The Capital Punishment debate is not one of your typical emotion vs reason jousts that seem to be fought on a frequent basis in this day and age. While the argument against the death penalty (with which I have sided for as long as I’ve had any sort of opinion on the subject) may be that which is seen as more ‘level headed’ and ‘rational’, the truth is that both corners appeal to the memory of innocent people who were murdered for no good reason. Those wishing to bring the electric chairs of Texas to the Uk will of course call on the victims of serial killers, particularly children or vulnerable people, in order to press their case. However, opponents of the death penalty like this bunny would be lying if we claimed never to have attempted a tug at the heartstrings ourselves.

This excellent piece demonstrates that on the subject of Capital Punishment, the ‘emotional highground’ (if such a thing exists) is far from black and white, but also illustrates the inevitable human cost of restoring hanging, gassing, the chair or whatever form of ultimate justice one might seek to introduce. Something that the short existence of this site has taught me is to have a little more respect for good people who oppose my point of view than might previously have been the case. It should be said that while I’ve never changed my mind on Capital Punishment, even for a minute or so, I’ve heard one or two arguments in its favour that have certainly served as food for thought and momentarily stopped this bunny in his tracks.

Thankfully, the suggestion that the death penalty greatly deters and/or reduces crime is one which I have not heard for quite a while. Of course, if we’re talking about applying the punishment to murderers, then such a case simply does not stand up. Is a predisposed killer really open to the prospect of thinking rationally about the consequences of getting caught, especially when many believe themselves to have been assigned some sort of mission from a higher authority? Then there are the ‘other’ types of murder, committed in a moment of rage or temporarily diminished responsibility. No penalty is possibly going to prevent someone from ‘snapping’ or ‘losing it’ and I thank the man upstairs that as I’ve got older, the number of people suggesting that it might has progressively receded.

In the orthodox sense, this would leave us with good old-fashioned retribution as the central plank of any case for Capital Punishment. The sentiment of an ‘eye for an eye’ is an understandable human reaction towards any horrific crime, particularly when the victim is or was close to the person expressing it. However, it is worth asking whether or not an individual with an emotional stake in an act of heinous wrongdoing is the best-equipped to judge how it should be dealt with?

In my article on Double Jeopardy, I talked about Ann Ming’s determined campaign to change the law, and how difficult it must have been to present a rational case against someone in her position without sounding cold, detached and heartless. Of course it’s nigh-on impossible, but that doesn’t necessarily prove the opposing argument right. Anyone with a vested and personal interest in an emotional situation will (quite understandably) find it difficult to see beyond the positive resolution of their own case. As a result, they tend not to be people open to reason, acknowledging the other side of an argument, or being shown some of the anomalies and unintended consequences that may result from the outcome they desire.

But here’s something it is not terribly easy to argue with:- there have been serial killers and murderers throughout history, whose crimes were vile both in their nature and scale. They confessed and showed no remorse, their guilt is certain and to suggest that rehabilitation may be part of the solution would be utterly ridiculous. Would a swift 10,000 volts not make a great deal more sense than the expensive business of incarcerating such criminals for the remainder of their natural life? If one looks at it from a particular angle then indeed it might, and my opposition to the state-sponsored execution of the likes of Peter Sutcliffe momentarily becomes more fragile in the principled sense.

What prevents this bunny from crossing over to ‘the dark side’ is the sense that once you open the door and allow a single individual who is absolutely guilty of a horrendous crime (or multitude of them) to be put to death, then the trip down the most slippery of slopes is well under way. Driven by an emotional or hysterical media, people will always cite additional ‘crime x or y’ as an instance of why the scope for Capital Punishment should be widened. I have no doubt whatsoever that within a few years of allowing an isolated case to meet their maker, there would be a ‘mission creep’ in the direction of allowing the death penalty against anyone found guilty of murder.

This is much like the subject of torture in the sense that there is something of a paradox at the centre of the equation. Although some of the issues and questions may be complicated, it ultimately makes more sense to deal in absolutes, and once the firm ‘no’ on either capital punishment or torture is broken, the natural next steps are inevitably towards the opposite extreme. You can always make a case for someone who killed 25 people to be put to death themselves, just as there is a rational argument that water-boarding is justified if it can be shown to have saved lives. It’s the resultant shift in the terms of conversation that represent the real danger.

