Ten Reasons against the Death Penalty
1 Timothy Evans – Executed on 9/3/1950 for killing his daughter at 10 Rillington Place. His neighbour John Reginald Halliday Christie was executed on 15/7/1953 for the crime after being found to be a serial killer. The fact that Christie was a special constable meant that no one believed that he could be a murderer whilst Evans was an illiterate welsh miner of poor health.
2 Colin Campbell Ross – An Australian executed in 24/4/1922 for the rape and murder of a child despite their being evidence that he was not guilty. He was posthumously pardoned in 2008.
3 Walter Rowland – Executed on 27/2/194. Even though he had an alibi from multiple police officers he had been released from prison after escaping the death sentence for killing his daughter which meant the jury thought he had form and convicted him. David Ware confessed to the crime but was not believed but went on to murder a woman in 1951.
4 George Kelly – Executed on 28/3/1950 but had his conviction quashed in June 2003.
5 Derek Bentley – Famous for his “Let him have it” quote was executed on 28/1/1953. His accomplice was a minor so was given a 10 year jail term. The phrase is ambiguous and heavily biased towards a police officer who had just had a colleague murdered by Christopher Craig. Pardoned in 1998.
6 Mahmood Hussein Mattan – Executed on 3/9/1952 in Cardiff for the murder of Lily Volpert. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction after hearing of evidence that another Somali seaman had committed the crime.
7 Edith Thompson – Executed on 9/1/1923. She had been having an affair with Frederick Bywaters who had actually committed the crime. Due to this connection she was guilty by common purpose.
8 Edward Devlin and Alfred Burns – Executed on 25/4/1952 when the evidence was circumstantial at best. They didn’t help themselves with confusing alibis and their criminal past. Questions still remain about their guilt or lack of.
9 William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) – Executed on 3/1/1946 for treason even though he was an American citizen. His Britishness extended to holding a fraudulently obtained fake passport. Because of this he was held to have owed allegiance to the British sovereign. It shows how far the State will go to get it’s way.
10 – 138 being the number of Americans exonerated whilst on death row or after execution.
The picture is of Saint Nicholas of Myra as he seizes the executioner’s sword in order to save at the last moment three wrongly condemned prisoners (oil painting by Ilya Repin, 1888, State Russian Museum).
August 5, 2011 at 15:20
-
SBML
A comment on Facebook here:
http://www.facebook.com/mattwardman/posts/10150302439671096.
“Robert Leach Numbers 5 and 9 are factually wrong. As for the other eight,
if you decide that reversibility must be a factor in punishment, you are
supporting verdicts of “probably guilty”.
Could you answer?
-
August 5, 2011 at 16:12
- August 5, 2011 at 10:05
-
Well, you’re right and I was wrong. It’s its. Apologies to the Grammar
Nazi.
- August 4, 2011 at 13:54
-
‘Allo ‘Allo, Grammar Nazi!
““It shows how far the State will go to get
it’s way.”
To get IT IS way? Really?”
No, not really, because the
grammar’s fine. “It” is the State, and it will go far to get the way which
belongs to it. In other words, it’s way.
- August 4, 2011 at 15:15
-
“Its” is the possessive form of “it”. “It’s” is the contraction of “it
is”.
- August 4, 2011 at 18:10
-
It’s not generally realised that “its” is the only possessive that
doesn’t actually get an apostrophe.
People who know this are often considered tedious.
- August 4, 2011 at 13:18
-
“We cannot extend a power to the State which we do not possess
ourselves.”
Really? Have you got that in writing, because I’ve seen my
servants, in the form of Constables, wandering about with sub-machine guns.
Yet they tell me I can’t have a lock on my pen-knife to protect my fingers
from accidental closure.
No to the death penalty; the State’s killed enough
people already without an official executioner.
- August 4, 2011 at 16:56
-
Richard,
The state has not extended a power to itself, it has curtailed it for us.
Quite different!
Oh, and by “power”. I mean in terms of lawful act, not brute power.
