Jason Owen – Capital Punishment Icon?
If there is a simple visual answer to the capital punishment conundrum, then it will emerge – in the shape of Jason Owen – blinking into the daylight on this coming Friday morning.
It will cost us many millions of pounds spread over several years to ensure that the ‘answer’ remains safe, sound, and secret.
We contort ourselves over capital punishment because we remember the failures. The men innocently hanged before they had a chance to prove their innocence.
If, instead of coming at the beginning of a sentence, it came at the end of – say – 20 years time, plenty of time for reflections on the nature of your wrongdoing, plenty of time for new evidence to emerge, lethargic defence lawyers to bestir themselves, the press to stop navel gazing and appeal for fresh evidence, then we might feel differently about the ultimate death of someone who had been given every opportunity to prove that we were wrong. It is the hasty nature of the judgment which appals, as much as the judgment itself.
Personally I would be very happy to imagine that not only contemplating your impending death, but having 20 years of it hanging over your head as you munched the unending porridge, might be a more effective deterrent to those who treat the lives of others with callous contempt.
The fact that society is neither given the comfort of knowing that an individual will spend 20 years reflecting in discomfort nor that they will pay with their life is what adds fuel to the cry to bring back hanging.
Next Friday, Jason Owen will walk free from jail. Presumably because the justice system wishes to save money, meet its targets, and generally be free of the little scrota.
Owen will continue to be a burden on the taxpayers though, just from a different pocket. He is asking for plastic surgery to protect his identity, and is likely to be given a new name. Fortunately (?) for us, in an attempt to prove himself a changed individual, he went on a course to learn basic construction techniques shortly before his trial – until then he had no legitimate means of supporting himself, and was ‘on the run’ from the police in respect of an armada of crimes. whether he uses his new found skills to earn a living or continues to expect the tax payer to feed him remains to be seen.
Jason Owen was originally jailed indefinitely in connection with the iconic death of Baby ‘P’. The appeal court, for reasons which escape me, despite having read through the case twice, decided to alter that sentence to one of six years, on the grounds that he did not represent a ‘significant risk’.
“He displays a willingness to deceive …which is unattractive, but to translate that into a significant risk that he will himself in the future commit offences involving death or serious personal injury to the public is … simply a step too far.”
This is a man who was accused of the rape of an 11 year old girl whilst he was still only 13 years old himself. The case was dropped for lack of reliable evidence, given the age of the victim.
This is a man who was accused of torturing his own grandmother to persuade her to change her will – it never came to trial because the terrified grandmother had died by then.
This is a man who had convictions for theft, robbery and carrying weapons by the time he was 20.
This is a man who set fire to his own house and was later convicted in respect of another arson.
This is a man whose own Mother and Father have both separately changed their names in an effort to remain hidden from him.
This is a man whom the appeal court do not think poses a ‘significant risk’ to any member of the public.
This is the man who will single-handedly reignite the public desire to bring back capital punishment.
Cruelly, he is set to be released on the 4th anniversary of Baby ‘P’s death.
Guido’s campaign could not ask for more wind beneath its wings. Ironically, Jason Owen would never have hung – he wasn’t even charged with murder, merely failing to prevent a death. I doubt that the tabloids will remember that come Friday.
Stand by for tabloid hysteria.
August 4, 2011 at 21:37
-
@Tattyfalarr
Indeed yes, my interpretation of libertarianism is that it is a tendency
towards individualism, not a straight anarchist manifesto. Although justice,
or at least administered punishment, is the preserve of the state, operating
in our name and in lieu of local ‘unofficial’ action, I do insist that a jury
of peers gets to thumb up or down. So it is not entirely in the hands of the
state.
I think if one is looking for people calling for no government whatsoever
they maybe on the wrong blog. Although I cannot speak for everyone here with
much conviction or authority.
-
August 4, 2011 at 22:53
-
“Not entirely in the hands of the state.”
Sentencing is entirely down to the state. Therein lies the problem.
