The Death Penalty

The widow of Garry Newlove, the man kicked to death by a group of teenagers, has spoken out about her loss. And about the need for the restitution of the death penalty.

Now, let’s be very clear on this. Gary’s murder was a horrific crime. Those who committed it are evil, inhuman little turds who have rightly been imprisoned. And let us hope that their sentences are long, and each and every day is painful, unpleasant, and undignified. Because those little fuckers absolutely deserve it. Every moment of it.

However, this crime – and any other heinous murder – does not make the case for the death penalty. Quite simply, the state does not have the right to take the life of anyone. I don’t doubt that this is a controversial statement, and there will be a multitude of people who disagree with me, but I cannot see any case where the state should be able to kill. And nothing in what Mrs Newlove says changes that opinion.

She says:

"We need to think about the death penalty because it's the only way these kids are going to wake up to the pain they are causing."

Will the death penalty actually do that? This is close to the argument that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to those that will kill. The problem is that is incorrect. People still kill. The US is a great example: it has had the death penalty for years, and still people murder. Either because they do not think they will be caught and sentenced to death, or they just plain don’t care.

And the death penalty won’t make kids wake up to the pain they are causing. It might make them afraid of the consequences of their actions, but as I’ve noted above, there is no guarantee of that. However these kids are still going to be ignorant, unfeeling, evil little shits on occasion – death penalty or no death penalty. Particularly if they are under the influence of alcohol. The Tory proposals about enforcing the drinking laws make more sense here.

"Make no mistake, if the liberals running our justice system ever let these three out, they will kill again. They are ticking time bombs."

Well, if they are a threat to others, they shouldn’t be released. Ever. To me, a life sentence should mean life if need be. That these kids serve the rest of their lives in prison, if need be, to make others safe. And in some respects a life in prison might be worse than the death penalty.

"If we had the electric chair like in America, I'd watch them fry without the slightest feeling of sympathy."

Oh, absolutely. I don’t doubt that Helen Newlove would watch the little bastards fry. And don’t deny it, you’d feel the same way too. If it was your loved one, your parents, your siblings, your family, your friends. You’d want to see their killers die. Hell, I’ll bet you’d want to throw the lever yourself. Don’t deny it – with all the grief, loss, and rage left by an unthinking, brutal murder of someone you love, wouldn’t you want (even for the briefest moment) them to die? There is nothing wrong in Helen Newlove’s reaction. In fact, it is perfectly natural.

Which is precisely why we shouldn’t let the opinions of those who have suffered such a horrific loss decide the policies of this country. Those who are dealing with a terrible bereavement are not in the right, rational and calm frame of mind to weigh up all the ins and outs of this issue. Grief, rage and revenge are poor guides when you are considering national policies. The fact that Mrs Newlove lost her husband in a horrific manner does not automatically make her views on the death penalty correct. Just as the murder of Sarah Payne does not make the views of her mother on the law correct.

The death penalty is wrong. It is not a deterrent, and you run the risk of the state murdering an innocent person. But above all, the very last thing we want to do is give the power hungry state even more power over the citizens. And particularly not the legal power of life and death.