- August 3, 2011 at 21:55
-
I’ve always thought that this was a good case for hypothecation of
taxation. If the government can introduce a box about organ donation on
licence renewals, they could surely introduce a simple tick-box on the tax
form, asking tax-payers whether they are willing to pay for the incarceration
costs of convicted murderers. That way, those people who think they should be
executed do not have to pay for them (and neither do victims’ families). If
convicted murderers were reduced to living on gruel, then those willing to do
so could be asked to increase their tax contribution.
- August 3, 2011 at 22:20
-
I’m not willing to pay for the incarceration of people convicted for
possession of drugs. Will they be killed under your scheme, or can we just
let them go?
- August 4, 2011 at 06:04
-
I’d just let them go along with anyone else committing a ‘crime’ where
there is no victim
- August 5, 2011 at 13:31
-
I wasn’t advocating killing anyone, Zaphod. The families and friends of
the convicted murderer would be more than welcome to contribute to his or
her comforts in prison. But I don’t see why these should be supplied by
the taxes of the families of victims. That just adds insult to injury.
Maybe those in favour of capital punishment could have the equivalent
amount of tax they currently have to pay towards convicted murderers’
upkeep put into a special fund for the benefit of victims? Murder Taxes A
(for the prisoner) and B (for the victims’ families)?
-
August 5, 2011 at 22:14
-
Catherine,
“I wasn’t advocating killing anyone”
I assumed that you were in your group of, “those people who think
they should be executed do not have to pay for them.”
Was I wrong?
Paying taxes for only those things you support? Now there’s an
interesting idea. Good luck with the campaign.
-
August 3, 2011 at 21:43
-
We cannot extend a power to the State which we do not possess
ourselves.
The Death Penalty is killing in cold blood.
- August 4, 2011 at 00:51
-
“We cannot extend a power to the State which we do not possess
ourselves.”
Indubitably so, sir. I only wish the state was aware of this.
- August 4, 2011 at 06:00
-
We DO possess this power ourselves, we are simply subject to sanction if
we use it whereas the state decries it, yet in fact throws it around
willy-nilly be it innocent unfortunates under our bombs or young men (and
even worse women) sent to die hellish deaths in pointless adventures.
- August 3, 2011 at 21:01
-
It is absolutely right to have the debate – it is the sort of issue which
Parliament should be compelled to review periodically, say every ten
years.
However, the selectivity of child and cop-killers diminishes the argument –
any deliberate homicide should be treated like any other, regardless of the
nature of the victim.
The debate will be lost, not because most people oppose CP in principle,
but simply because most people no longer have any faith whatsoever in the
policing and justice system to deliver a correct verdict.
We have rcently seen much of the Met Police top brass depart, mostly just
in time to avoid disciplinary charges, the two top officers of Cleveland have
been arrested today and the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire clings on to
his job by his grubby fingernails despite an abysmal disciplinary hearing
outcome. With that record at the very top, what confidence can anyone have
that such a bunch of corrupt incompetents would get murder cases correctly
solved 100% of the time ? I can’t.
That said, the Guido Fawkes debate may then stimulate a proper review of
sentencing – if this review were then to deliver a ‘life means life’ status
for the most offensive murders, then the public will would likely be
satisified. In those circumstances, it could then become feasible to offer
each found-guilty murderer the alternative option of painless execution – some
may accept that.
-
August 3, 2011 at 21:28
- August 3, 2011 at
20:54
-
One hundred and twenty reasons why you are wrong
Ten people all tragically killed by the state in pre-DNA and uber-foresnic
times.
Compared to the 120 murdered by released criminals in just two years, and
22 atteoted murders, 103 rapes, 682 serious or violent offences.
-
August 3, 2011 at 21:23
- August 3, 2011 at 22:15
-
“120 murdered by released criminals”
But how many murdered by released
murderers? Or are you advocating the death penalty for everyone on probation
for anything?
-
August 3, 2011 at 22:30
-
Good point. How many of the released criminals were petty criminals
with minor offences who went further downhill because of their experience
in prison. I suspect a lot. In fact the article says so “The Ministry of
Justice insisted that the vast majority of offenders on probation had
originally committed only minor offences, giving no clue that they would
later commit serious crimes when on probation.”
- August 4, 2011 at 01:10
-
Fatuous comment.
