’s work? Yes. I should think it very odd for them to choose a novelist for such tasks. Supposing they were prepared to train you for the job, would you take it on? Well, certainly. You would? Certainly. Would you like such a job, Mr Waugh? Not the least. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 17, 2003 08:34 PMWaugh Stories: He handled the interrogation well, but it was easy to claim such willingness when it was perfectly obvious that he would never be called upon to prove it. Moreover his rather glib assertion still does not deal satisfactorily with the cold blooded, deliberate nature of judicial execution. There are other alternatives, which do not necessarily demean the State. No matter what the state of mind of the murderer at the moment of his crime, after his arrest and during the legal process he is helpless and subdued. To take a life under those circumstances seems to me to be obscene, even though the perpetrator's act may itself have been obscene. Some murderers deserve no sympathy whatsoever. I have met a number of serial killers. One told me that he planned and executed the murder of a criminal competitor by blowing his car 20 feet into the air with a remotely detonated bomb. When I asked that Mafia hitman how it felt to kill a man, he replied, "It was just like drinking a glass of wine - no big deal." He was ruthlessly evil, but a quiet man with good manners and a highly developed sense of humour - perhaps quite like the hangman you met, Peter. But I also remember, in the 1950s being told by a prison van driver that when Ruth Ellis was executed, the hangman's calculations were a little off kilter (weight ratio to drop,etc) and as a result her womb prolapsed through her vagina and she was still alive even after that. Reportedly there was a discusssion about whether they would have to hang her again, but she obligingly died of shock to terminate their embarrasment. It may have been an apocryphal yarn, but certainly quite feasible. These anecdotes do not, in my view relieve the dilemma, they merely underline it. Homicides with a variety of motives occurred before the death penalty was abolished and are still occurring in countries where capital punishment still exists. It's difficult to prove the deterrent effect. Gradations of homicide are difficult to establish for death penalty considerations, it was tried here before capital punishment was finally abandoned altogether. Even in these days of advanced criminal wickedness I still shrink from underwriting the hangman's brief. It is barbaric and as for asking a doctor to break his Hippocratic oath by administering a lethal dose, as Mr Davis proposes, seems even worse. But I also accept that that democratically the ayes have it. Posted by: Frank Pulley at November 18, 2003 02:29 AMThe Hippocratic Oath is a novelist's device, very very few doctors actually take it nowadays Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 18, 2003 05:37 AM"The Oath of Hippocrates had usually figured at least ceremonially in medical school graduations, even if his principles were beginning to be forgotten. But even this ceremonial reverence was dropped after 1973, when in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Oath as a guide to medical ethics and practice. " http://www.rts.edu/quarterly/winter98/hippocratic.html Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 18, 2003 10:08 AMI was fascinated to see my two favourite columnists disagree with each other on the same page in the mail. Both arguments were pretty good, but although I remain undecided on the issue I think it could easily be forgotten about if there were changes in the prison system. For example, if prison consisted of a small cell, where you were fed bread and water, and life meant life I think we would have a decent detterent and the death penalty wouldn't be neccessary. Posted by: Richard at November 18, 2003 12:50 PMJust briefly, re responses to my earlier post: 1. Britain is a lot less 'civilised' now than when murderers were hanged. A 'civilised' society is also surely a responsible one. It is neither responsible nor civilised to turn convicted murderers loose on whatever pretext (e.g. the Good Friday Agreement) so they can kill again. With proper application of the death penalty, this problem doesn't arise. 2. I would challenge any Bible critic to find one piece of fiction between its covers. Let's have some examples, not just rhetoric. 3. Speaking practically, turning the other cheek is a restraint against taking the law into one's own hands. The same chapter refers to due process in the form of judges and prison. Please don't ignore the context. (Restraint of sodomites is also part of 'due process' in the Biblical account and so does not conflict with the Sermon on the Mount.) 