Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

The great (neck breaking) debate

The death penalty debate is one of personal agendas, desperate publicity, and is an inevitable dialogue.

By Steven Baxter Published 04 August 2011 18:25

I am falling into a trap. I know that by talking about the newly ignited debate over restoring the death penalty, no matter how it is discussed, it gives credence to something that I might not think deserves credence.

But here it is: it's unavoidable, given that I've seen it on television, heard about it on the radio and read about it everywhere, from newspapers to Twitter and beyond. So I think you have to talk about it, even if that means giving certain people the publicity they so desperately seem to crave.

Sometimes, you have to fall into one trap, to avoid falling into another trap. The other trap, in this instance, is to imagine that by not talking about the newly ignited debate over restoring the death penalty, that somehow it will go away. And those of us who don't believe the death penalty should be restored should be prepared to debate it. If we don't, we run the risk of being the political elite, looking down on the plebs and dismissing their views as being unimportant from our lofty perches - and that won't do at all.

That's exactly how some people would like to portray the kind of people who don't think it's a good idea to bring back the rope, or lethal injection, or whichever humane or inhumane method of terminating the life of an undesirable person is proposed. An impression can be created in which our political masters and the detached elite are unwilling to talk about issues that matter to ordinary people, creating anger. You may argue that this kind of detachment is not limited to matters of lawful homicide and applies to a great deal of the business of government - but on such an emotive issue as this, it can benefit one side of the argument to portray their opponents as deliberately ignoring the wishes of the 'general will'.

The problem faced in this particular debate right now, I think, is one of momentum. This whole business came about because of newly relaunched epetitions to the Government; those proposing a return of state-sponsored neck-breaking were obviously quicker out of the blocks than those arguing for the status quo. Of course they were: who launches a petition to keep things as they are? If you don't agree with the petition wanting to restore the right of the Government to kill those citizens it deems unworthy, then you just ignore it. The active position defeats the passive one, in this instance.

Which is why I've seen petitions started to retain the death penalty. Again, you could argue that these people are allowing the other side of the argument to win, by acknowledging that there's a debate to be had in the first place, but it's probably a debate worth having, if enough people are going to be shouting about it from one side. If no-one is shouting about it from the other, it could create a false impression that more people are in favour than actually are. I suppose it seems strange for anyone to want to sign a petition to retain the lack of a death penalty, as it is to sign a petition to retain the lack of killing every first-born male child, but doing so might, perhaps, reveal that this debate - if we must have it - is not as cut-and-dried as it's being portrayed in some quarters.

In the meantime, the debate - if we can call it a debate -is carrying merrily on, during the summer recess and the silly season, providing an easy subject matter for radio phone-ins and struggling columnists alike (oh look). It gives the opportunity for those with an agenda to pursue it, and beyond that, to appear on television and radio and in print with increasing regularity - which may not be desperately disappointing for their egos, one suspects.

Is this all just a lot of fuss about nothing? Do people really, really want to bring back the Rope to sort out who deserves to live and who deserves to die, particularly at a time when so much police corruption is being investigated? It will be interesting to see if the debate has legs, or whether it's just a handy distraction from phonehacking, the miserable economic situation and other questions of competence during the summertime. Regardless, it's important to take it seriously, and not dismiss it, I think, whatever your view.

Tags: Capital Punishment

More from Steven Baxter

31 comments

Fri, 2011-08-05 17:53 — firehorse (not verified)

No one has the right to force a woman to either have an abortion or to carry a child which for whatever reason is unable to be born. I also believe that no one - not even the "state" has the right to kill another human being against their will. A fetus is not human, at the legal limits for abortion. The death penalty is about retribution, and even in this country there are miscarriages of justice. No civilised country has the death penalty. As a tax payer I would rather keep a thousand Ian Huntleys in a secure hospital prison for life, than have the state execute one innocent person. The death penalty - not in my name.

Thu, 2011-08-04 19:10 — Beth (not verified)

I think the govt. want to move the agenda to the right without looking like they're the ones doing it. It's quite a clever mechanism for that. - thetopsoil.org.uk/2011/587

Fri, 2011-08-05 18:14 — sianushka (not verified)

Crutchbender

'The argument that a few innocent may or may not get mistakenly or accidently executed is very weak. '

That says it all really. You're basically saying it's ok to murder some innocent people by accident. your NHS analogy is way off because those deaths are not deliberate.

Killing to say killing is wrong does not work. It is morally wrong, it is simply wrong.

And it is not the same as abortion.

Pro life that's a lie, you don't care if women (or abortion doctors) die.

Fri, 2011-08-05 18:17 — sianushka (not verified)

Crutchbender

'Moreover, since the death pen was re-introduced, there hasn't been one, not one single person executed the USA who has subsequently be shown to have been innocent. Not one. Fact. '

Saying .Fact. doesn't make something true! Have you got any stats to back that up? I've read of a fair few cases where the conviction has been pretty wobbly at best. if there is any doubt at all, then execution is not the answer.
But also, what happens if they are innocent? A lot of people who are executed may be poor, may be from marginalised communities. Who has the money, the time, the energy to fight after their death to prove the innocence? it's not as simple as saying .Fact.

Thu, 2011-08-04 20:30 — Trish (not verified)

There have been many miscarriages of justice. When you imprison people who have been found to be innocent - they can be released. Once they've been executed and found to be innocent - totally different story.

Sun, 2011-08-07 01:58 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@Trish: I always find it amusing when people point out someone's spelling mistake they make there own!