For the record, I’ve no real understanding of what libertarianism is or
isn’t. I’m here to learn, comment and ask the occasional stupid question
- August 5, 2011 at 11:04
-
UK libertarianism is probably best defined as thinking that there is a
necessary minimum of state interference in individual freedoms to ensure a
stable society but that we should aim to get as close to that minimum as
practical.
Minarchism, like US versions of libertarianism, is the corresponding
jihadi sect.
Note that left and right libertarians disagree strongly about what
forms that necessary minimum.
- August 4, 2011 at 21:15
-
‘he went on a course to learn basic construction techniques shortly before
his trial ‘
Is the revolting Owen a wannabe Fred West/Josef Fritzl ?
- August 4, 2011 at 13:19
-
Plus the usual nutters and schoolboy jolly japes…
“And almost 50,000 signed up to the idea that TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson
should become prime minister.”
- August 4, 2011 at 13:17
-
-
August 4, 2011 at 13:43
- August 4, 2011 at 08:45
-
There are only two people I would wish to hang and that for crimes which
have affected millions and whose influence will continue for decades : Tony
Blair, for taking us to war on a false prospectus leading to the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of people, and Gordon Brown, for economic crimes,
encumbering us with debts which will be a continuing drag on the prosperity of
unborn generations.
- August 4, 2011 at 11:12
-
It would be perfectly legal – it’s called ‘treason’.
-
August 4, 2011 at 12:04
-
It wouldn’t be legal. There is no death penalty for treason. And if you
needed new legislation why not invent the new crime of being a completely
shit prime minister?
- August 4, 2011 at 12:37
-
Nevermind, Brown can be topped for being mates with Ed Balls and
Blair for marrying Cherie.
- August 4, 2011 at
13:30
-
Under a just God perhaps.
- August 4, 2011 at 08:32
-
I agree he doesn’t seem to have behaved well in the past, but he has NOT
murdered anyone. As for his parents wanting to stay hidden from him – well,
what did they (not?) do in their child-rearing that he was accused of rape at
13? I’m not being bleeding heart liberal, but young people don’t turn out as
accused rapist/blackmailing/arsonist thugs without a little (lack of?)
guidance (at the very least) on the way.
But on the other hand, is it too late for him? Can he “redeem” himself and
become a useful member of a community? It’s not beyond possibility and others
have in the past. If he were killed by the state (and again, he has NOT killed
anybody), that would not be possible.
If he is going to be re-housed and given a new identity etc, may I suggest
Chipping Norton? I think those who live there and in surrounding areas would
be enlightened by his presence and may be able to test their ideas of the Big
Society to the limit and also ask themselves “what is justice?” at the same
time.
-
August 4, 2011 at 01:19
-
Wonder where he will go and live.
Where’s Rebekah Brooks and the NOTW when you need them?
Wonder how long it will be before he kills or maims again. Shall we have a
sweepstake?
This man is high profile – there must be hundreds (if not more) like him
patrolling society……..thanks to arseholes like Ken Clarke and Lord Justice
Phillips of Worth Matravers – blokes who don’t have to live with the
consequences of their own actions.
- August 4, 2011 at 00:58
-
Am I the only one to think he looks like a repressed homosexual?
- August 3, 2011 at 23:16
-
If the death penalty is to remain where it should – consigned to the
history books – we have the question of what to do instead. Clearly, there are
some crimes so abhorrent that life imprisonment – and genuinely for life – is
in order. There is also the option of an indefinite tarriff, when the offender
shall not be released until judged to be no threat to society. The principle
should be to ensure that society is protected, as far as can be, from the
genuinely dangerous.
While we bear the costs of their incarceration, perhaps we might see some
of their debt to society repayed by making them do useful work. We still use
mailbags, so presumably they still need sewing – something along those
lines.
-
August 3, 2011 at 22:37
-
OS – agree completely
Stefan Kiscow RIP.
-
August 3, 2011 at 22:20
-
‘Hanged’ not ‘hung’.
This article is an argument for a better justice system rather than a case
to bring back the death penalty.
