Some of you may have seen this Anna Raccoon article  supporting the Death Penalty by James Garry of Politics on Toast.

This is the first half of my response.

It is indeed a strong and highly coherent piece of writing, even if it expresses sentiments that I could not possibly agree with – this bunny also comes in for a bit of an intellectual kicking on more than one occasion and hey, that’s the price of engaging in online debate with a capable opponent. So there are several points raised here which deserve no less than a detailed and thorough response.

First up, Mr Garry’s critique of my observation on emotion vs reason (ie that abolitionists are generally more ‘level headed’ and ‘rational’ than supporters of the death penalty) is a fair one. There is of course a cocktail of rational and emotionally-charged discourse on either side of this particular argument. Both can highlight statistics that point in their general direction, while there are also martyrs to the death penalty itself (the wrongly executed) and its abolition if one believes in the ability of this particularly sharp sword of damocles to deter crime – in his article, Mr Garry points to the child who might be murdered in the future as such an instance.

Individuals in each camp will be more or less ‘rational’ or ‘emotional’ than others pursuing the same line of argument, so a fight over which side is slightly more or less level headed than the other may only go round in circles and be a waste of everyone’s time. Of course, people are naturally inclined to believe that their case is more solid and based in fact than the directly opposing one, so what I said in the first instance about abolitionists being more rational should not have been a great surprise in that context. However, Mr Garry’s point has considerable weight in the sense that the application of a broad brushstroke can often be the first step towards dismissing one’s opponents as bloodthirsty lunatics who are foaming at the mouth, or ‘bleeding heart liberals’, depending on your starting position.

In my original piece on the subject, I raised two points which Mr Garry objects to, leading him to suggest that my comments were “misrepresentations of the ‘pro’ capital punishment argument”. By saying that “to justify one unfounded claim he needs to make another”, there is a clear recognition that these questions possess a natural link. Does the death penalty actually deter people who would otherwise kill? Is my claim that it does not ‘unfounded’, or merely an accurate reflection of the misplaced faith that many have in the poetic power of the noose or needle? And in the absence of clear evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of those crimes that would be punishable by it, what exactly is it there for?

Mr Garry cites that “In the five years since 1965 when the death penalty was suspended, there was a 125% increase in crimes that would have attracted the death penalty”, also pointing out that nobody on the ‘anti’ side of the argument has made a successful attempt to either counter or otherwise explain this statistic to him. In truth, I haven’t seen these figures despite having had a look for it, although I have no issue believing them to be true – there are, however, a few questions worth posing. By ‘capital offences’, we are presumably talking about those crimes where the death penalty would merely have been on the table as an option, since by definition, one can never say with utter certainty than defendant x would have been hanged?

Does the absence of capital punishment leave juries with greater confidence to find the defendant guilty? Perhaps something for all of us to consider is – the death penalty will almost certainly lead to innocent people being executed, but has it also brought about the acquittal of men and women who were actually as guilty as sin but faced with a jury who were not wholly convinced of that guilt? Conversely, does the ‘mere’ consequence of a life sentence lead to a more casual approach to what constitutes reasonable doubt?

Mr Garry argues persuasively for juries made up of individuals with qualifications and at least some degree of proven intelligence. He also makes the case for unanimous 12-0 verdicts across the board, something which I believe is fine in principle but unworkable in reality. A single rogue juror pursuing a perverse acquittal for their own reasons is hugely empowered by any system that calls for unanimity, and herein lies the problem. In the same way as something just short of utter certainty can constitute ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (cases in which we can be 100% sure of a defendant’s guilt are extremely rare), 10-2 is the sort of majority threshold that appears to be sit comfortably with this. Yet Mr Garry is quite naturally uncomfortable about the notion of hanging, injecting or sizzling someone on a 10-2 verdict, so calls for unanimous decisions and ‘smart’ jurors.

