Should we bring back hanging?

[eggman]

The Victorians went to great lengths and made exhaustive scientific calculations to make sure that the application of the death penalty by hanging was humane;  in so doing they abolished the short drop and introduced the long drop method instead. In certain states of the USA, the death penalty is available for rape as well as murder.  Given these factors, are we as a society right to demonstrate such compassion in exercising the death penalty and should it be introduced for rapists also, even in cases of marital rape?  A bit heavy, I know, but what do people think?

[finex]

As long as the slighest possibility exists for a mistake to be made, we should never have the death penalty. Simply ensuring someone dies quickly does not demonstrate "compassion", merely a desire to kill someone efficiently.

 

You need only look back a few years to some of the appalling miscarriages of justice in the UK to see that dozens of innocent people would have been killed due to either mistakes or deliberate falsification of evidence.

 

Observe the situation in the USA where the people on death row show an disproportionate tendancy to be black, hispanic or poor, in much higher proportions than exist outside prison. It is a very naive person who does not suspect that there may be a problem here.

Since the UK signed up to the European Human Rights Act in 1998, the death penalty has been fully abolished in this country. Some will try and tell you that it still exists for High Treason etc, but they are wrong.

[eggman]

In answer to my own question, I must agree for what it's worth with my eloquent correspondent finex that in cases of some controversy such as Timothy Evans, Hanratty and most certainly that of Derek Bentley who was manifestly innocent, the death penalty is of course grossly inappropriate.  Surely even finex would agree with me, however, that in cut and dried cases of such a heinous crime as for example the rape and subsequent murder of a child, the death penalty is or perhaps should be the ultimate recourse?  There is little evidence to suggest that capital punishment was ever an effective deterrent, it's true, and I concur absolutely with finex that its institutionalisation is wholly abhorrent within any civilised society;  and yet.  It's an insoluble enigma, and I do apologise most sincerely to finex or anyone whose sensibilities on this most delicate matter have been offended by my question.    

[finex]

A really quick response: If, as you say, there is little or no deterrent effect in having the death penalty, why take the risk of killing an innocent person in the first place?

 

Another US example, the "Three Strikes and Out" policy. If you commit three felony offences, you get automatic life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Whilst this has led to a drop in crime rates (not surprising if the criminals never get out!), there is also the flip side: criminals on their second "strike" can (and do) become desperate not to get caught. For the sake of avoiding being caught for an offence which at one time may have got them a year or two in prison, they will kill people, carjack and take hostages to get away, knowing that if they get caught they will never be released.

 

Do the ends justify the means? I don't know, but it makes for a good discussion topic!

 

Yours (not at all offended), finex

[bruce-lucie]

I have two points i'd like to get accross... The death penalty is a very good idea for the fact that it gets rid of very bad people from the earth.  But then there is the question of what makes a bad person? If there is enough proof, then yes they should be put to death, but then in what cases are their exceptions, the whole law system is mainly corrupt anyways, and there are some cases where murder should definitely not be punishable by death, but with DNA proof, serial rapists and serial murderers should have the death penalty...

[eggman]

I think I've been misunderstood - I only propose the death penalty for those murderers and rapists who have been proven as such beyond ALL doubt, not even reasonable doubt. Timothy Evans was convicted on highly dubious evidence, "beyond reasonable doubt," as was James Hanratty, and of course neither should have been executed.  But this would include self confessed murderers and rapists, and of course those serving life sentences who declare that they would in fact prefer to be executed than serve the rest of their days in prison.  It does happen, but then the problem with that would be a question of whether or not they might have changed their minds a year or two down the road.  There are, however, those time served prisoners who remain adamant for many years that the death penalty would have been preferable.

As regards "compassion,"  I only meant that the long drop method was comparatively compassionate as opposed to the short;  the long drop effectively dislocated the cerebral vertebrae and death was pretty much instantaneous.  The short drop, conversely, resulted in slow and agonising strangulation and is truly horrific.  It is still used in some parts of the world and is to my mind particularly barbaric - I agree absolutely that the death penalty is per se barbaric, but all I'm saying is that there is no differentiation under English law between a murderer and a safe blagger.  That, in my opinion, cannot be right.  Or can it?

Sorry for any misunderstandings;  mea culpa, I'm afraid.

Regards, eggman

[Hgrove]

I personally disagree with the death penalty.  Even in cases where my instinct tells me that someone should be killed, my reason tells me we should still not have the death penalty.

[bernardo]

I am against the death penalty in all cases.  It often amuses me that people sometimes try to make a distinction between proving guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "beyond all doubt" as if that were practicably possible.

Incidentally, eggman says that Hanratty was convicted on "highly dubious evidence".  Not so; the evidence against Hanratty was, and still is, very strong. 

