This is the second part of my response to James Garry’s article ‘Supporting the Death Penalty‘ that appeared on the Anna Raccoon site last week. You can read the first installment here.

Having dealt with the argument that ‘capital punishment is a deterrent to kill and therefore saves lives’, this poses the question as to what extent the case for the death penalty actually centres around the notion of retribution and ‘an eye for an eye’. While suggesting that “well no, actually it isn’t about retribution”, Mr Garry makes this point which this bunny thinks well worth re-reading in full:-

Maybe it is a failure of imagination on my opponents’ part, but do they really think that having a murderer executed brings any peace or any feeling of restoration to the families of murder victims? No, I don’t think it does. I don’t think the execution of the murderer comes anywhere close to soothing the unbearable grief, to quieting the anguish or to sating the howling emptiness caused by the loss of a loved one.

If you truly desire to avenge someone’s murder, you would keep their murderer in a state of perpetual, excruciating agony for the rest of their lives. That’s retribution.

The assumption in this line of argument is that when I talk about retribution, it is in the context of the victim’s family, friends and loved ones coming to terms with their tragic loss. I’m fortunate in the sense that I can only imagine, but would agree with Mr Garry here that no punishment would come close to alleviating the constant grief and torment that must be a by-product of seeing a loved one snatched from you. It’s often said that anyone who finds themselves in that position ends up serving the toughest life sentence of all, and that concepts such as ‘moving on’ are rendered wholly inappropriate by the gravity of what they’ve had to endure. Those sentiments are of course immensely difficult to argue with.

By retribution, I am referring to the instinctive reaction that many decent people have upon hearing of a particularly horrific murder. For instance, Harold Shipman was a man whose crimes against vulnerable patients in his care were met with many a call to ‘hang the bastard’ or issue some other form of ultimate penalty. This isn’t necessarily the thinking of ‘a rabble’ or ‘hotheads’, but of individuals who would not normally be considered unreasonable by nature. Such emotive feelings from real people towards the taking of real lives are of course completely understandable, even if this bunny’s principled objection to capital punishment leaves him muttering the relatively feeble “life to mean life” instead. Whether we want a judicial process that places such sentiments at its very heart is an entirely different matter.

I’ve stated previously that people who have an emotional stake in any situation are not usually the best placed to judge how it should ultimately be dealt with. What capital punishment does is it panders to that gut instinct evoked in someone watching the guilty verdict being announced on a news bulletin – where at that moment in time, they do want retribution, revenge, call it whatever you will. Some may have children of a similar age to the victim, with others simply repulsed by the scale of the evil that has been perpetrated. The retribution that they crave is not on behalf of the victim’s family, but for themselves and/or society as a whole. I appreciate that some supporters of capital punishment do not think like this, but have come across many in everyday life who do and have no problem admitting as much. The desire for the state to ‘equalise’ on behalf of ‘decent society’ is much more common among the death penalty’s advocates than Mr Garry appears prepared to acknowledge.

The most significant area of discussion regarded my reference to Stefan Kiszko and the awful miscarriage of justice that he endured, in my case against capital punishment. Mr Garry wholly appreciates the extent of the travesty (Kiszko spent sixteen years in prison that effectively killed him, for a murder he demonstrably had the square root of nothing to do with), but then questions its relevance to this discussion, describing my citing of it as “a very weak – and false – argument against the death penalty”. Kiszko was of course not sentenced to death, so one cannot really hold him up as a tragic ‘poster boy’ of abolitionist sentiment – Derek Bentley, for instance, would be a far more appropriate individual to focus on were I attempting this. However, there are two major reasons why this bunny sees it as a very important case in shaping the parameters of the argument nonetheless.

First up, allowing the state to kill its own citizens in the name of justice is an investment of blind faith. Now, does nanny really warrant that degree of trust given her track record? I would suggest not, and that what the state did to Stefan Kiszko serves as perhaps the best instance of this point (it was after all dubbed ‘the worst miscarriage of justice of all time’). Just about everything that could have gone wrong for Stefan did – an investigation that was ten parts ineptitude and ten parts rank dishonesty, bent cops and ‘experts’, a useless solicitor riding a ‘two horses’ defence that implied partial guilt, a phoney confession that he was bullied into signing on a promise that his mother would then be along to take him home – in short, they fit him up – it happens. Allowing the ultimate penalty is highly dependant upon the police and the courts having acting 1) diligently and 2) honestly at all times, even if we’re allowing for the “unfortunate” fact that “no human system is perfect”.