-
August 4, 2011 at 06:20
-
No
- August 3, 2011 at 20:08
-
“It’s very easy to be altruistic”.
No, it isn’t. It’s not easy to defend the “right to life” of any killer,
particularly the high profile nasty ones. It brings no satisfaction, no
reward, and it angers those people, (many of whom we respect), who don’t
understand why we make that stance.
And yet, a captive convicted criminal will never be put to death in my
name.
I accept that those opposed to Capital Punishment appear to be in the
minority, according to polls. But if the executioner was selected at random
from those who voted for CP, it would change the balance.
You cannot, in my opinion, be in favour if you’re not theoretically willing
to do the deed personally. I appreciate that many people say they are willing,
and that some of those really mean it. And some of those would not back out if
it actually came to it. But your majority is not what it seems.
Just my view. I hold it strongly.
- August 3, 2011 at 20:11
-
And if it were your child that was the victim, what then?
- August 3, 2011 at 20:55
-
The perp would be advised to move to the moon or appear in a live
re-make of “Law abiding citizen”
-
August 3, 2011 at 22:08
-
If my child were a victim of murder, I might well change my opinion.
You will respect my honesty for admitting that?
However, justice should not be influenced by those seeking vengeance.
My opinion is such circumstances would not be reliable. Anyway, there
are not enough people in that situation to affect the balance.
- August 4, 2011 at 05:56
-
I disagree, the right of revenge is Homeric in its notion and
application, and I regard it as both legitimate an just. Too often
people dismiss it by knee-jerk, without really thinking it
through.
- August 3, 2011 at 19:55
-
My first instinctive view is yes to capital punishment.
I would also
like to think that past miscarriages of justice were due to more primitive
scientific investigation and less rigourous procedures.
I have two difficulties though, the first being which cases would attract
this penalty? Most murderers aren’t the tabloid hyped torturers or mindless
thugs.
The second is who would carry out the sentencing and the execution.
What would you think of a member of your family doing that?
So on balance, I’ll say no to capital punishment. We need to work harder at
the alternatives and the fairer treatment of victims’ families. That’s the
civilised route, not extermination.
- August 3, 2011 at 19:36
-
Would you advocate that a dog that savaged a child to death, should be
housed in a kennel until it dies naturally, rather than be summarily
destroyed?
-
August 3, 2011 at 19:46
-
There is a slight difference between a human and a dog. It’s called
intelligence. We know what we are doing, dog follow instinct. Putting a dog
in kennel as punishment doesn’t mean a thing to a dog as it has no concept
of right of wrong, nor will it understand that being in a kennel is because
it bit someone.
In fact I don’t understand why a dog (or other animal) should be put down
just because it bit a human. It’s only doing what’s natural or what it has
been mis-trained to do.
- August 3, 2011 at 20:03
-
Careful there, you’ll have plenty of dog owners telling you that many
dogs are very intelligent and in fact do know the difference between right
and wrong.
- August 3, 2011 at 19:31
-
It’s very easy to be altruistic if you are not connected to the victim. I’m
pretty sure that 99% of people who are related to the victim would willingly,
pull the lever,flick the switch or release the gas.
-
August 3, 2011 at 19:47
-
And would they be willing to be put in jail for life if they pulled the
switch on the wrong person? In fact there would be 100% proof that they
killed.
- August 3, 2011 at 20:00
-
Ask the parents of Ian Huntley’s victims, or Milly Dowler’s for that
matter.
- August 3, 2011 at 18:37
-
When it comes to cost, I think the US has showed that with all the appeals
and dragging it out, it’s more expensive to execute someone (or at least the
lawyers get lots more money) than it is to provide them with a small cell with
full board and lodgings for life.
From the point of view of punishment for the crime, having to reflect on
what you did for thirty or more years may be a better punishment than not
having to endure same due to being executed, and at least it means mistakes
can be repaired to some degree if they later come to light.
Of course, you then get the argument that as well as punishment there is
rehabilitation, and to some extent as the US has found, if an inmate knows
he’s never going to be released then his incentive to cooperate with his
jailers is much reduced, which in turn makes their job much harder and more
dangerous.
