Should we re-introduce the death penalty - at least for terrorists?

An Iraqi court has sentenced Ahmed Ali Ahmed, a leading member of al-Qaeda in Iraq, to death for the murder of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, who was abducted on 27th February.

   Archbishop Rahho

Responding to the sentence, the Anglican vicar of Baghdad, Canon Andrew White, one of the Church of England's leading experts on the Middle East stated that the death penalty was 'justified'.

The case for the UK re-introducing the death penalty, at least for terrorism, if not for all murders, is strong:

• Terrorist prisoners become 'living martyrs' - and in the eyes of other terrorists, provide the justification for further terrorist acts and kidnappings aimed at securing their release, as Israel has discovered to its cost.

Such a move would also send a positive message to the general criminal fraternity about how seriously we as a country take the sanctity of human life:

• Respect for the sanctity of life has been undermined in the UK by murderers being released on parole after serving only 10 - 15 years of a 'life sentence'. Society can only hope to preserve a degree of respect for the sanctity of life among criminals, when those who deliberately kill others face at least the possibility of the legal system requiring them to forfeit their own lives.
• The evidence clearly shows that the death penalty acts as a general deterrent against murder and so saves innocent lives. Between 1965 and 1970 when the death penalty was temporarily abolished as an experiment, the UK's murder rate more than doubled, rising by a massive 125% and has continued to rise ever since.

The major impediment to Britain reintroducing the death penalty is of course the EU, which requires member states to sign up to its own particular brand of human rights law - the European Convention on Human Rights - which prohibits the use of the death penalty.

However, the next Conservative government intends to both rewrite the Human Rights Act and examine how Britain can take back powers from the EU. The death penalty is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed in this way.

Comments

[James]

If we had hung the worst of the Provos then Blair and Powell wouldn't have had the chance to release them all in the name of "reconciliation", aka appeasement.

Capital punishment will eventually return to Britain - and rightly so.

[Paul]

State sanctioned murder raises one to no great a level than those you criticise for the same thing.

Capital punishment will NEVER return to Britain - and rightly so.

[David (One of many)]

I personally think that it should come back (for precisely what offences, I haven't decided in my own mind yet). However, it wouldn't be the sort of thing that would happen quickly. A gigantic consultation process, massive debates, and possibly a referendum would come into play.

The problem is that whenever someone reasonable and respectable tries to make an argument for it, they always do it in a completely dumb fashion. I remember when that policewoman was killed in Bradford a few years ago, Sir John Stevens wrote an article saying we should bring it back soley for those who murder police officers. Not only is it the job of the police to prevent crime, they also get bullet-proof clothing, and accept a certain amount of risk is inherent in their job. Nobody else is ever in this position. And it does rather imply that police lives are more important than the rest of ours'.

[batman]

It would be easy for a government with a majority to introduce the death penalty. The death penalty has the support of a majority of voters in this country. Either the disfavour for the death penalty amongst the political class is sheer elitism - which I suspect to be the case - or it is based on the lawmakers concern for being directly responsible for any miscarraiges of justice by voting through such a measure. This problem is easily solved - hold a referendum. Incidentally, any tory government passing into law a measure the eu has forbidden would have a wonderful playing field on which to go to the country with plans to renegotiate our membership. I'm not saying the death penalty is the issue to choose.

[Tony Makara]

This is a matter that should go to our people in a referendum. Although I admit I don't like the idea of putting people to death, I feel that the punishment does fit the crime. We have no reservations about killing in a time of war, including bombing innocent civilians, so it is hypocritical to say that we oppose the death penalty on the grounds of human rights. The people of our country need protection and the 400% increase in murders since the death penalty was abolished is proof that Britain is less safe since capital punishment has ended. A referendum would be an opportunity to debate the issue across the country and then our people could decide.

[BrianSJ]

We have it for innocent people under 24 weeks.

[Anthony]

"The death penalty has the support of a majority of voters in this country."

I believe that's not true any more, although it definitely was until recently. It enjoyed the support of a majority from the point when it was abolished right up to a few years ago, but I believe that in the most recent polling it enjoys the support of a plurality, but not a true majority - and the level of support is definitely trending downward. The fact that the chattering classes have refused for a couple of decades even to acknowledge that public support for capital punishment exists is certainly a sign of disconnection with people out in the country, but the polling evidence doesn't really seem to indicate it's an issue where people are passionately thirsty to see it re-introduced. Were there a referendum, I think it's quite possible that the pro side would lose, albeit not by a massive margin.

