Guido Fawkes and the Death Penalty
The news of the conviction of Levi Bellfield for yet another appalling crime inevitably leads some to call for the reinstatement of the death penalty. And the Guido Fawkes website continues its shameless drift towards being the blogging version of The Sun with this sort of rabble rousing tripe:
The political class complains that the public is disengaged, could that be in part because there are a number of issues where the political class refuses to carry out the wishes of the people. All polls since 1965 when hanging was abolished show that there is majority support for capital punishment, yet there is no majority for it in parliament. It is not even an issue for parliamentarians even though the incidence of homicide is higher now than it was before the abolition of hanging. The coalition has promised that there will be e-petitions legislation before the end of this year. If it passes Guido will put all the resources at his command into a campaign for a vote on the restoration of capital punishment for child and cop killers. Even if we don’t win the vote on the floor of the House, we shall at least see which MPs believe salus populi suprema est lex, and those that put the welfare of child killers above the wider community. Bring it on…Yes, because polls have never been wrong at all, have they? But let's take a look at what the writer at Fawkes' place actually claims. There is no evidence offered that "all polls since 1965" have shown a majority support for capital punishment - instead it links to a poll at this site, which shows the results of one poll from 2008 where 50% favour capital punishment, 40% don't, and 11% don't know. Yes, that's right - the poll adds up to 101%. Perfect.
But even if the polling data wasn't deeply suspect and in no real way supportive of what the site is trying to say, then there is still the really rather major problem of whether just because the majority supports something, does that then make it right? What if the majority called for the banning of homosexuality? The death penalty for drug users? Second class citizenship for, say, Catholics? Would that then make it right? Not, of course it fucking wouldn't. But that's what happens when you use the logic of The Sun; your case is simplistic and designed not to appeal to individual intellect, but to the unthinking mob.
And on the death penalty itself, I can't support it. I understand the thirst for revenge, particularly when dealing with such a spectacularly vile creature as Levi Bellfield, and particularly when that thirst comes from the bereaved. But revenge is seldom the best motivator for a supposedly dispassionate and neutral justice system, and revenge is not always applied to the guilty. In short, I can't really disagree with anything Longrider says on the death penalty here. There may be an intelligent case to be made for the death penalty; it certainly won't be made at the Guido Fawkes website.
Labels: Death Penalty, Guido
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 10:07 am
27 Comments
27 Comments:
its the nonce that shouts the loudest
Anonymous - your comment makes no sense, but thanks for stopping by.
I can't argue with anything you've written.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle - I believe that society has the right to self-defence - but handing the power of life and death to an imperfect state is something I just can't agree with.
I would be sympathetic, however, to the idea of giving convicted criminals the choice. For some, the idea of a lifetime behind bars might seem far more horrifying than that of a swift death.
It is not self defence to take someone from a secure cell and kill them. It is murder.
Isn't murder defined as "unlawful" killing?
As I've said, I don't oppose the death penalty *in principle*. If (and I realise this if is doing a lot of heavy lifting) the death penalty was the best way of preventing someone from taking further lives then I would have little issue with it being used. However, the fact is that *in practice* such situations are incredibly rare.
I don't support the death penalty, but I think most people would rather have voted in a referendum on the death penalty on May 5th, than a referendum on the voting system. The fact politicians think the voting system is a more important issue is proof that they are out of touch with many of the people they serve.
Ta for the link. One assumes the writer over at Guido's place belives that he will never be facing a miscarriag3e of justice.
And, yes, democracy at its most raw is little more than the baying of the mob for blood - anyone's blood. That's why we have a representative democracy, to avoid such behaviour. Perhaps we should reinstate the post of witch-finder general. Might make the folks over at Guido's happy, eh?
The referendum on voting reform had nothing to do with politicians being out of touch with the people and everything to do with deal-making between the Tories and the Lib-Dems. It was the only way Cameron could guarantee a coalition with the liberal democrats. That's why we had to sit through the endless, tedious AV campaign that ended with nothing more than an extension of the status quo.
Well let's have a referendum on the subject and see if the polls are right.
No, let's not have a referendum where The Sun will whip up a baying mob to guarantee the return of the death penalty for their favoured killers. If we have to go through the whole referendum thing again, let's do it once and for all on the EU.
All the resources at his command- what resources are they, then?
To my mind, Chris Dillow wrote the definitive post.
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2011/06/libertarians-capital-punishment.html
I'm not actually a full-on libertarian, but I'm close enough that I can't imagine any state that I'd trust with the power of life and death.
I remember in 2009, I was talking to a BNP member (I meet all sorts) and he said he supported the concept of the death penalty but would oppose it if Brown introduced it. He also opposed 42 days on the grounds that, while he hated Asians, he couldn't trust the government not to treat people like him as political criminals as it did with the arrest of Nick Griffin, which I opposed).
I trust neither the coalition nor Miliband with these powers, and that is the unalterable fact of this matter.
Miliband has shown his illiberalism over the DNA database and prisons. Cameron has backed down from Clarke's perfectly reasonable proposals because he is incapable of doing what he knows to be the right thing in his shameless capitulation to tabloids which do not give a turd about making this country a better place.
I have no problem whatsoever with the death penalty in principle; to my mind it is clearly both morally justifiable and desirable (in carefully defined circumstances). Annoyingly, I also agree with those who wouldn't trust the state to organise its administration in anything approaching a competent or just manner. Pity really.