One would also have to consider how many juries would convict, knowing that
their verdict might result in a death sentence. Some would be gung-ho and go
for it, others might not want that on their conscience and so fail to provide
the correct verdict, letting a criminal get away with a lighter sentence.
-
August 3, 2011 at 15:01
-
I think most people are against CP these days – I was previously in favour,
but life has turned me into a cynic, the police don’t always get the right
guy.
However, ironically DNA evidence has not just made it easier to disprove
cases, it also makes it far easier to square them away without doubt.
Anyway, what about the other CP………’corporal punishment’, now there’s a
debate waiting to be set off.
-
August 3, 2011 at 14:44
-
“It shows how far the State will go to get it’s way.”
To get IT IS way? Really?
- August 3, 2011 at 15:56
-
Is that the only mistake you found? Couldn’t you find any more?
- August 3, 2011 at 13:52
-
Balance the few wrongly convicted and executed people vs. those let out
after serving their sentences, only to kill again.
Actually locking someone up for their entire life (40 or 50 years?) could
be judged to be more cruel than executing them. And expensive.
If we all stopped pretending to be so civilised (& to have so many
“rights”), it would be easier to see the pros & cons of capital
punishment.
- August 3, 2011 at 15:54
-
Willing to argue about whether death is better than the torture of life
imprisonment with no chance of release and how that might affect the mental
well being of the prisoner.
But it still comes down to the fact that if there was a death penalty how
do you guarantee that the state will never ever murder an innocent
person?
If we can’t trust the state to keep our personal details private and we
can’t trust our politicians to make good laws and we can’t trust our police
to not be corrupt (cf. Sunderland) then can we really trust the state to
kill on our behalf? In the whole chain of events leading up to an execution
there is always a human involved and humans are not infallible.
- August 3, 2011 at 17:25
-
The state murders many innocents anyway, e.g., the NHS with their
policy of deliberately starving/dehydrating frail elderly people to death.
Then there’s the Met Office, with such (deliberately?) erroneous
predictions that many 100s died unprepared during the last two very cold
winters.
I’m just saying there is a balance to make – not an easy one –
between the choices of “least harm” & patting ourselves on the back
about how civilised we are.
- August
3, 2011 at 19:35
- August 3, 2011 at 13:19
-
Spiral Architect – if you allow one then you potentially allow them all.
ABB would appear to be guilty of a most heinous crime but if you allow the
death penalty for him then you can be 100% sure that subsequently someone
innocent will be executed
-
August 3, 2011 at 13:20
-
He should die in jail though – despite the cost
- August 3, 2011 at 13:24
-
I stated that for me personally, for the death penalty to be applied
the crime should be heinous and the evidence 100% compelling.
Breivik’s actions satisfy both I’d say – mass, cold-blooded murder and
caught red-handed with the gun in his hand as he surrendered, with his
‘manifesto’ self-published.
Moreover, by definition, no innocent person could be executed if the
evidence was 100% compelling.
- August
3, 2011 at 13:42
-
OK, so someone with total and utter proof of guilt of a heinous crime
should be executed. How heinous does it have to be? Kill 90, 60, 20, 10
people? Is it repeated torture of the victim before their death? How
long does the torture have to carry on for to be a heinous crime? The
definition of heinous doesn’t help. A progressive lefty might think that
removing benefit entitlements from a single mother as a heinous
crime.
So how about if we use the number of people who think the crime to be
heinous as a gauge? Isn’t that basically trial by media which leads to
lynch mobs? Just because lots of people believe something doesn’t
necessarily make it right.
This is the problem with the call for the death penalty for child and
cop killers. When does a child stop being a child? When is a policeman
not a policeman, when he’s off duty? What about PCSOs? What about other
people in the services who put their lives 2nd like firemen and medics.
If you include police then why not include the PM or the Queen?
With the call for the death penalty by Guido Fawkes et al as is,
serial killers will not get executed. So the life of 1 child is more
precious than the death of a dozen 21yr olds then? They claim that the
death penalty will be just for these “hard” cases, but the state always
does creeping functionality. It only needs one more hard case and they
will clamour for a new group to be included. Then another, then another.