Of course, intelligence and honesty are two entirely different things – just because a juror is professionally qualified or possessed of an above-average IQ does not mean that they will enter a courtroom free of their own agenda or prejudices. Notorious criminals are known to attract ‘fanclubs’, a single member of which could bring about a perverse acquittal or expensive re-trial because of the requirement for a 12-0 guilty verdict. This bunny is coming round to the view that juries need to be phased out and replaced by a system that relies more on forensic analysis of the facts, rather than two theatrical performers in wigs attempting to sell their case to an audience perhaps not versed in the details and their ramifications. However, that is of course an entirely separate conversation, and in the context of this one, it is the prospect of the death penalty that is the problem.

Back to the subject of the death penalty and its deterrent value.  Statistics detail the extent to which the murder rate declined in the United States between 1990 and 2007, identifying the separate trends that occurred in those states that

1. Actively used capital punishment,
2. Kept it on the books as an option but had effectively become abolitionist in all but name and
3. Had formally abolished the death penalty.

The graphs indicate that the homicide count actually fell faster in those states which did not carry out executions. I appreciate that Mr Garry has produced a compelling statistic to which an immediate and satisfactory reply from the ‘anti’ side may be lacking, but then these figures from a nation where the ultimate penalty is used in some places and not others would appear to seriously undermine the ‘deterrent’ argument.

In those seventeen years, might the prospect of ten thousand volts in the chair have caused someone, somewhere to think again before committing an act of murder? It would be arrogant in the extreme to suggest that this absolutely did not happen, and it may well have done. However, other factors invariably come into play before we base our judgement not on an isolated case, but the general trend of the statistics. Is a killer’s ‘urge’ so strong as to make them unreachable in terms of weighing up the consequences? In a premeditated murder, where the body might be disposed of some distance from the scene of the crime, does the perpetrator actually believe that they will not be detected and therefore the fallout to be merely a hypothetical discussion? Are some murderers actually rather unperturbed at the thought of being executed themselves?

Were there a stack of evidence that all suggested a direct correlation between the absence or presence of capital punishment and its effect on the murder rate, then those of us who object to it on a point of principle would be in a very difficult position indeed. The reality is that the range of statistics that are out there is at best highly inconclusive – certainly nowhere near sufficiently compelling to say with any degree of certainty that ‘capital punishment deters crime’, as Mr Garry does. I mentioned in my opener on the subject that this is an argument I have heard with decreasing regularity over the years, not to be facetious but because many supporters of capital punishment appear to have abandoned it themselves and given greater focus to other aspects of their case.

This brings us neatly onto the subject of retribution, which is where I’ll pick up next time.

Outspoken Rabbit

John Pickworth
August 24, 2011 at 02:36

While I wouldn’t wish to stifle debate…

But you do realise that we are NEVER going to reimpose the death penalty?
We’d be the laughing stock of the civilised world, never mind the fact we
would be breaking lord knows how many EU laws.

You should also remember that capital punishment was never about protecting
the public but rather about protecting the establishment. Witness too the
regimes that use it today and the way it is often used. Even in the USA its
often a political football – involving turf wars between Federal and State
Government, between States or Governors acting tough around election time. Nor
is it a particularly efficient system of justice. The simple fact is more
people die of natural causes on death row than are executed. There is a
willingness to dismantle the system at the public level but sadly not the
courage at the political one.

In the UK, I simply don’t trust a Government that reacts too readily to the
baying mob and the tabloid faux outrages. Nor as I’ve said do a trust an
establishment that demonstrates all too frequently its rage when someone
‘sticks it to the man’. You only need look at the excessively harsh initial
sentences (mostly double 30 years each) handed to the Great Train Robbers in
the 1960′s as an example.

Finally, DNA isn’t the diamond standard of proof that its often held up to
be… don’t believe the hype. Nor should it be the deciding factor as that would
lead you down some pretty awkward cul-de-sacs; for example, if we had Muammar
Gaddafi in our hands could we not execute him because there is no DNA evidence
against him?

Sadly, its an imperfect world. We’ll just have to live with it and the
criminals that offend against us.