4. When the Lords resisted lowering the age of sodomite consent to 16 a few years back it was easy to see who the 'baying mobs' were. See Genesis 19 for the original script. Posted by: alan o'reilly at November 18, 2003 12:54 PM"turning the other cheek is a restraint against taking the law into one's own hands. " Having Lex Talionis transferred to The State has not been to the victim's benefit, as the interests of the surviving perpetrator seem to have advanced as those of the deceased victim have retreated. We do not even levy a financial penalty on murderers; they do not even need to pay compensation in addition to serving their sentence. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 18, 2003 01:01 PMThanks to Peter Williamson for elucidating the current status of the Hippocratic Oath. Cold comfort, I'm afraid at my time of life when the burden of the elderly upon the state is becoming an increasing urgent case for 'prioritisation of resources'. To quote dear old Louis Armstrong, " ... and I sez to myselfff - whadda wunnerful whirrlled ... ohhh Yeahhh! Posted by: Frank Pulley at November 18, 2003 01:38 PMMostly a good piece, except: 1. Even if we take for fact your assertion that the U.S. is a much more violent society than ours, that doesn't necessarily imply that the death penalty is not working as a deterrent there. 2. Your statement that MPs are there to do pretty much whatever they want to carries the assumption that the majority of people do not know what is best for them, but their MPs do, and that the people should have only the right to choose which one of these enlightened (and of course utterly selfless, acting only in the public interest) people to vote for. I think that it's quite rightening when otherwise sane people think this way. 3. You took a nosedive into lunacy when you suggested that keeping marijuana illegal is "necessary for protecting vulnerable children". I expect you will be pushing for criminalisation of alchohol (a far more addictive and dangerous substance than cannabis) too? Think of all the kids and wives that get beaten up by alcoholic fathers. Really quite shocking. "There should be a law against this!" (And tell me the last time you heard of a cannabis-addicted/crazed father beating up his family.) To respond to Alan O'Reilly's comments: since you want the death penalty restored on the basis that it is a "biblical injunction", are you pushing for laws that mandate one observes the sabbath, mandate that one honour one's mother and father, and forbid one making graven images? By the way, what are your thoughts on stoning non-violent criminals to death and beating the s**t out of non-believers? Cheers! :D Posted by: Lewis at November 18, 2003 06:01 PMOh, and I made a typo. I meant "frightening", not "rightening", above. Meah. Posted by: Lewis at November 18, 2003 06:41 PMLewis - A good post! The death penalty works as a wonderful deterrent in the 35 US states that apply it. Check the figures. People who know they will die if they get caught for a murder tend to sit down and have a good think. (Same with burglars who know the person on the other side of the door probably has a gun cocked and aimed at that door.) These states are among the safest places to live in the world. Murderers do calculate their chances. (BTW, no one gets executed until they've exhausted around 10 years of taxpayer-funded appeals.) Your point number 2 is what I would have said myself. Why would Peter Mandelson's constituents think he has more wisdom than them? Or George Galloway's? Or Clare Short's or ... oh, who cares? They're there to do the will of the majority, not make moral judgements on behalf of the majority. That is why we vote for the people whose views correspond best with our own. I'm indifferent about your third point. Although I've never known anyone crazed and aggressive on cannabis, I have experienced a few of them driving and I would like it to remain illegal. I don't care whether the death penalty's a biblical injunction or not. But I care about natural justice and some sense of justice for the bereaved. Like Evelyn Waugh, should I be asked to push the button that began the lethal injection process for Harold Shipman, say, or Myra Hindley, I could do so. I wouldn't do it with glee, any more than when I spray a cockroach I do it with glee. I hate it. The cockroach is what it is. But it can't co-exist with me in my kitchen. Posted by: Caroline at November 18, 2003 06:55 PMLewis - A good post! The death penalty works as a wonderful deterrent in the 35 US states that apply it. Check the figures. People who know they will die if they get caught for a murder tend to sit down and have a good think. (Same with burglars who know the person on the other side of the door probably has a gun cocked and aimed at that door.) These states are among the safest places to live in the world. Murderers do calculate their chances. (BTW, no one gets executed until they've exhausted around 10 years of taxpayer-funded appeals.) Your point number 2 is what I would have said myself. Why would Peter Mandelson's constituents think he has more wisdom than them? Or George Galloway's? Or Clare Short's or ... oh, who cares? They're there to do the will of the majority, not make moral judgements on behalf of the majority. That is why we vote for the people whose views correspond best with our own. I'm indifferent