The Death Penalty is Just Wrong
Sarah Hayward is horrified by those calling for the return of the death penalty.
4 Aug 2011, 17:28
Death Penalty: Just Plain Wrong
Forgive the pun, but capital punishment is dying out. It’s slow progress but more countries and more US states are moving against it. In 2010 just 23 countries are known to have executed people. Only two of those countries are developed democracies. ‘Leaders of the Free World the US as well as Japan (who banned capital punishment for several centuries in the middle ages) join the likes of North Korea, Yemen, Iran, China and others on a list that reads like the membership list of ‘Human Rights Abusers International’.
It’s not just that the other countries that practice it don’t have the best record in looking after their own citizens. As a punishment it doesn’t have a great record in deterring crime – although I’ll have to grant you that recidivism rates for offenders are off the charts low. In America, where there are effective (albeit not always equitably applied) checks and balances over convictions, prior to the sentence being carried out, the death penalty is almost always more costly than a life (meaning life) term in prison.
But for me it isn’t about these pragmatic arguments that should deter supporters in any case. The use of the death penalty is just plain wrong.
In no other crime do we suggest that the perpetrator should have done un to them etc. Imagine. I’ll leave you to conjure some of the ridiculous and sadistic consequences of this depending on how twisted your mind is. But just think about it for a second.
Supporters also often say we have state sanctioned killing in other settings and of course we do. From DNR (do not resuscitate) wishes of very ill patients to going to war, Government’s make or allow decisions all the time that have life and death consequences. But it almost all of them, the decision is with the individual about their right to self determine their lives, as in the case of the DNR (or suicide), or there is a direct threat related linked to the circumstances when you’re allowed to kill. Whether you’re a person defending yourself against a violent crime or as a nation we decide to defend ourselves against an external threat.
In the case of the perpetrator of murder, if he or she has been arrested, charged, come to trial and found guilty, then they are in custody and no longer a threat. In these circumstances the death penalty becomes nothing more than retribution. An eye for an eye. It's no longer a punishment and rehabilitation exercise. It's simply, you hit me so I'll hit you back - which is about as sophisticated as the average seven year old.
Stopping vigilante retribution is one of the reasons why we have a criminal justice system in the first place. We don’t always like the outcome, sometimes it feels like people get soft sentences and sometimes it feels like people are treated very harshly. But if we think it’s better than the alternative then it’s simply illogical to support the death penalty. However strong our emotional desire to mete out pain on the perpetrators of the worst crimes might be.
Comments (13)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
Sorry you are wrong, but thats what I would expect from a Socialist. You would quickly change your mind if a member of your family was to be horribly murdered.the Good Book advocates " an eye for an eye "
04/08/2011 17:47It's nothing to do with being socialist or Tory - I am a Tory and abhor the idea of bringing back the death penalty. It was abolished for a reason and I have no desire to go back to eye for an eye retribution. The Good Book advocates a lot of things - what next? Banning homosexual activity again? I for one am signing the e-petition on this issue with the most signatures, and it is certainly not in favour!
04/08/2011 18:34Firstly let me commend Sarah Hayward for her fine feeling in experiencing revulsion at the idea of killing someone. No one should want people to be killed, but unfortunately they are. It's called "murder" and it happens between two and three times as frequently as it did when the UK had the death penalty.
She is the second commentator I have read who says that the death penalty doesn't discourage murder. However neither of these have stated any examples statistically to back up their cases.
She makes the point that an incarcerated murderer is not a risk to society. It's true that the risk has already sprung at that point. However, her point that it would be wrong for the state to take life leads to the situation where there is only one group entitled to take life: those who will to do so. Their entitlement is confirmed by the fact that society will support them either to the end of their days or till they are supported into freedom. In my view it is unsustainable for a state to acquiece to the power of the brutal, and this acquiescence brutalises society at large and glamorises successful killers. A more violent, destabilised society results, especially for the young.
If anyone thinks that the death penalty would turn murderers into martyrs, that simply doesn't hold up. No one thinks that Levi Bellfield or Fred West had a cause to uphold except their own sadistic pleasure.
Thankfully Sarah Hayward refrains from the tired old canard about miscarriages of justice. If the death penalty were an option of sentencing it would be at the discretion of the judge, and he could be liable for any miscarriage. There are some cases where there is just no doubt: the perpetrator is gloating in court. The point of the death penalty would be to remove any gain from the criminal's action. It is not an eye for an eye because the punishment would be neither sadistic nor prolonged, nor without access to priest or family members- unlike almost all murders and particularly the sadistic ones which would satify criteria for the death penalty under a sensible system.
In the end though, despite her fine sentiments, Sarah Hayward is just branding her opponents as beastly. That is not high minded; it is a low tactic. The reason why so many support the death penalty for extreme murder is out of respect for the victim, the victim's family, and the values of humanity which the killer held in contempt. These are the true wellsprings of the campaign for reintroduction of the death penalty, and nothing betrays the hollowness of the anti-reintroduction argument like the attempt to besmirch them.
04/08/2011 18:46I think a major motivation for this petition is the fact that murderers get ridiculously short sentences. If life sentences meant what they implied then fewer people would consider execution acceptable.
04/08/2011 21:57Ed T, here's statistics on a state by state basis in the US. Those marked in yellow don't have the death penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord I don't make unevidenced statistical claims.
Your argument that one group are entitled to take life is clearly just wrong. Murderers are not 'entitled'. It's why it's against the law and punishable by an automatic life sentence (and yes, arguments can be made about the length of time a life sentence involves spending behind bars).