[eggman]

Actually, I defer to bernardo on the question of Hanratty's guilt or otherwise;  at the time, there was a huge amount of controversy - even John Lennon and Yoko Ono got in on the act in later years - but more recently DNA tests have virtually proved to the satisfaction of all concerned that Hanratty's conviction for the A6 murders was indeed safe.  What I want to know, though, is just how did they sample Hanratty's DNA when you consider that he was executed as far back as 1962?  A cynic like me might infer that any such testing must be at best somewhat flawed after all this time, but what do other people think about that one?

[chickenwoman]

 

 

        If deterrence is your principle reason for wishing to re-introduce the death penalty eggman, presumably Public execution (televised of course) would be essential, and surely a painful death would put more people off crime than the sort of "humane" and "efficient" methods which you are advocating.

[eggman]

Sorry if I come across as some sort of sadist, chickenwoman;  I'm not at all, really, and I am myself inclined towards the abolitionists' cause.  I suppose you could say that I'm playing devil's advocate to that extent, but nevertheless I do respect those who still cleave to the Old Testament "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" rationale.  I don't support either public executions or the televisation thereof as such occasions tended to be even more traumatic and brutalising for the witnesses than for the condemned felon him/herself.  Furthermore, I don't subscribe to the view that they were an effective deterrent as the carnival atmosphere of such spectacles precluded any sober reflection on the nature of capital crime and punishment as then obtained.  I might have some rather trenchant views on law and order, but I would have to think twice about actually pulling the lever myself!  There are certainly those out there who would without any hesitation, though.  Any takers for the job?

[El D]

Of course not - what separates us from those we kill? That we have taken one less life? That we operated within the laws the current incarnation of society dictates? Imo it is true that you can judge a society from its prisons - what would it say if we had simply executed those found guilty of offences we had arbitrarily attributed the death penalty? Its so easy to flick the switch, feel better and forget about it - job done. Yet in doing so I believe we turn our back on the higher element of civilisation that society must strive for if we are to progress. Crime will not be stopped through fear.

[eggman]

 

PART 1 of 2

 

OK, then, in the interests of democracy let's just say for the sake of argument that capital punishment is indeed an anathema in any given civilised society.

What about, however, the famous case of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be executed in Britain?  For those not familiar with the case, the bald facts are that she shot her priapic lover David Blakely twice in the chest and back as he was leaving the Magdala public house in South Hill Park, north London, then pumped the remaining four bullets into the dying Blakely as he bled to death on the pavement.  She thereupon tried to blow out her own brains with the weapon, but her suicide attempt proved unsuccessful as the gun was of course now empty.  Ruth then calmly remained at the scene of the crime until she was eventually taken into custody by the Metropolitan police.

 

Ruth was of course fully cogniscent of the then obtaining judicial consequences upon entering a plea of guilty, and yet she never made even the slightest attempt to protest her innocence throughout her trial for murder in June 1955.  Indeed, she freely admitted her guilt; it was, consequently, the shortest trial in English criminal history, so manifest was Ruth's culpability for what was then of course a capital crime. 

The plain fact is that Ruth wanted to die;  this is not, I should add, an interpretation on my part, as not only had Ruth attempted to end her life at the scene of the murder but she herself consistently maintained that she subscribed to the "life for a life" paradigm. She made this abundantly and quite unequivocally clear at her trial, and indeed she even confided as much in personal letters from her condemned cell in Holloway gaol just days before her execution in July 1955. 

 

 

[eggman]

 

 

PART 2 of 2

 

What other possible verdict could the jury have returned under such circumstances?  It was quite patently murder, and the penalty of the law for that crime in 1955 was death by hanging.  Ruth could have pleaded manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, especially since Blakely was an abusive and womanising drunkard throughout most of their turbulent relationship; indeed, she might very well be not only still alive today  but a free woman had she done so.  Juries were almost invariably inclined towards clemency when there were such conspicuous mitigating factors, especially when the defendant happened to be a woman - which is another interesting question - and even more so where children were involved  (Ruth was a mother of two).  That, however, was not an option as far as she was concerned;  and so the rest, as they say, is history. 

 

In the light of the Ruth Ellis case, wouldn't even the most ardent abolitionist agree with me that perhaps the ultimate sanction should at least be just as much of an option for murderers today as it was for poor Ruth back in 1955?  I hear so much about the European Court of Human Rights blah dee blah blah - what about the human rights of today's convicted murderer or indeed rapist condemned to a life incarcerated in some crumbling Victorian hell hole when it could all be over in just the timely pull of a lever?

[Westminster]

If there were a mandatory death penalty for murder, and if (in consequence) juries were less likely to convict, then there would be more murderers out on our streets. Does the 'compassion in exercising the death penalty' extend to compassion for prison officers? Requiring them to participate in an execution seems to me to be a pretty barbaric thing to do.