I remember being opposed to Capital Punishment as a teenager, and being the only member of my family who took that view. This bunny was also the solitary male amongst his school class either principled, wimpish or contrary enough to reject the pumped-up testosterone of mob rule and conclude that putting murderers to death simply brought too many unwanted consequences. The point is I haven’t needed a single event to serve as a subsequent booster shot for those instincts, and never after watching a news story about a particularly horrific crime has my initial reaction been to scream “hang him, shoot him” at the television. Of course I find such tales as disturbing and unsettling as most, but you won’t find this bunny in the queue of people offering to flick the switch or administer a dose of toxic gas.

However, earlier this year I took the time to research the case of Stefan Kiszko, who lost 16 years of his life for the murder and sexual assault of Lesley Molseed in 1975. This is one of those very rare instances where it is utterly demonstrable that an innocent man was the victim of what one MP described as “the worst miscarriage of justice of all time” (Kiszko, who suffered from hypogonadism, could not physically have produced the semen that contained sperm heads, recovered at the crime scene). Minus the presence of a legal representation, he was bullied over several days into a phoney confession (that he retracted at trial) by police under pressure to jail someone, anyone for the murder. This, along with a truly dreadful defence and the withholding of key evidence that proved his innocence, led to a jury ‘just knowing’ that he had committed the crime.

Stefan developed schizophrenia while in prison, began to believe that his imprisonment was all part of some state-sponsored experiment (mind you, that’s not as ridiculous as it might sound) and had become a thoroughly broken man by the time his conviction was finally overturned, leading to his release in 1992. A massive heart attack 18 months later would finish the job that a few bent cops and an embarrassingly useless solicitor (David Waddington would, regretably, later become Home Secretary) amongst others had started. Of course, had the death penalty been in place at the time of his conviction then Kiszko would simply have been condemned as an evil nonce and child-killer, then hanged amid a backdrop of rapturous public celebration. In reality, he was just a shy and socially awkward tax clerk who was tied to the apron strings of his mother, found it difficult to interact with new people but essentially would not have hurt a fly.

Real people like Stefan Kiszko are the horrendous potential cost of Capital Punishment. I’d hope that some of its supporters would at least consider his case and acknowledge that the actions of the state towards him were themselves every bit as horrific as those of a deranged killer, since they essentially sentenced a totally innocent man to a slow, painful, 17-year death. This more than anything has re-enforced my opposition to the death penalty, because if our police and courts are either inept or corrupt, and partaking in the business of fitting up harmless individuals, then it is in all of our interest for this to be brought into the public domain.

Keeping those who continue to protest their innocence (and therefore show no ‘remorse’) alive is the only way to ensure that not only the miscarriage of justice, but the nature of it, can be exposed, since evidence that renders the original conviction unsafe might take years or even decades to come to light. Moreover, the state-sponsored execution of innocents does not protect the rest of society by any possible definition. Instead it acts as a blanket to both the real perpetrator of the crime and the inadequate or dishonest faces of law enforcement, who facilitated the travesty.

I’ve attached the first part of  ’A Life for a Life – the story of Stefan Kiszko‘, which is a well-produced piece even if it lets the police off the hook somewhat. You should be able to navigate your way through the film from there.

RIP and God bless Stefan Kiszko

Take care and I’ll see you all tomorrow…

Daz Pearce at the outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com

James
Garry August 15, 2011 at 12:46

I would take issue with several points raised here:

“Is a predisposed killer really open to the prospect of thinking rationally
about the consequences of getting caught, especially when many believe
themselves to have been assigned some sort of mission from a higher
authority?”

This is naive. Many killers are in fact rational-minded who can calculate
the costs and benefits of their actions. You talk about serial killers (who
are often bad rather than mad) suggests to me that you either do not
understand the psychology of many killers or you are caricaturing the demented
killer to suit your purposes. Which is it?

“In the orthodox sense, this would leave us with good old-fashioned
retribution as the central plank of any case for Capital Punishment.”

Why do people think that the death penalty is an act of retribution? It
isn’t. It doesn’t settle the score for the family of a murder victim. Surely,
we would arrive much closer at retribution if we kept the killer in a state of perpetual, excruciating agony for the rest of his
life. Capital punishment is a deterrent. The “retribution” accusation is a
smear to make pro-capital punishment campaigners look blood-thirsty.

You claim that the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent. The evidence
disagrees with you. In the five years that the death penalty was suspended
there was a 125% increase in crime that would have attracted the death
penalty.

Gloria Smudd
August 6, 2011 at 20:58

There is a rather interesting film on the question of the Death Penalty
called ‘The Life of David Gale’ with Kevin Spacey as the Mr Gale in question.
I’ve watched it a couple of times and it makes a point making its point, if
you see what I mean.