about your third point. Although I've never known anyone crazed and aggressive on cannabis, I have experienced a few of them driving and I would like it to remain illegal. I don't care whether the death penalty's a biblical injunction or not. But I care about natural justice and some sense of justice for the bereaved. Like Evelyn Waugh, should I be asked to push the button that began the lethal injection process for Harold Shipman, say, or Myra Hindley, I could do so. I wouldn't do it with glee, any more than when I spray a cockroach I do it with glee. I hate it. The cockroach is what it is. But it can't co-exist with me in my kitchen. Posted by: Caroline at November 18, 2003 06:59 PMApologies for posting twice. My computer must be very slow because after almost a minute after the first post, it still hadn't registered and I thought I must have hit the wrong key. I'm sorry. Posted by: Caroline at November 18, 2003 07:01 PMCaroline, 1. I wasn't actually commenting on whether it was working as a deterrent or not, I was merely commenting on Melanie's "proof" that it didn't. States with the death penalty having a lower crime rate is not proof, either. I don't think statistics can be; psychological studies could be, and I don't know of any research of this kind. 2. I've known plenty of people who have drunk and driven, too. Nearly everybody knows somebody who has been killed by a drink-driver. Logically, this should lead us into a ban on alcohol too. We don't criminalise it because people have a right to drink alcohol; it is the consequences which they should be willing to be punished for and not the act itself. Using the same reasoning we should be willing to legalise marijuana, too. 3. I don't care much for either arguments from biblical authority or ones appealing to "natural justice". I could only support the death penalty, with proper legal safeguards, if it can be shown to have a dramatic effect on the murder rate, and if a majority of the public support it (which, by every measure I have seen, they do not). I'm not fond of the idea of the death penalty as retribution one bit. Posted by: Lewis at November 18, 2003 07:16 PMAbout 50 years ago I was pontificating about the barbarity of capital punishment to a very old male family friend; averring that as murders were still occuring it was unlikely that it was much of a deterrent. He listened to me in silence, puffing his pipe until I ran out of steam. Then he tapped the pipe into his ashtray and spoke. "You're talking absolute bollocks" he growled. "My wife and I are now entirely interdependent and we have a reasonably pleasant old age. It wasn't always like that; at times I hated her so much I would willingly have strangled her. Except for one thing. I knew that if I did, they would hang me. That's why it is a deterrent and why we are both still here." It did not make me change my mind, but it made me think. Over 50% handguns in the USA are held by women. Maybe Britain won't have the death penalty, but why such draconian measures on ownership of handguns ? Perhaps the EU should 'harmonise' these regulations so Britain does not become the major centre of violent crime in Europe, with open borders, so porous that undocumented individuals can enter, undocumented weapons are probably flowing in in each container.....far better to regulate them with legal registration. Abolishing legal ownership of handguns has been parralleled by a huge increase in gun-crime now only the lawbreaker is able to own them to terrorise the law-abiding......what next, abolish window-locks ? Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 19, 2003 06:33 AM"Mr O'Reilly, you truly are a repugnant individual. Perhaps you would be happier if 'sodomite sympathisers' were stoned to death in front of baying crowds? It amuses me that you feel the need to quote the Bible, that rather fatuous piece of fiction that has no place in modern society. Whatever happened to 'turn the other cheek' eh?" D S Jenkins must be the former Bishop of Durham judging by his considered appraisal of biblical injunction ! My thanks to Mr Williamson for his commnt above. I had not made the connection. With respect to Lewis' comments, it matters little whether or not one cares for Biblical authority. It is there in the Coronation Oath (though just to confuse things, the one HM swore in June 1953 was tampered with by among others Conan Doyle, though that is a detail in this context.) On Lewis' other comment, this does need clarification insofar as one must distinguish between what applied specifically within a Jewish Theocracy and what applied universally. The death penalty for murder was ordained before the Mosaic Law, Genesis 9, during the Mosaic Law, e.g. Exodus 21:12 and after the Mosaic Law, Romans 13:4. The manner of execution is a decision for the governing powers (note, a sword is mentioned in Romans 13) who are themselves supposed to act in the fear of God, 2 Samuel 23:3 (that in itself would give nulab front bench a fit). It comes as no surprise to find that much of English Common Law, which pre-dates the