Ed P August 23, 2011 at 20:05

As imprisonment for “life actually meaning entire natural term” (LAMENT)
seems to me to be intrinsically crueller than immediate capital punishment –
it is after all, by definition, a guaranteed death sentence – I suggest it
should be possible for the Lament prisoner to opt for death some time into
his/her sentence. But not until the baying mob has had time to calm down and
is satisfied the perpetrator of the crime has been incarcerated long
enough.

James
Garry August 23, 2011 at 19:57

Thank you for your latest instalment on our debate on capital punishment.
I’ll wait for Part 2 to be published before making a detailed reply. Just to
let you know I’m keeping up with the exchanges.

Daz Pearce
August 23, 2011 at 21:11

Nice one James – I’m on with Part 2 now.

Derek G
Haslam August 23, 2011 at 19:53

Oh dear faux Ciaran, banned by the Torygraph & Holby again?

Felix A August 23, 2011 at 19:28

The problem with juries is they can be dominated by strong personalities.
Personally, I would support having 3 independent juries with 8 members each
(more expensive, but I also support prisoners having to pay for jail, and work
if necessary; they could also take out insurance). The juries would not be
allowed to mix in any way or even see each other during the trial (one-way
window panes?) and at least 2 would need to have unanimous guilty
verdicts.

Daz Pearce
August 23, 2011 at 19:41

The main reason I changed my mind about juries was after digesting the
awful press that Chris Jefferies, a totally innocent man, received. Easily
led and perhaps not so bright people who read those headlines may have wound
up on a jury with Jefferies in the dock. He would have been toast, no
question.

Ciaran
Rehill August 23, 2011 at 20:29

Are juries the answer? I would prefer three highly trained Judges and a
lay magistrate to listen to the evidence in serious cases, which are usually
too complicated for twelve usually unemployed or elderly individuals who
spend half their time sleeping or just googling on their mobiles. The trials
would take less time, cost less money and be harder for criminals to fix the
result. It worked well in Northern Ireland so what’s the problem?

Peter Melia August 23, 2011 at 19:19

“…juries need to be phased out and replaced by a system that relies more on
forensic analysis of the facts…”
My problem with this is that forensics is
not a closed “science” but an ever-evolving tool, changing with technological
advances.
Clearly a verdict could well be brought, say, now, which at a
later date might be found, simply by advances in technology, to be invalid and
unjust.

Daz Pearce
August 23, 2011 at 19:38

Evenin Peter – when I say forensic, I’m using the word in the same
context as one might when describing the work of an accountant or data
analyst – i.e. qualified people weighing up evidence with the understanding
that any reasonable doubt must go to the defendant.

Ex-Liverpool
Docker August 23, 2011 at 18:12

Capital punishment is no more or less than retribution. Crimes of passion
will not be reduced by the thought of the death penalty; it is all heat of the
moment stuff. Premeditated murder is an entirely different thing but will the
death penalty make a suicide bomber think again?
As my mum would say ‘lock
em up and throw away the key’!

Ciaran
Rehill August 23, 2011 at 20:19

Yes, capital crimes should be exactly that, the murder of our brave
police officers, ambulance crews prison officers, crimes involving firearms,
terrorist and perverts who abuse and murder innocent children like my
grandfather.
Other murders such as cries of passion or assaults gone
wrong should be dealt with by way of forced repatriation if they are
foreigners after two years hard labour and bread and water. British crims
should be forced to work 13 hour days doing hard soul destroying work.

Mark Gullick August 23, 2011 at 17:22

I find I have to cancel out my gut reaction. Personally, I would like to
see killers snivelling their way to the needle room, soiling their dignity
pants and pleading for their mothers to be in attendance. However, I don’t
believe we should have capital punishment because not having it represents a
gap in social evolution which sets us apart from the baby nations and
states.
Prison, though, for killers, should be an endless humiliation
designed to break a man.

Ciaran
Rehill August 23, 2011 at 20:11

I agree whole heartedly with what you say. I also believe that certain
ethnic groups are more predisposed to commit criminal acts than others.
Again this is amateur research I have recently carried out with another
amateur researcher I met whilst attending an EDL meeting.