Saul August 6, 2011 at 20:22

When I saw the headline I was hoping it was Jeremy Clarkson!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-14416809

Gloria Smudd
August 6, 2011 at 20:52

My aunt once caught a great tit in the mangle. Or so family legend has
it.

Zaphod August 6, 2011 at 11:52

Torture to reveal the location of a captive?

I confess to an instinctive sympathy with this, which doesn’t imply that I
would vote for it.

(Just cos I’m against the death penalty, it doesn’t mean I’m a softy!)

It could sometimes work, the information required being quickly verifiable.
That seems undeniable.

But I do believe that the overall cost of having this available would far
outweigh the benefits.

Psychonaut99
August 6, 2011 at 00:55

Blimey, I made a hash of formatting that post didn’t I?

I’m going to blame my iPhone. Are we all good with that? Great.

Psychonaut99
August 6, 2011 at 00:53

The “improvements in forensics” argument has three major problems with it.

Firstly, scientific evidence is, ultimately, subject to the interpretations
of the witness. Thus we had Roy Meadow, a world-renown doctor, pretty much
inventing psychological conditions, and also getting innocent ladies convicted
because being an expert in imaginary disorders didn’t make him an expert in
calculating statistical probability. We also had a forensic scientist getting
Barry George convicted because he told a jury that a couple of particles of
GSR were scientifically significant, when it turns out, they totally weren’t.
Earprint evidence got several people convicted before a stubborn defence
lawyer dug up the evidence proving that it was about as valid as Lombroso
claiming he could identify a criminal by measuring his skull. Even when the
expert witnesses aren’t off on frolics of their own, forensic evidence* has
limits on what it actually proves. Epitheleal DNA merely shows that a person
was present at a scene (and sometimes not even that, given the possibility of
transfer). Semenal DNA can establish that sex took place, but not rape. The
list goes on… Forensics rarely proves guilt, though sometimes it can prove
innocence.

Shoddy, dishonest, overstated or mistaken forensics is just as capable of
getting innocent people convicted as it ever was. Were I a gambling man, for
example, I’d lay a fiver on the Low Copy Number DNA analysis the FSS was so
proud of being exposed as bollocks in 10 or 15 years, but right now it’s
getting people convicted semi-regularly in the UK courts.

*As an aside, do you know the phrase “forensic evidence” is a tautology?
Forensic means “relating to the law.” A forensic psychiatrist, for example, is
simply a psychiatrist with a specialism in the relationship between mental
disorders and legal matters (fitness to plead, diminished responsibility, and
so on). All evidence heard in court is forensic evidence.

Secondly, forensic evidence plays a significant role in far fewer cases
than most people think. Most cases hinge on eyewitness evidence.

Ancient & Tattered
Airman August 6, 2011 at 19:33

Touche! I must admit that I didn’t know the definition of the word
‘forensic’. My apologies Psychonaut99.

Ancient & Tattered
Airman August 5, 2011 at 20:49

A beutifully written piece and I congratulate the author for his carefully
nuanced balance, even though I would support the return of capital punishment
to be maintained by statute. My two main reasons for doing so
1. The
advances in forensic knowledge available to the courts, rendering a wrong
verdict far less likely. As the death penalty would not be imposed in every
case (it never was) the likelihood of an innocent person being hanged must be
improbably remote.
2. The fact that Britain has the death penalty would
enable some really nasty people to be returned to their country of origin
instead of being kept by our public purse.

Daz
Pearce August 5, 2011 at 21:20

Much appreciate the kind words – thanks

Saul August 5, 2011 at 18:23

A thought provoking view from Hollywood…

Unthinkable

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914863/

Spiral Architect
August 5, 2011 at 17:31

You have shown no respect at all actually.

Moreover, I am sure that SBML can look after himself if he feels he is
being impugned.

Without any knowledge of me personally, and without any evidence of from
any post I have ever made, you have accused me of taking sadistic pleasure in
torture.

In fact, elsewhere today I have written in support of Peter Oborne’s piece
in the DT http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100099683/we-covered-up-our-involvement-in-torture-now-we-must-expose-it/

As to my comment – as a father I cannot comprehend any parent putting their
principles before their children’s life, simple as that. In such a
hypothetical situation, should all investigative leads fail, then as a last
resort I would want the suspect to be ‘pressured’ to tell of the whereabouts
of my child.

The point I make above, in contradiction of Daz Pearce, is that there are
NO absolutes in life

As for retribution making me ‘happy’, should such hypothetical torture fail
– as you powerfully assert it surely would – to result in the locating of my
child, how on earth would I be ‘happy’ at that point?

