Capital punishment. The state line that shouldn't be crossed.

According to The Sun, the issue of capital punishment in Britain is back on the agenda. A campaign spearheaded by Guido Fawkes hopes to force a debate in Parliament with the view to re-introducing hanging, by using the online petition system.

I would like to think that the people of 2011 have evolved enough to be against the idea of giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizens. Sadly I believe the reverse is true.

The British people are so very much under the control and influence of the media. Newspapers can cherry pick a particular Sad story, turn it into national public outrage and use that to introduce new laws. They then walk away saying, "Aren't we the champions of the people".

I'm sure the campaign for the death penalty will have huge media backing. Maybe even enough to force a debate in Parliament.

Nick Clegg said last year, there are certain things that they won't change, like the smoking ban and the death penalty.

When the dust settles, will we be left with a state that doesn't allow citizens to smoke on private property but happily kills it's own people if the cause seems just?

Three MPs have backed the call for a vote, including the most disappointing advocate for civil liberties of them all, Mr Phillip Davis.

I've disagreed with Philip Davis before on the issue of CCTV cameras. He believes he has the right not to be a victim of crime, even at the expense of liberty and privacy of everyone else.

He disappoints again here:
They want capital punishment - banned in Britain in 1965 - to be restored for those who kill kids or police officers.

Kids or police officers. We all know that children are more important than adults in our 'child centered' society; I'm surprised they included police officers rather than paedophiles, after all, there is one on every street corner.

But it won't end there will it? Mr Davies has already said it should go further:
Tory MP Philip Davies said: "It's something where once again the public are a long way ahead of the politicians.

"I'd go further and restore it for all murderers."

All murderers. No exceptions. And there the slippery slope begins. Campaigners will be able to justify any type of crime being added to the list.

All child abusers
All rapists
Death during the commission of a crime.
Drug trafficking
Drug dealing
Death of a child on the road.
Child neglect
Joint enterprise. Hang 'em all.

It's not just the slippery slope that concerns me, it's the use of the death penalty for any crime.

To me, the possibility of hanging an innocent person, far outweighs the any argument for capital punishment. A person wrongly incarcerated can be released, at least. A death cannot be overturned.
Also, the state should not be given so much power. Power is always abused by TPTB. It should be limited as much as is humanly possible.
People argue that the cost of keeping someone in prison for life can not be justified if capital punishment is an option. The fact is that in America, after a person has spent years on death row as their guilt and their eligibility for death is questioned by appeal again and again until all doubt is gone, costs more than a life term. However, cost isn't the issue to me. There are certain things that I don't mind my tax money being spent on. One is a fair and consistent justice system. I would prefer the cost of imprisoning offenders to the cost of capital punishment.

And as for Philip Davies' assertion that the public are way ahead of the politicians, the public live on fear, largely caused by the politicians and media

His fellow Conservative MP Priti Patel, who also backs the death penalty, added:

"We need strong deterrents to make people think twice about the crimes they commit."

It's true that justice is not being done in Britain anymore. Julia can tell you many a story of criminals being let off with a slap on the wrist. I don't know her take on capital punishment but I do know she is sick of bleeding heart judges letting career criminals off with pansy arsed punishments.

Sure enough, there are many ways that the deterrent could be bolstered, but killing people is not one of them.

We use the word deterrent a lot in the death penalty issue. Hanging never prevented murders before and it won't do now. All it can do is make sure murderers never re-offend. A life term can do that too.

When a criminal commits a serious crime like murder, the thought of punishment is rarely a factor. Either they believe they have fully planned the crime and don't think they will get caught or they are acting out of desperation or impulse, not giving a thought to the consequences.

I once did a post on who has the right to protest that got quite a bit of debate. I suggested that if someone is protesting in order to remove the rights of others, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do it. The Libertarian point of view is that everybody has the right to protest.

When someone exercises their democratic right and signs this petition to re-introduce the death penalty, they are asking to give the state the right to arrest, charge and convict me for a crime I didn't commit, kill me, realise their error and say, "Oh, we're sorry".

No thanks.


NewsboyCap said...

Bucko said...

Angry Exile said...

Mick Anderson said...

Paul said...

The Boiling Frog said...