Nevertheless, there is unquestionably a significant disconnect between public perception of what is actually 'justice' and what passes for justice under the current system, and this is deeply problematic. I had an extremely animated discussion about this with two judges a month or so back, both of whom strongly agreed with this contention, but whose hands are tied.
The justice system must be supported by the people. This in turn means that it must reflect, to a significant extent, the opinions of the people as to what constitutes adequate punishment. We would agree, I think, that there is no place for mob rule; but on the other hand, the mob - or perhaps we should simply call it the majority - does have a right to defend itself, and also to have its opinions heard and taken fully into account. At the moment sentencing-policy is the product of (to borrow TNL's memorable phrase) policy wonks who seem to have no understanding of what the public really wants, and who care even less. Public anger is patronisingly dismissed as a mere product of the tabloids. No it isn't. It's an expression of genuine and deeply-felt frustration.
We just need tough prisons and decent sentences.
The best death penalty is that administered to evil scum while they are attempting to commit their crimes.
A well trained and well armed populace is a much better way of dealing with scum.
Doesn't help with child killers tho'
Even if you could sort out the problem of errors, the simple fact is that when you have 40% against, that's 40% of jurors who might not convict a murderer if they thought he might get a lethal injection.
Oh, and membership of the EU means that you can't use the death penalty. If Guido thinks that Cam is going to quit the EU over that, then he's an idiot.
I understand your point about not always giving in to the will of the people (51% could vote to enslave the other 49% etc). But what we're talking about here isn't some attempt to persecute a minority - but to see true justice restored in this country for the first time in many years. Politicians only got away with abolishing the death penalty in the 1960s because they convinced people that hanging would be replaced by whole life sentences. How long did that last?
And even if you do impose a natural life sentence on these 'people', the fact is they will still be able to watch tv, exercise, eat, drink, read - they will still be able to live and, yes, even derive some enjoyment from life (even behind bars). This is something their victims can no longer do.
"Hang 'em high", I say! But we know it isn't going to happen - lefty politicians and EU interference will put paid to any attempt to restore the death penalty.
I just wanted to add - this supposedly fundamental distinction between justice and revenge - I've never really understood it. Surely they are one and the same - with what we call 'justice' simply being a sanitised, state administered form of revenge?
I know many will disagree quite strongly - but that's just the way I see it.
It's always problematic, the death penalty, as there's no coming back if it was a wrong decision. Then there is the issue of what is humane.
Against that is the need for deterrent. Not sure about this one.
James,
Is there any evidence that the death penalty is actually a deterrent? Most murderers either strike in the heat of the moment and therefore are not thinking about potential punishments or they simply don't believe they will be caught. The threat of death won't be anymore or a deterrent than the threat of a spell inside for the majority of killers.
Aldo,
I don't think that life in prison is a rosy as you make out, especially not for serial killers and child killers (who tend to be at the top of the wish list of the baying mob who want executions brought back).
Also there is a clear distinction between justice and revenge. The former is a far wider concept than the latter, and I'd argue that when it comes to crime and punishment it is justice that removes the passion/thirst for revenge from the proceedings. That's why a (hopefully) impartial judge and jury hear each case rather than the victims/family and friends of the victim.
TNL
TNL,
there's nothing dodgy in the polling stats, it can be explained by rounding up. If you have, e.g. 10.67%. 49.67% and 39.66%, you will get 11%, 50% and 40%.
I'm not getting into the main argument.
TT,
But surely the rounding up distorts the figures, no matter how minutely?
And go on, get into the main debate.
TNL
TNL,
I suspect you'd prefer them to doctor the figures, to remove the 'inconvenient' 1%!
Like most participants here no doubt, I've argued this one back and forth. My position is that some people most assuredly deserve to die, but the state probably can't be trusted to get it right.
There are a number of root and branch reforms I'd want to make to the criminal justice system, and this is not a priority for me.
This is worth checking if you like Johnny Cash:
http://englandsfreedome.blogspot.com/2010/05/bring-back-rope.html
This has a good quote from England's last executioner:
http://englandsfreedome.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-rope.html
The justice system has been giving rapists and murderers feeble slaps on the wrist for years, in contrast to seeking out the longest sentences in banging up political tax protestors. The only real case against the death penalty is not trusting the state to use it appropriately, I don't have a problem with the permanent absence of those who find themselves unable to get on by without taking the life of someone else.
The old chesnut about "revenge" isn't something I really buy either, in my best rational and dispassionate judgement I can't see any real motivation for subsidising the existences of killers on the taxpayers dime.
I'd agree with the sentiment expressed by others here, that some some deserve death but wouldn't trust the state to make that decision.
One idea I like to bring to these discussions is this: suppose in the future human life extension becomes feasible and commonplace, to the extent that death from old age is avoided as long as you keep getting the treatment.
What then do you do with a hypothetical mass killer? If you decide to imprison for a natural lifepan and refuse the treatment, is this not the same as the death penalty?
ALL FOR IT ,BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY ,WHY SHOULD WE PAY TO KEEP THEM , HANG THEM LESS COST TO THE TAXPAYER
Anonymong @ 5:27PM,
First up, you don't need to write your comments all in upper case. It doesn't make your comment come across as any more important - in fact, it makes you look like a tit who can't type properly.
Secondly, the death penalty in the US has shown that it doesn't save the taxpayers money owing to all the appeals and the consequent decades spent on death row. Besides, if it is all about the money, then why don't we also euthanise the terminally ill? Oh, because it is morally repugnant to base your decision on whether someone should live or die on financial considerations.
TNL
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home