Retribution might come later – after all our criminal justice system has 4
purposes; protecting the public, punishing the offender, rehabilitating the
offender and offering satisfaction to the victim.

Lastly – there is no absolute either as to whether or not torture works.
Surely by definition it is an entirely subjective issue, and nobody who is
anti can possibly say unequivocally that ‘it doesn’t work’. Rapists and
murders are often cowards, on balance I’d say that there stands a good chance
that it would work.

I accept your apology.

SadButMadLad
August 5, 2011 at 22:35

The point is that torture *hardly* ever works. It’s not subjective, it’s
objective. Research has been carried out that proves it. Some research here .
Though not about torture directly, it shows the psychological techniques can
produce better results than hard interrogation.

That’s not to say that in certain circumstances it will work. But
generally torture is not as effective as the softly softly catchee monkey
method. It has been found that talking with the criminal and getting their
confidence usually works a lot more effectively in getting *accurate* and
*useful* information. Now they won’t come out and say the answer you want,
but talking with them, giving them cigarettes, and using suggestions and
deception, they drop their guard enough to give snippets of useful
information which an expert interrogator can use. The thing is, a criminal
will be expecting the torture, or at least the shouting, the accusations,
the mental attacks that they get blindsided.

So whilst I don’t have kids myself I do have neices which I care for just
as much. But I would not want a kidnapper tortured to reveal their location
because I know it’s unlikely to work.

Spiral
Architect August 6, 2011 at 07:09

I suppose that you accept that all humans are individuals with
different personalities as well as different physical characteristics.

If so, then the effectiveness of torture and indeed the death penalty
is by unequivocal definition SUBJECTIVE – whatever your ‘research’
shows.

It is absolutely impossible to say with any certainty either that
“torture is ineffective” or that “the death penalty is not a deterrent”.
Whatever your 1997 paper from a minor academic might say.

“………….But generally torture is not as effective as the softly softly
catchee monkey method……….”

How do you know this? Have you investigated many crimes? Have you
interrogated any terrorists? What does the ‘softly, softly catchee monkey
method involve?

I believe that you are spouting off emotionally – whilst one might
expect this on CIF, I am surprised to encounter it here – no matter how
strongly you assert something doesn’t make it the true.

Finally, let’s leave aside the ‘kidnapped child’ argument. Suppose that
one of the 911 hijackers had been under surveillance and intercepted
before making it to the airport 12hrs before the event in question.

Suppose that the intelligence services knew that something big was
going to happen, even that they knew that a plane was going to be flown
into important buildings………..if the terrorist had been coerced into saying
what he knew, almost 4,000 lives could’ve been saved on 9-SEP, not too
much the 100s of 1000s lost in Iraq and Afghanistan (arguably also the
financial crises).

So, with irrefutable by vague evidence that the individual had in depth
knowledge of a planned cataclysmic event – are high principles more
important than all those deaths?

Think carefully, and try not to pick holes in the scenario to avoid
answering the question.

If you were the intelligence chief, what would you say to the victims’
families had you done nothing to the arrested person except shout at him a
bit and try to ‘softly softly catchee monkey’ – whatever that it – in
12hrs.

Unfortunately, these are problems people have faced.

Please note, this type of scenario conflicts strongly with those in
Guantanamo where inmates were tortured to find out what if anything they
knew rather than being forced to divulge specific information.

The effectiveness

Matt
Wardman August 5, 2011 at 17:10

With respect, SA, it is also extremely offensive to ascribe SBML’s views to
an assumption that he has no children rather than that he’s thought about it
and come to a different conclusion.

In defence of my admittedly bald statement, it is established that torture
does give good information, and is unlikely to lead to finding the location of
a kidnapped child.

So what motivations are left for wanting the kidnapper tortured?

I think we’re back to GF’s suggestion on hanging – it is about retribution,
which I have stated as ‘making you happy’.

I’m open to correction, and my apologies as no particular offence was
intended.

JuliaM August 5,
2011 at 17:24

More to the point, it’s not always useful. See my above comment.

Spiral Architect
August 5, 2011 at 15:03

The case against capital punishment for many is a moral one – it is wrong
to take a life. By the same token, the vast majority would say that it is
morally wrong to engage in torture.

If someone murdered your child would you want them executed? No doubt many
would say ‘no’.

If someone kidnapped your child, and left them in a secret place, should
they be arrested would you want them tortured to reveal the location? No doubt
almost all would say ‘yes’.

There are no absolutes.

Therefore, I say, judges should have the option of capital punishment in
cases of a most heinous nature, and where the evidence is 100% compelling.