This is a man I, like thousands, would happily dispose of personally. And I
speak confidently that it would not result in nightmares, trauma or ‘stress’.
However, the death penalty is the ultimate symbol of the states presumption
of authority over our lives. I would find it incongruent with libertarianism
to advocate such a policy.
I would welcome arguments to reconcile my lack of understanding.
- August 3, 2011 at 22:32
-
Agreed. That Owen is being released so soon beggars belief but I’m not
sold on it being a reason for giving the state, an entity I feel is
fundamentally unreliable if not outright untrustworthy, the power to kill
its own citizens. If I was of the tinfoil headgear persuasion I might even
wonder if giving scum the kid gloves treatment was deliberately designed to
stir up enough outrage for the state to get that power back, but careful
application of Hanlon’s Razor suggests that it’s just more evidence that the
people running things are bloody useless. And since you don’t entrust
anything important – people’s lives, for example – to people who are bloody
useless.
However, the death penalty is the ultimate symbol of the states
presumption of authority over our lives. I would find it incongruent with
libertarianism to advocate such a policy.
Very well put. I shall nick that pretty often.
-
August 4, 2011 at 00:12
-
Apply my missing apostrophe when you do.
-
August 4, 2011 at 00:41
-
“However, the death penalty is the ultimate symbol of the states
presumption of authority over our lives. I would find it incongruent
with libertarianism to advocate such a policy.”
So umm…purely out of curiosity…what would be the libertarian solution
?
- August 4, 2011 at
02:21
-
What’s wrong with not letting them out?
Personally I quite like the idea of exile. There are hundreds of
little islands around the UK – find one that’s too far away to swim,
supports agriculture for maybe a few thousand people but lacks the
materials to construct the means to get back to the mainland, rename
it Nonce Island or something, and… well, you get the picture. I’d
suggest the recidivists rather than first offenders but that might
depend on the offence. Anyway, the goal should be to restrict their
freedom only as much as necessary to prevent them inflicting harm.
Exile to some remote island would remove them from society permanently
at relatively little expense but would otherwise leave them be, and
there’d remain the possibility of going and bringing them back if it
did turn out that there’d been a miscarriage of justice.
- August 4, 2011 at
12:02
-
A good question Mr Exile. To lock somebody up is not nominally
‘libertarian’. I too would like an answer.
I should point out at this moment I consider myself a small
government conservative rather than a libertarian.
However, it is presented by me as a sliding scale, prison is indeed
a symbol of the authority of the state over the citizenry but the
death penalty is the ‘ultimate’ at the far end of the scale.
I should also point out I am not 100% opposed to hanging folk, just
about 70% and would probably drop below 50% if anyone presented
crystal clear evidence in saves the lives of future victims in
significant numbers. How could I morally not take the side of the
greater good?
I was merely making the point that I found it incongruent.
But if you do need an answer I could say on that scale prison is
better than gallows and we should use it far more effectively.
- August 4, 2011 at
12:15
-
Sorry: Answered to Mr Exile whereas I meant it for Tattyfalarr.
-
August 4, 2011 at 12:35
-
Angry Exile – I think we’ve tried the exile-to-an-island idea some
time ago. I think we called it ‘Australia’. One of the unintended
consequences was that they ended up beating us at cricket – so let’s
not go there again, eh?
- August 4, 2011 at
15:58
-
@ Engineer – yes, and since I live in Australia now I’m not all
that keen for them to be sent here
And of course the aborigines are still understandably pissed off about
it from last time. Besides, Australia isn’t run by the EU, has a
GDP/cap about $5,000 higher than the UK, missed the worst of the GFC
because of its natural resources and has nice weather. Apart from all
the lethal wildlife and the Collingwood FC supporters (almost the same
thing according to Mrs Exile) it’s bloody nice here, far too nice a
place to exile criminals to. The cricket team has gone downhill a lot
lately, though.