Hands up, who really believes in the police, solicitors and judges that much?

Of course the same could be said about any case regardless of the penalty that was eventually imposed at the end of it – however, this brings us neatly onto my next point. Kiszko’s mother spent the best part of two decades working to have the original guilty verdict overturned, motivated at least in part by the prospect of seeing her son at home again with his name cleared. Someone in her position may still endeavour towards a posthumous pardon, or they might be prone to give up at an earlier point if there is not something tangible to keep them going through periods of stagnation. Anyone who spends time in prison for a crime that they did not commit has suffered enormously, but there remains the small relative comfort of being alive to see the wider world recognise their innocence, with a bag of money thrown in for undeserved troubles. Much of the tragedy of a posthumous pardon lies in how entirely useless it is, a signed confession to state murder, with zero relevance to its victim, nor any consequence to its perpetrator.

Like Mr Garry, I recognise the value of a justice system that inspires greater confidence from all of us. However, the re-introduction of capital punishment is an investment of blind faith that denies something most of us understand to be an unfortunate but inescapable truth – the state simply gets it wrong too often, usually through incompetence, but occasionally by selling a man they know to be innocent down the river to appease a public seeking closure. The best way in which we can clean up the judicial process is by exposing every last instance of ineptitude, corruption and other aspects of miscarriages such as prejudicial pre-trial media coverage. Only by bringing these cases into the public domain can we ask how and why they occurred, then do everything within reasonable limits to minimise the risk of it happening again.

The death penalty would surely make this less likely to take place, and that’s why I believe that what happened to Stefan Kiszko must never be forgotten in the context of this argument. I look forward to Mr Garry’s response on the subject, which will be the last word on it for the time being if he wishes – take care.

ivan August 26, 2011 at 00:55

Peter, there is only one option for murderers – life in prison. The only
way out is in a box.

That way unreformed murderers are not out in the community and their
committing multiple murders is non existent.

Peter Melia August 25, 2011 at 22:07

Accepting that the State cannot be trusted with life-or-death decisions,
and accepting that long prison sentences will resolve the majority of murder
situations, in that the majority of people closely connected with murder
victims will accept extended incarceration as punishment, that still leaves
open the final question.

The final question is,
“…what is society going to do about murderers who
have a record of multiple homicides and refuse to express any intention of
ceasing in this activity…”

Suppose for instance a murderer is sentenced to 20 years, and serves the
full 20, and all of that time tells people that when the time is completed, if
the “need” (in the murderers private definition, undisclosed) arises, that
person will kill again.

Now, let us dramatise the scenario a little.

This person is due to be released tomorrow. You live within a few miles of
the prison gates. You have a normal family around you. Normal house, normal
low-hedge garden, normal largish windows, normal standard door locks, normal
standards of security, etc.
Children go to local schools, female family
members visit local shops, male family members visit whatever male family
members visit.

One of this murderer’s tricks is to be able to blend into a community and,
although attended upon by batteries of cameras when released, within a very
short time, soon disappears from public view. No one knows if the murderer is
hundreds of miles away, or still living close by.

What do you do?
What should your community do?

Dembones August 25, 2011 at 15:32

As someone who has the life sentence following my mother’s murder, one
would think I would support the death sentence. However, my opinion is that we
are ever changing personalities and the only time the death penalty would be
appropriate would be immediately following the act, but then there is the time
lapse to investigate culpability, motive, mental health etc. Certainly putting
someone to death 25 years later does not make sense as the person who
committed the murder will have changed beyond recognition by further life
events and if not, then surely would be mentally ill.

IXION August 25, 2011 at 15:08

As a Practitioner in the Legal system, I have no doubt that it is
fallable.

If the death penalty is restored Innocent people will die at the hands of
the state. Full stop (as my daughter says ‘end of’.

Innocent people dieing at the hands of the state means that the guilty go
free. Eg Colin Stagg had the judge not shown great courage; (and been roundly
criticised by the police, politicians commentariat etc for so doing); In a
death penalty state he would have died and the real killer got away free and
clear.

Now are those in support ready to accept the price of that as an inevitable
part of state exicution?

outsider August 25, 2011 at 14:51

Having in principle backed a death penalty option, I was impressed that
Michael Howard, who was also pro, changed his mind as a result of his
experiences as Home Secretary. That was enough for me.