Sun, 2011-08-07 01:59 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

oh no, that was not meant to be 'there own', it should have read 'thier own'

Sun, 2011-08-07 02:01 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

No wait, that should not have been 'thier own' it should of meant 'their own'

Thu, 2011-08-04 20:52 — Alex MacDonald (not verified)

"No doubt this thread will soon fill up with fascist left bigots insisting that no one should be put to death, not even Fred West or Ian Huntley."

Sorry, but why are those two more worthy of being put to death? Because they killed people in a more sensational manner?

I can't believe that this issue has even come up - I'm going to have to go with saying I don't think it deserves credence.

The people calling for its re-introduction are working at a "rant in the pub" level of moralising.

Sun, 2011-08-07 02:03 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Oh God, that shouldn't have been 'should of' it should have been 'should have'.

Which all goes to show that mistakes do happen and that the death penalty isn't a good idea especially when your own innocent neck is in the noose.

Thu, 2011-08-04 21:00 — Crutchbender (not verified)

@Trish

You're argument is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because even if we were 100% certain with the accused actually pleading guilty, even then you'd still refuse to proper justice served and see him or her fry.

Meanwhile of course you won't hesitate to pop down the state run clinic to get the state to kill your unborn child.

Thu, 2011-08-04 21:24 — Rilco1910 (not verified)

In an imperfect world some people want "perfect" justice and morality. Abortion, which is not killing babies, should be allowed and murderers should not be executed. As I am not a fascist, I will respect but disagree with the opposite view.

Fri, 2011-08-05 19:15 — markcobley

If you reintroduce capital punishment, it is far from clear that murder rates would fall. It is unknowable whether more people would feel that justice had been served, or more victims achieve emotional catharsis. It is arguable whether it would coarsen and degrade our society, or stiffen our moral fibre. The evidence on all these points appears inconclusive and debatable.

The only thing you can be certain of is this. One day, perhaps not immediately, but eventually, the State will put an innocent man to death.

That is not a risk; it is a certainty.

And that's why I'll never support it. I want no blood upon my hands.

Fri, 2011-08-05 19:27 — firehorse (not verified)

Is that murders by percentage of population? Or just the number of murders because since the 1960's the population in this country has grown somewhat, as I am sure you are aware. So it could be your chances of been murdered have actually fallen. Shouldn't ever throw around random statistics without being sure on the basis for them.
You might find this interesting reading, as it seems to cast a rather large shadow of doubt on your claim that no innocent people have been executed in the USA in recent years. The report to the UN is especially interesting reading. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home

Thu, 2011-08-04 21:54 — Dark Heart of Toryland (not verified)

For the state to deliberately and cold bloodedly kill people is utterly morally repugnant, and has nothing to do with justice - unless you equate 'justice' with 'revenge'.

Fri, 2011-08-05 01:10 — Graeme Hancocks (not verified)

The death penalty reduces the state to the level of the criminal or worst. It is inhuman and degrading to all involved, including wider society.

There have been a numerous miscarriages of justice throughout history, throughout the world and in the UK. Many of those high profile cases of the 1990's and the last decade would all have been killed by the state. There is no possibility of rectifying miscarriages in a capital cases. Obviously.

Where capital punishment is in use, there is no corresponding lowering of murder and other serious crimes - see for eg the capital punishment capital of the world, the USA.

There is no possibility of any repentance/contrition/change. It is the utlimate triumph of hoplessness and cruelty.

I could go on. But I will be labelled a "left wing fascist bigot" by Mr crutchbender - who seems to me to be the true bigot and fascist here - bent over his keyboard waiting to zap with anyone who might dare to disagree with him. But there we go.

Fri, 2011-08-05 21:09 — Gregg

Crutchbender has posted nine times, his rhetoric becoming increasingly hysterical and distorted. I think I am starting to understand how the shrill and fascist minority that advocates capital punishment, has been mistaken for a silent majority.

Fri, 2011-08-05 01:51 — Daniele1

Cruthbender:
For Christ sake stop saying "the fascist left". It shows what an ignorant twat you are.Go and read a book.Pick up a dictionary!
Shall I start talking about the "Communist right", the "atheist religious", the "Muslim Pope"??
try to make some sense or don't bother.It is tiresome.

Fri, 2011-08-05 22:28 — Trish (not verified)

@Crutchbender

Just so you know ... Really sorry to disappoint you ... I actually don't have any children ... so I would be very careful what you assume to be true before you print it for everyone to read ... and it should read 'your arguement' not 'you're arguement'

Fri, 2011-08-05 22:30 — Trish (not verified)

@Crutchbender

Fri, 2011-08-05 11:38 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

There are a number of prison governors in the States who are against the death penalty because they know that innocent men have been executed.

Recently I saw a documentary about how a police officer psychologically tortured a number of men to 'confess' they had committed a crime that they hadn't. You might think no one would confess to a crime that they hadn't done, but that's not true. Sometimes people say things to get someone else off their backs.

There is evidence that a number of people who were hanged in Britain were innocent. You might talk about the 'greater good' but you wouldn't be saying that if it was your innocent neck on the line.

Fri, 2011-08-05 12:52 — Bratiaith (not verified)

"No doubt this thread will soon fill up with fascist left bigots insisting that no one should be put to death, not even Fred West or Ian Huntley."
Personally I have no problem with executing such people. My problem is with the legal system. I do not trust the Police and the courts to prevent innocent people being "fitted up" or wrongly convicted on misleading evidence.
On Abortion - if you take the Christian Line, give all your money to the women who feel they need an abortion so they can afford to keep the child. Educate all children to respect their bodies and not have unprotected sex.

Fri, 2011-08-05 14:19 — Jimbo (not verified)

I trully think that attempts at homicide happen no matter what the consequences to the criminal would be. Therefore it's far better to try and put resources into stoping the Homicidial from happening rather then the aftermath. Two wrongs don't make a right..