I don't at any point mention miscarriages of justice or try to brand people who disagree as beastly. Please don't put words in my mouth.
05/08/2011 00:39It's an uncomfortable feeling to be on the same side as a labour councillor, but I think you are right and Guido is wrong on this one
05/08/2011 09:08To date, there are more sensible people in this country, as the petition to retain capital punishment has more signatores than the one to restore it. By a margin of nearly 2:1.
Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent and is more expensive as a punishment than life in prison.
And no one should (and most people don't) care what the "Good Book" says - this is the British legal system.
05/08/2011 09:10Sarah Hayward- you do rather suggest beastliness when you describe the "ridiculous and sadistic" consequences of the DP. I resent the idea that those who promote the DP do so for sadistic reasons. Sure, some people let the rhetoric fly, but generally proponents of the DP are about discouraging sadism, since sadistic murder would be the first target of a new law.
I think that in any case you exaggerate though. In reality the death penalty is not "eye for eye"- how could it be for mass murderers? It is also not sadistic- the death is administered in ways far and away more considerate than any murder which would qualify for it. The murderer has time to prepare him/herself, time to say goodbye to relatives and to consult with guides. One does not wish to dwell on it, but it cannot be compared to the terror of many murder victims in their last moments and the agony of uncertainty often endured by their parents, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. So the point of the death penalty is as an equaliser when there is nothing else that can have a impact that meets the severity of the crime, rather than as something strictly equivalent.
I agree with you and others that if life meant life that would aid your cause in arguing against the DP. I think that the problem is that once you lose the retributionary element it means that the only thing left is defending society from threats- in that case many murderers lose their threat as they lose the drive of youth. It becomes absurd to keep them in prison, but if they are released society has a duty to absorb them with all the benefits that necessitates.
Regarding the statistics, I would refer you to the following article which cites the majority of studies in the US showing a big effect following abolition/reintroduction of the DP.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100099693/as-britain-debates-the-death-penalty-again-studies-from-america-confirm-that-it-works/
It also offers the historical example of the US when it did in fact abolish the death penalty in the 1970's and murder rates steepled. Besides all that, the US has some peculiar features such as the race divide and gun ownership, both of which vary from state to state within the union, which make comparison with the UK somewhat difficult.
My point that there is a group of people entitled to take life ie. murderers is really that by not exercising the power of the law to its fullest (everyone knows from many situations this involves life/death) to combat murderers there is a de facto group whom we need to fear above all others: murderers. This is the basis of a lot of fear in society, especially in some locales where the danger is a live one, and it seems that the UK is a rather violent society partly because of this abdication of the state from the power hierarchy of strength. I do not generally favour a strong state- but the least its citizens deserve for their loyalty is the defence of their lives through the optimalisation of the state's powers.
05/08/2011 10:44Ed T - you miss read my blog. I pointed out that meting out the crime as the punishment in other types of crime is ridiculous and sadistic. I understand the reasons why some people support the death penalty. But absolutely disagree.
05/08/2011 12:28The cost one is interesting. A number of states in the US are finding that it costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. Now if you're happy with summary justice of the kind we had in the good old days, you know, sentence one day and off to Tyburn in the morning, you can do it cheap. If you allow for any kind of system of appeals it gets very expensive.
05/08/2011 13:02If you understand the reasons you must consider them on some level logical, but it seems that you cannot identify what the false step is in the reasoning. It's JUST WRONG, right?
However, I'd like to look at the logic behind what you are saying on the point of the punishment imitating the crime. This is not necessarily even valid in the case of capital punishment, because the main thrust of the argument is directed against aggravated murder rather than murder per se. To kill a torturing murder is actually far less an act that the one he/she initiated. Judicial killing is massively different to extra-judicial, which is why we generally abhor (all or nearly all of us) vigilante killings or lynch mobs.
But secondly and most importantly, the main issue is not imitating but fitting the crime. More exactly, it is finding something commensurate to the crime. If someone steals a lot of money he may go to jail- it is felt to be commensurate to the crime. On the other hand, despite going to jail we still try to take his ill-gotten money from him. Is this stealing? What is commensurate with taking the life of another person or many people, or taking pleasure in tormenting and forcing people towards death? I would argue, in addition to the judicial process and the deprivation of liberty also the loss of life. It's the only step which makes logical sense of the position.
Sometimes we call these people monsters and although this seems extreme I find it less extreme than to accord them the same humanity as the victims of murder. By doing so we normalise evil and demean innocence.
05/08/2011 13:14ed t has said almost all I would have said here. Two things I'd add:
1) It's hardly vigilante justice for a judge to pass a sentence which is then carried out by authority of the Secretary of State. If I went around killing murderers that would be quite wrong, but so it would be if I imprisoned them or levied fines on them.
2) What seems to me ridiculous is the implication that death-penalty states are ipso facto uncivilised. The death penalty may be rare now, but it was all but universal a century ago, for example, in a world that was in many ways more civilised than our own.
I'm against the reintroduction of the death penalty myself, but I'm very disheartened about the quality of mind of those seeking desperate arguments against it.
05/08/2011 14:47My view is that the death penalty should be available for a limited type of murder. Staines has listed child murder and police in the pursuance of their duty i believe. I don't have a problem with that because there is no current deterrent.
06/08/2011 01:55However, I believe that this should be left up to the judge. If there is any doubt as to guilt in the judge's mind then a custodial sentence could be applied instead.
I also strongly believe we need a deterrent. So if we are not to have the death penalty back would you support a life sentence being just that? It so rarely is.