On the terrorism issue, while it's not true to say that executing terrorists necessarily makes them martyrs (as parts of the Left will reflexively claim), it's equally untrue that we can say on a blanket basis that it's either a) too dangerous to keep them alive or b) that it cannot be counterproductive.

"If we had hung the worst of the Provos then Blair and Powell wouldn't have had the chance to release them all in the name of "reconciliation", aka appeasement."

True. We'd also have probably ended up hanging a number of innocent Catholics, lost a lot of public support and suffered a massive diplomatic backlash.

Just before everyone piles on, I'd probably, on balance, vote for capital punishment to be reintroduced.

[John F Aberdeen]

I agree we need the return of capital punishment for Terrorists, Serial killers, Child Murderers and Police Killers.

In addition to the return of the death penalty, I would like to see the return of corporal punishment (the birch) for assaults, muggings, drunken behaviour, rioting, etc.

We have a ridiculous situation in this country where criminals prefer life in prison rather than outside, where the likes of the Yorkshire Ripper are wanting to be released using the Human Rights legislation.

Such is the scale of criminality in this country that the time has come for the politicians to say, on behalf of the people they represent, enough is enough.

For a start, corporal punishment would be much cheaper and more effective than prison, asbos, community service etc. They would be up in court, found guilty, taken down and receive 12 strokes of the birch and according to those who have been birched in the Isle of Man,, they don,t go back for another dose.

Yes we can try and take back our own powers, scrap the human rights laws etc, however they only true way out of this mess is to get out of Europe all together.

Finally, I remember the previous votes on capital punishment in the House of Commons, and even though at the time there was a conservative government with a large majority and a huge majority of the public was pro death penalty (and there is still a large pro death penalty majority) the vote was against the reintroduction of capital punishment,, so the best way would be for a referendum giving all the people a vote because politicians cannot be trusted to vote on the death penalty in accordance with the publics wishes.

[John W]

Murder is murder - be it in the name of the state or the individual.

Terrorists are attacking us because of our way of life, our values and principles, amongst them such a high regard for human life that we should not take, no matter the crime.

Even if we invoke war as a justification, terrorists on trial are PoWs and we should treat them accordingly.

If a terrorist kills 20 people by exploding a bomb because he hates our society thinking it weak and permissive, and he is caught and tried, if we killed him he would have won.

Down the road of capital punishment lies a host of evils.

[Ulster Tory]

"If we had hung the worst of the Provos then Blair and Powell wouldn't have had the chance to release them all in the name of "reconciliation", aka appeasement. "

You, my friend, are a fool.

The peace process needed (and still needs), all sides on board. If there was no republican dimension - then it would just have been wishful thinking. Until Ian Paisley and his cronies agreed to power sharing, not much was happening in terms of the process to having (relatively) normal politics. As much as I'd like to see them punished furthur for atrocities carried out, peace was and is more important.

[Ulster Tory]

If we kill people for trying to kill people, then we become hypocrites. Let them rot in prison. Prison may be too nice, but that's a different issue.

[Andrew Lilico]

a) I support the use of non-judicial execution in certain cases of necessity. For example, if we had caught Hitler at the end of the war, we would probably have needed to kill him in order to limit the Nazi insurgency (there was some anyway; there would have been much more had Hitler lived). My objection to the killing of the Nazi High Command was the kangaroo trials, not the deaths. Again, I believe it was necessary (and thus right) to kill deserters and malingerers in the First World War. I thought John Major made himself ridiculous over that matter. One could perhaps imagine a case of a modern terrorist leader whom upon capture one should simply kill, rather than put to trial, but I doubt it.

a) I am opposed to a civilian death penalty - so no death penalty for murders etc. - in Britain today. There may have been a time that, for reasons of necessity in the maintenance of order, it was necessary to execute murderers (e.g. perhaps in the Middle Ages) in order that there were not vigilante cycles of revenge killing. But our society is sufficiently orderly that this is not necessary. Although principles of justice might in some cases not make execution an unjust punishment (e.g. in an anarchic situation (no law), if you were there as your family were murdered, it would not be unjust for you to slay the murderers), I am convinced that in a judicial process it would never be possible to eliminate the risk of killing someone innocent, regardless of the evidential base. Also, execution reduces the likelihood that someone is reformed, and I believe that anyone can change. Since judicial killing is not necessary and has the downsides of innocent deaths and limiting reform, then even though it is not an unjust punishment I do not favour it. Once we have a trial, we should not kill at the end of it.