Christian era, is grounded in the Old Testament that certainly got about in the old days. See Celt, Druid and Culdee by Isabel Clair Elder. The point is, that here one has something to work with that is proven and practical (KJV only, though!) and accessible to the ordinary Joe Public. That is why the British/Old Commonwealth systems of governance and jurisprudence are immeasurably so far ahead of any others and why the eu is such an overarching threat to British sovereignty and liberty. Governance/Jurisprudence based on the KJV doesn't restrict the ordinary HM subject, anymore than the compass restricts the mariner. Posted by: alan o'reilly at November 19, 2003 03:25 PMAlan O'Reilly's response sums up what is frightening about the arguments in favour of the death penalty. The fact is that under the criminal law the state must prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt (but not beyond any doubt). Beyond reasonable doubt is usually defined as 99% probability of guilt. The point is that even if the legal system works as it should, and is free of corruption, there is still going to be the occasional person convicted of murders they did not commit. If someone is convicted of a crime but subsequent evidence casts doubt on their guilt, and the conviction is overturned, then the person is eligible for compensation from the state. However, you can't compensate a dead person. As for the death penalty being biblically ordained, the separation of church and state has long been a principle upon which our legal system is based. Anyone who believes the law should be based on religious doctrine ought to go and live in Saudi Arabia. Posted by: Nick Kinsey at November 20, 2003 04:13 AMIt is also true that one can't compensate a murdered person. The state has an obligation therefore to avenge them. Refusal to do so violates the principle of ruling in the fear of God, though that is par for the course these days in every sphere where power and authority must be exercised. Separation of church and state has nothing to with Bible based laws. It was enacted (as far as it went) in Britain to stop the pope meddling in this nation's affairs. (Of course, he does so quite nicely now via the eu, all pms from Heath onward being in violation of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689.) Allusion to Saudi Arabia is disingenuous because the Saudi basis for law (the Qu'ran) bears no comparison with the Holy Bible, KJV. The Qu'ran gives no pre-eminence to Jesus Christ, contains little or no historical substance and utterly fails as a book of prophecy. Comparison of The Prophecies of the Holy Qu'ran by Q.I. Hingora with scripture, KJV, easily bears out this conclusion. A proper social comparison would be family stability in Britain 1950 vs. 2000 or the murder rate 1890-1900 vs. that for 1990-2000. Posted by: alan o'reilly at November 20, 2003 05:20 PMThe cost of keeping someone in jail is around £15,000 a year; if life means life, the cost is going to be anything up to £900,000. There are much better ways to spend the money. A criminal's life has no value: capital punishment should be adopted to save money. Posted by: GrimReaper at November 21, 2003 06:50 PM"It is also true that one can't compensate a murdered person. The state has an obligation therefore to avenge them". But this same argument could be used in favour of someone who is executed for a crime they did not commit. Should the state also have an obligation to avenge their death by killing the judge and jury who condemned them for a crime they did not commit. Why not also execute the legislators who drafted the death penalty law and failed to put enough safeguards in place. After all, their negligence resulted in an innocent person's death. Of course it is true that the strict Islamic law practised in countries like Saudi Arabia is not the same as Christianity. However, it is much closer to more fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism than the secular legal systems of the West. Therefore, anyone who holds your views should at least consider it preferable (or perhaps the lesser of two evils). You suggest that a valid comparison would be between family stability in the 1950s versus 2000s. I don't know what this has to do with capital punishment. Things like easy divorce, economic factors etc. would all have some impact on the demise of families. But even in parts of the US where the death penalty has long been in force there have still been high levels of family breakdown, crime etc. Posted by: Nick Kinsey at November 27, 2003 12:55 AMUnusual ideas can make enemies. Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need. Posted by: Bumbray Rashida at December 20, 2003 09:13 PMTo be a human without passion is to be dead. Posted by: Barzel Tamar at January 9, 2004 07:18 AMHi, you can now downward an mp3 version of a BBC radio program featuring Melanie Phillips debating current cannabis law with ex drug smuggler Howard "MR NiCE" Marks. HERE: http://www.ukcia.org/mp3s/moral_maze_cannabis_28_01-04.mp3 Hello, have fun with easy blogging!
Good work. |