Hexe Froschbein
August 25, 2011 at 10:11

If we had unlimited resources, your stance would be ethical.

However, we do not.

Every penny you use to keep a killer alive is a penny you take away from
pensioners needing heat, from NHS patients denied life-saving medicine due to
cost and so on.

In other words, for your perp to live (since it has to be paid for) someone
else has to got die or suffer in their place, and directly so because their
life sentence gobbles up resources needed elsewhere, to the tune of 40k a
year.

All you’ve done with your stance is to commute the death penalty for a
guilty killer to a random death sentence for random innocent people.

Daz Pearce
August 25, 2011 at 12:58

Afternoon Hexe – like most who support the death penalty, I presume you
support the right of people on death row to have numerous appeals if they
continue to protest their innocence?

Of course this can drag on for several years, incur massive legal costs
and require one-to-one supervision for the death row inmate. A few years ago
one estimate put the cost of the average execution in Texas at £250
million!!

The notion that capital punishment is some sort of bargain basement
option is a false one – in some cases it will be cheaper than keeping the
killer in prison and in others with multiple appeals and a decade on death
row, more expensive when the final bill is added up.

Hexe
Froschbein August 26, 2011 at 07:28

Nops I don’t.

Much fewer people are convicted by mistake than are murdered by killers
we gave the benefit of the doubt.

Moreover, our courts have much better methods than criminals to decide
who must die to the death penalty, there is a due process, and also, the
henchman is kinder to his victim than most killers.

Besides that, it’s possible to keep life without parole for uncertain
cases, there are plenty of proven killers that we can save money on, every
little helps…

JohnG August 25, 2011 at 20:18

Well, I don’t support the NHS or paying pensioners to keep warm IF they
squandered all their money (of course a lot of people had legitimate
expectations that the state would provide for them)

I don’t see why the “perp” can’t have hard labour to pay for his own
upkeep. In fact, in that case it would be profitable for “life to mean
life”

Hexe
Froschbein August 26, 2011 at 07:39

John, everything we can do, China can do cheaper…

If you add hard labor to the punishment regime all that does is raise
the cost since you now have to run a business and your employees have to
have more supervision (plus they’ll get to handle dangerous tools etc),
plus it’ll take away business from normal people since most markets are
saturated and most products only gain share by displacement of the
competition.

And this is not about revenge, but about removing people who harm and
kill others from society to keep us all safe, whilst ensuring that the
overall damage those people to us do is kept to a minimum.

Regards people not keeping warm because they squandered their money —
maybe you should have a look at the reality on the ground. The oldies who
are freezing often paid a lifetime in NI, basically the pension that is
handed out is not sufficient at all, yours probably won’t be either. Lots
of people got stiffed on pensions they bought as well, but a private
pension still is the preserve of the rich, don’t forget that. The vast
majority of normal people will not have one and end up freezing.

backwoodsman
August 25, 2011 at 10:08

Anyone who supports the death penalty is willfully disregarding the
numerous cases of police corruption / incompetence which have been exposed.
Likewise the falibility of so called ‘expert witnesses’ – Roy Meadows anyone
!
Taken in context with the damage inflicted on British society over the
last 30 years by Labour/ guardian luvvies and the bbc, topping the odd scrote
seems a fairly ineffectual response and frankly, pointless.

Longrider August
25, 2011 at 09:50

The more recent infanticide cases are similarly relevant and a reminder
that such judicial incompetence and reliance on so called experts is still
going on. Sally Clarke was another Stefan Kiszko.

JimS August 25, 2011 at 08:48

For me the argument is very simple. Do you believe it is wrong to kill?

The answer for most people would be “Yes”.

Do you believe that some killings are worse than others? I think again most
people would agree with that. Armies taking pot shots at each other is ‘OK’;
shooting soldiers that have surrendered is not. Accidental death or killing in
the heat of passion might be seen as ‘OK’; cold-blooded, planned murder is
not.

I can’t think of any killing more cold-blooded or planned than allowing the
‘state’ to carry out an execution on my behalf. Just because it is easy to
hide in the anonimity of the crowd doesn’t make it right.

JohnG August 25, 2011 at 20:25

I share your beliefs, but (assuming your are in the UK) if this country
is going to reinstate the death penalty, it will need some public support.
If you disagree with it badly enough, will you leave the UK so that the
“state” is no longer acting on your behalf when it executes someone?