Some people are evil and should be removed from society. Some crimes are so
foul that they demand the ultimate retribution.

Daz Pearce
August 5, 2011 at 15:55

Spiral – you talk about the defendant’s guilty being 100% – does this
mean you’d have three possible verdicts – not guilty, guilty and extra
guilty or guilty plus? If there is any doubt regarding the guilt of a
defendant then surely you’d just want the jury to acquit them?

The problen with opening the door in ‘special cases’ is who gets to
decide what these cases should be – the slow mission creep and expansion of
that ground would not take long before we had the death penalty for all
murderers.

Spiral
Architect August 5, 2011 at 16:18

I didn’t say that the defendant’s guilt was 100% (after all everyone
who is convicted is 100% guilty)……..I said where the EVIDENCE is 100%,
i.e. absolutely compelling.

As for who gets to decide if the case is sufficiently ‘heinous’, I
believe that the jury should decide – based on Common Law, case by case
basis.

Daz
Pearce August 5, 2011 at
17:42

Spiral, point taken that you were referring to absolutely compelling
evidence.

Leaving it up to juries would surely pander to emotion and some
pretty anomalous results. I’m not sure a child’s life is worth more than
that of a 35 year old, but that’s likely to be the effect of letting
juries decide whether or not the offence should be punishable by
death.

I suspect giving this licence to juries would lead to death row being
overcrowded extremely quickly as well…

Longrider August 5, 2011 at 17:51

Or the opposite – a reluctance to convict.

SadButMadLad
August 5, 2011 at 16:15

Torture someone to reveal the location? Nope. Torture hardly ever works.

Spiral
Architect August 5, 2011 at 16:20

If someone kidnapped my child and left her to die (e.g. Lesley
Whittle), I would definitely want the culprit tortured to reveal the exact
location.

I guess that you’re without children.

Matt
Wardman August 5, 2011 at
16:23

Nope. I think he knows that torturing the kidnapper would be to make
you happy rather than to find your child.

Spiral
Architect August 5, 2011 at
16:24

I think that’s an extremely offensive thing to say.

JuliaM August 5, 2011 at 17:16

I’m without children. Hate the little buggers.

But, if it were someone else’s child, I’d be quite happy to have the
culprit tortured to reveal the location.

See where making assumptions gets you?

Spiral
Architect August 5, 2011 at
17:34

My ‘assumption’ is based on the condition I outlined above in
respect of capital punishment…….”where the evidence is 100%
compelling”.

What’s your number Thylac? I’ll give you a call if the worst ever
happens, and a hot suspect is arrested.

Bill
Sticker August 5, 2011 at
23:41

I have children, and do not think that torturing to obtain evidence
would be helpful. Torture doesn’t really work. Only the careful
examination of evidence and intelligent questioning of a suspect works.

In the event of incontrovertible guilt, such as in the cases of Fred
West, Moors Murderers, or the Soham killer, then I would be more than
happy to see the perpetrator die. I don’t really care about the rights
or wrongs of ‘revenge’. Should any malefactor harm my family members,
they would find no mercy in my heart. I would demand the state exact
terminal retribution on their (and my) behalf.

Then again, I don’t consider myself a very ‘nice’ person.

davidb August 5, 2011 at 21:23

In Scotland the correct legal verdicts are “proven” or “not proven”. It
is difficult to say that someone is guilty or not guilty with absolute
certainty, only that a trial has shown the prosecution case proven or
not.

There is no chance of the death penalty being restored. Guido seeks
publicity I expect.

JuliaM August 5,
2011 at 14:22

Ignoring the pro/con argument (because I’ll never convince you and you’ll
never convince me), the Parliamentary death penalty debate is an utter
non-starter.

Until we remove ourselves from the EU and tell the ECHR to sit on it and
swivel, it’s not going to happen.

richard August 5, 2011 at 13:34

It’s true that there are people who deserve to be hanged. There are also
people who are found guilty when – later – it turns out that they were
entirely innocent. We therefore shouldn’t tolerate the death penalty because
of this. Although you can let an innocent man free if new evidence appears it
isn’t as easy to bring him back from the dead. Quite apart from the insanity
of giving our servants the authority to kill us.
Stewart, one of Labour’s
first acts in government was to remove the death penalty for treason.

Stewart
Cowan August 5, 2011 at 13:39

Indeed, Richard. They were nowhere near as daft as they often
appeared.

Stewart
Cowan August 5, 2011 at 13:21

It was a tragedy what happened to Stefan Kiszko.

We should look at reinstating the death penalty for treason. There can be
no doubt in certain cases, like Blair.