No, it was a mistake to send criminals here, and I think that was
realised in hindsight after the first gold rushes were sparked by
discoveries of gold by none other than transported convicts. Better to
dump ‘em on some remote rock with just enough land and soil to sustain
a small population but no trees to supply wood for a boat. Every
country should have one but I think the UK is actually more likely to
have a suitable one than Australia is. The St Kilda islands west of
Scotland look promising – uninhabited, a 40 mile swim in cold water,
not much but grass there. Just need to get it back off the National
Trust.
- August 4, 2011 at 16:21
-
Thanks for your responses which seem to simply say that whilst
something must be done with murderers it is preferable…from a
libertarian point of view…that it is the state does that
something.
Interesting.
- August 5, 2011 at
03:43
-
“it is preferable…from a libertarian point of view…that it is
the state does that something.
Interesting.”
Yes, it’s one of those things for which the state is a necessary
evil, and why I’m a minarchist libertarian rather than an anarchist.
Even then there are ways in which it can be made more libertarian,
e.g. the state rather then the State doing it (obviously applies only
to countries that are federated) or even the city/shire/county,
privatised prisons, possibly even privatised and competing court
systems with the state’s judicial service serving as a fallback for
use only when accused and accusers cannot find a mutually agreeable
court (admittedly this seems likely to be a lot of the time in things
like murder cases). In fact I can go all the way and suggest a
theoretical solution that avoids the state altogether.
Imagine my suburb has someone, a killer or a paedophile say, whose
offences and recidivism makes him persona non grata, and since
in our hypothetical minarchist society anyone who wants to go armed is
free to do so our hypothetical offender is more or less forced out of
the local area. Neighbouring suburbs aren’t likely to find him any
more tolerable and will also drive him away. Eventually this forces
him away from civilised society altogether and the only places left
where he’ll be allowed to live the remainder of his loathsome
existence are those where no other bugger chooses to live, in which
case he might even be prepared to stump up the cost of a ticket to
Hirta via Angry Exile’s One Way Ferry Company (Service With A Scowl)
from his own pocket. If not more than likely someone will pay for his
ride just to be rid of the scumbag. State involvement = zero.
A realistic scenario? No, not as our societies are now. We’ve
become fat and lazy and accustomed to governments doing everything bar
wiping our arses for us, and so for many people it’s simply
unthinkable that we’d even try to do something like this without the
wise and benevolent guiding hands of The State . That probably won’t
change in my lifetime so in the interim involving the state is
probably unavoidable. However, that’s not a good reason to involve it
any more than absolutely necessary and certainly not to give it any
power that it doesn’t absolutely have to have. States don’t have a
good track record in that department and many are if anything worse
than the recidivist criminals we’re trying to work out what to do
with.
- August 4, 2011 at 05:50
-
Agreed save for one small Caveat, this is not in any sense, a man.
- August 4, 2011 at 08:59
-
@ A.E.
Re. exile and “There are hundreds of little islands around
the UK….”
How about Gruinard, just off the Scottish coast; infected with anthrax
in 1942?
- August 4, 2011 at 10:46
-
The thought’s occurred to me more than once
- August 5, 2011 at 10:56
-
(Un)fortunately now disease free (depending entirely on your
requirements.) Although AE could probably run his ferry from the
Aultbea base pier – that was still intact (and fairly solid concrete)
– when I was last there.
- August 8, 2011 at 12:56
-
“…And Guy de Vere is far too young,
And . . . wasn’t D’Alton’s
father hung?” (Hilaire Belloc)
The old form “hanged” probably
survived because it was part of the unchanging sentence pronounced by the
judge, and it preserves a useful distinction, but “hung” (with the same
meaning) is fairly common, especially in the South.
-
August 3, 2011 at 21:30
- August 3, 2011 at 21:20
-
And what penalty will the individuals of the appeal court who decide
that he poses no ‘significant risk’ to any member of the public face, if Owen
proves them wrong?
- August 4, 2011 at 00:37
-
My view, oft expressed, is that the Parole Board should be held
accountable. Somehow I think this would make them reflect a little more than
at present.
{ 36 comments }