[Hgrove]

In England no-one can consent to one's own murder which is one reason why "mercy killings" are still regarded as murder pure and simple.  I think therefore it would not be possible for someone to agree or ask to be executed instead of a custodial sentence.  I once read that Ruth Ellis would not be found guilty nowadays but I don't know a lot about that case.

[stevie21]

I suppose I'm not alone here but my opinions on capital punishment are full of contradictions. While on the one hand I don't believe that anyone has the right to play God and decide who is allowed to live and die I do still think capital punishment should be introduced.

As mentioned, in the cases of serial killers, rapists etc. where there is incontrovertible scientific evidence (e.g. DNA) and it is unlikely that the guilty party would ever be rehabilitated then I'd consider the death penalty as an option.
Aside from the fact that it would reduce the amount of sociopaths in this country & thus negate the risk of them reoffending, there's also the chance that it would save the govt money. What would cost less, lots of expensive appeals to have the sentence reduced or housing the guilty for the rest of their natural lives as we do now?

I'd *much* prefer it to be the case that even the most henious criminal could be rehabilitated but this is impossible. Even if, for example, Myra Hindley WAS 100% rehabilitated, it'd be absolutely impossible to release her from prison now due to public opinion.

rant over.

[eggman]

Thank you for being so patient, Westminster, but I have been fighting something of a rearguard action on another site in defence of some of my perhaps rather trenchant opinions!

I do appreciate entirely what you say as to juries being more likely to acquit faced with the awesome responsiblity of sending a defendant to the gallows.  The whole issue is, of course, a minefield of contradictions.  All I can suggest is that were capital punishment to be indeed restored, then juries would have to adopt a more legalistic approach to their considerations; simple emotion has no judicial consequence under the law.  If juries are unequal to that admittedly somewhat  formidable challenge and motivated by their hearts rather than their heads, then that surely is a pretty damning indictment of the judicial system itself.

With all due respect, prison officers are paid to do a job of work.  If they were to experience some sort of crisis of conscience appropos officiating at an execution then I am sure that they could make their position clear to the governor and that he/she would respect that position.  Failing that, resignation is always an option;  it might sound harsh, but no one is obliged by blood right to assume the role of prison officer. 

Regards,

eggman

[eggman]

Thanks for that, Hgrove.  Sorry I have taken so long to reply, but unfortunately I have been rather preoccupied of late!

I appreciate your argument, of course, but with respect  so called  "mercy killings" concern - in the main - people who have not been convicted for murder.  They are not faced with a simple binary position, ie to take their own lives or otherwise.  There are many more factors to take into consideration and of course it is a matter of the utmost sensitivity and indeed delicacy.

What I propose for convicted murderers and rapists is a much more straightforward decision:  life imprisonment or the death penalty.  You might even argue that such criminals, as indeed convicts of the most heinous offences imaginable, do not even deserve that choice.  In my view, therefore, life imprisonment should remain the mandatory penalty for such crimes but with the option of the death penalty for those who - like Gary Gilmore and a veritable plethora of less high profile cases - positively insist on their being executed.  That said, I do believe that instances of such appalling offences as child rape and murder should result in a mandatory death sentence.  Speaking as a father of three, one of whom, Jennifer, is a girl, such monsters have no right even to breathe the same air as my children.

As for Ruth Ellis, you're probably right, she would be acquitted today under our rather more liberal law as pertains to murder.  That said, she did indeed pump four bullets from a .38 calibre revolver into her dying paramour as he bled to death on the pavement beneath her.  Sounds suspiciously like murder to me!

 

Regards,

eggman

 

[finex]

stevie21 Sat 04/12/04

"I'd *much* prefer it to be the case that even the most henious criminal could be rehabilitated but this is impossible. Even if, for example, Myra Hindley WAS 100% rehabilitated, it'd be absolutely impossible to release her from prison now due to public opinion."

 

That, and the fact that she's been dead for two years of course... :-)

[eggman]

Thanks, stevie21, and may I just say how refreshing it is that someone actually agrees with me in principle at least!

With all due respect, however, why should we as a society even attempt to rehabilitate our worst offenders?  I'm rather inclined to the view that once they've made their bed then they should lie in it and simply do not deserve a  "second chance."  I am not talking crimes of passion here, nor so called  "mercy killings" or cases where the evidence for the prosecution is at best highly dubious.  I am, however, most certainly talking about  "rehabilitated" murderers and rapists, having dodged the gallows at great expense to the already beleagured taxpayer, finding themselves then released back into the wider community.  A salutory illustration of the utter folly of such liberal policy is perhaps the heart rending case of eight-year-old Karin Griffin some years ago.  Karin was raped, her throat cut and her violated body dumped in a rain water butt by a "rehabilitated" murderer. Can any of us imagine the pain and anguish of poor Karin's parents?  How many more of our children do we have to sacrifice on the altar of failed liberal policy and  "political correctness"?