Ciaran
Rehill August 23, 2011 at 16:48

Capital punishment was never intended to be a deterrent, it was intended to
be the ultimate punishment for people committing vile offences. In the years
that following the abolishment of capital punishment convictions for
Manslaughter increased by 600% due to plea bargaining and the prosecution
avoiding expensive murder trials.
I firmly believe that with the wonderful
advances in DNA testing and profiling that the chances of an innocent person
being hanged by mistake is unlikely. I speak as somebody whose paternal
grandfather was executed for a particularly nasty murder in 1938, where his
victims were young and innocent children.
I still feel tainted by his
perverted actions even though I wasn’t born at the time. I almost forgot,
hanging cuts down on re-offending .

John Jones
August 23, 2011 at 19:21

I don’t understand your post. Why would you feel tainted by someone you
didn’t know? And this does not make you any more qualified to speak on the
death penalty – unless of course you think that having an executed relative
is a GOOD thing for your family, as opposed to not really relevant.

As for the chances of an innocent person being hanged by mistake, people
like you who “firmly believe” that DNA profiling is perfect and amazing are
the problem. Let’s stick to the facts rather than belief. What happens with
someone who is innocent of murder, but possibly guilty of something else
which got his DNA in the right place, is convicted? In your mind, there
would never be any doubt because “the DNA got him”, and nobody would ever
bother even trying to prove his innocence. This would lead to claims that
fewer innocent people are executed, when this is not the case.

Life imprisonment also cuts down on reoffending. If you think that is a
burden on the taxpayer, why not make the prisoner work to pay for the costs
of his imprisonment, just like the rest of us work to pay for the costs of
our imprisonment on Earth?

Ciaran
Rehill August 23, 2011 at 20:05

The reason I feel tainted by my paternal grandfathers filthy crimes
against young and innocent young children may have something to do with
the fact that I bear a strong family resemblance to the evil perv. Also
being long term unemployed I have also had an abundance of free time to
study DNA and genetics , and if I say so myself I am now somewhat of an
amateur expert on the subject. I now have great faith in our wonderful
police coupled with the tremendous advances in DNA evidence that the
likelihood of an innocent person being executed is rather remote to say
the least.

Derek G
Haslam August 23, 2011 at 20:34

Dear John, Check the times, 20.11, 20.19, 2021. This is not the “real”
Ciaran Rehill but a BNP/EDL police troll, one wonders why Ms Raccoon does
not ban him?

Ms Raccoon says: Any more of this moronic squabbling and she
will ban the pair of you – either behave like adults and confine yourself
to intelligent comments that are pertinent to the post, or take yourself
off to another playground. You are boring me to death – and round here,
that is a worse crime than libel….
Grow up – both of you.

Ciaran
Rehill August 24, 2011 at
01:09

I am the real Ciaran Rehill, I also blog as Ron Broxted on the Indy
livejournal. I can only assume that you are a deranged trouble maker.
Incidentally are you not banned on the Old Holborn site?

Ciaran
Rehill August 24, 2011 at
09:45

Dear Ms Raccoon, I can assure you that you will not receive any
trouble from me, sadly I cannot speak for the deranged troll that
follows me around the Internet. Please note that his latest nonsense was
added to these comments following my comments. I have reported him to
the authorities in Northern Ireland where he is a inpatient in a secure
psychiatric unit. For reasons best known to the hospital some of the
patients are allowed access to the Internet!!

Anna
Raccoon August 24, 2011 at
11:26

Mr Haslam and Mr Rehill have now left the building – on the
tip of my boot. No doubt to emerge in another
kindergarten.

D.
August 24, 2011 at 09:56

Posting at 1am it is indeed Haslam (IP address checks out). “I
assume” Degsy, the real C R would never make such a faux pas. But then,
you left school at 14 to go down t’pits. How is Susan;)? Still banning
you from seeing your Grandson Andy Fisher?

Anna
Raccoon August 24, 2011 at
11:23

Mr Haslam and Mr Rehill have now left the building – on the
tip of my boot. No doubt to emerge in another
kindergarten.