It’s the same tactic as the prohibitionists, ban smoking in public
places, then enclosed places, then cars, then private homes. Bit by
creeping bit you suddenly find that you can’t smoke anywhere. The same
intent behind the famous, “First they came for the Jews, but I did
nothing, then they came for the gypsies, …..” quote. It’s basically a
method to get the foot in the door and then slowly and almost
imperceptibly open the door till it’s hanging off its hinges.
All the 100% evidence means is that the right person is locked up for
life.
- August
3, 2011 at 14:12
-
SBML you are spot on – allow one you allow them all. Once you get
over the initial hurdle of allowing the state to execute someone the
creeping expansion beyond the “occasional hard case” is easy. Before
we know it they’ll bring back hanging for smoking in a public
place
- August 3, 2011 at 14:24
-
A fabulous analysis of Statist mission creep – might stick that on
our front page…
-
August 3, 2011 at 11:49
-
BTW
Hands up who doesn’t think Anders Behring Breivik should be executed.
-
August 3, 2011 at 11:47
-
On the whole – except in particularly heinous cases where the evidence is
100% compelling – I have turned against the death penalty.
However, life imprisonment should mean just that – not 14yrs. The case of
Tracie Andrews springs to mind – how on earth she can be released so early AND
after pleading not guilty and implicating someone else in the trial, is beyond
me.
Those who PG get ‘time off for plea’, should it not be the other way round
upon conviction after a trial (at the tax-payer’s expense)?
- August 3, 2011 at 11:32
-
If a conviction is found to be unsafe a prisoner can be released, if he’s
been hanged it’s too late. The last Government’s longest debate was over
fox-hunting, not whether to go to war, so the State thinks fox lives are worth
more time pondering over (and more valuable) than those of Homo sapiens. Is
the State a suitable organisation to be trusted with people’s lives?
-
August 3, 2011 at 12:16
-
Absolutely the point. The state doesn’t seem to be able to get anything
right. They shouldn’t have the power of life and death.
(Even if they
could get it right I still wouldn’t support it)
- August 3, 2011 at 11:16
-
Really well put together…
Add Stefan Kiszko to that list and the Guildford Four as well – had they
been put to death then corrupt policing and shady deals by inept lawyers would
never have come to light.
The film about Kiszko – a Life for a Life, is a good synopsis of his truly
horrific story…
-
August 3, 2011 at 12:16
-
Quite right to bring the Stefan Kiszko case up. Can any seriously imagine
that the police are not capable of making the suspect fit the crime?
- August 4, 2011 at 00:43
-
I don’t think you can cite the Guildford Four, because there’s no way of
knowing if they would have been convicted had the death penalty still been
in place.
- August 3, 2011 at 09:58
-
Interesting list, number 7 is a particularly sad story.
- August 3, 2011 at 08:56
-
One reason for:
1. Milly Dowler – a child murdered by a psychopathic serial killer who is
currently trying to decide what to have for breakfast on us having spent a
pleasant evening reminiscing about the havoc he has wrought.
- August 3, 2011 at 10:08
-
I’d rather have a hundred serial killers locked up in prison for full and
proper life (not 15 years in prison and then on license for the rest of
their lives) than have an innocent person executed by the state. Locked up
for life means that they don’t get out and harm anyone else. Same result as
execution but without the problems of getting it wrong.
Yes they have breakfast and lunch and dinner on us taxpayers, but the
food gets bit pretty boring and repetitive after the first 10 years. Canteen
food for life? No chance to have their favourite food, no chance to have a
McDonald, no chance to have slap up pub grub, no chance to have treats.
- August 3, 2011 at 10:15
-
Speaking after his conviction, Milly’s mother Sally said: ”The length
the system goes to to protect his human rights seems so unfair compared to
what we as a family have had to endure.”
- August
3, 2011 at 11:18
-
August 3, 2011 at 18:22
-
“SadButMadLad August 3, 2011 at 10:08
I’d rather have a hundred serial killers locked up…………..”
But you couldn’t have your wish, if the serial killer had a penchant
for murdering SadButMadLads.
- August
3, 2011 at 19:28
{ 64 comments }