Thus I favour state killing by necessity, but not judicially.

[Hardcore Conservative]

I have no problem with the death penalty in principle it is just that I do not see it as a real punishment. Someone who has taken another life in cold blood gets finished off quickly and humanely, that to me does not seem like a real dose of retribution. Locking the murderer up for the rest of their natural life in some crap hole of a prison, where they are made to face up to their crime every minute of everyday for the rest of their miserable life, seems more just somehow.

Corporal punishment (caning yes, but not birching as it is very brutal and is beyond the pale) used in strict moderation most definitely should make a come back, but in schools rather than the criminal justice system, the time to nip misbehaviour in the bud is when kids are still young.

[Robert Smith]

The death penalty should never be re-introduced. I understand and am aware of the arguments for the penalty, however I feel the convincing argument is this -any "benefit" derived from the penalty's use is wiped out when a single innocent life is taken by the state.

No one, not even the State, has the automatic right to kill. Of course there will be cases (such as in war and the use of armed police) where death plays a part. Capital Punishment is, in my view, different.

Martin Parsons quotes an Anglican vicar. I respectfully disagree with his view. Just this week for example, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland reaffirmed its opinion that the death penalty was completely wrong.

In any case, one could consider this debate to be academic. The tide is turning worldwide against capital punishment, with more and more countries stoping its use. I would consider it a dismal day when it was reintroduced here.

[Bob B]

Of course, I might be wrong but, somehow, a prospect of the death penalty on conviction seems unlikely to deter suicide bombers of the kind who struck in London on 7/7.

The practical objection to reintroducing the death penalty has always been the substantial numbers of miscarriages of justice although that consideration may not persuade those who continue to advocate the deterrent case.

By the deterrent argument, it matters little whether the person hanged actually committed the crime so long as most continue to believe that the right person was executed. Justice doesn't really come into it. As I recall it, the case of Derek Bentley in 1953, from close to where I live now, was what finally turned me against the death penalty:

"Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was hanged at the age of 19 for a murder committed by a friend, creating a cause célèbre and leading to a 45-year-long successful campaign to win him a posthumous pardon. . . "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley

Since then, there have been far too many other recognised miscarriages of justice to render the reintroduction of capital punishment a realistic proposition:
http://www.innocent.org.uk/

[Marjorie Sims]

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

End of!

[Adam R]

Tricky question.

It does seem appealing just to destroy those who commit heinous crimes, be they terrorists or murderers, but in reality it is a bad thing.

Firstly there is the justice and rights element that many people have mentioned. State-sanctioned murder is no better than any other, and miscarriages of justice can lead to tragic outcomes.

From the criminal perspective, it could also offer an easy way out. The article talks of 'living martyrs', but those who have died/been killed are venerated more by Islamists. One only has to see the pictures of so-called martyrs paraded by these people in news footage, and the fact that many terrorists refer to suicide bombings as 'martyrdom operations'. What we really need is to make prison for these people a living nightmare, as this is a far longer, and harsher punishment than a quick death.

[Phil H]

I believe that there are some murderers for whom death would be a just sentence; indeed, I would pull the lever myself without a second's hesitation. There are others for whom I only feel compassion and sadness. Your views on which individual deserves the rope would probably differ from mine. It is a subjective judgement and one made by a succession of home secretaries, the Homicide Act of 1956(?) notwithstanding.

Indeed, the number of executions at least in the 20th century were always far less than the number of death sentences passed down and there was often no obvious reason why some were commuted and some where carried out (the Bently case mentioned above being a prime example). The memoirs of Sid Darnley, an assistant hangman in the fifties, shed an interesting light on this topic. He mentions reading of some horrific, for the time, murder, in the newspapers and thinking he would be called upon only to later discover that the killer had their sentence commuted and yet being tasked to assist at the execution of a less heinous killer a short while later. His view was that the choice of who died was made on the basis of setting an example to that part of the country, which perhaps had not had an execution for a while.

My point, here, is that unless everyone who commits a certain category of murder, and the old Homicide Act made a pretty fair first of defining the types, suffers the same penalty then what you have is a lottery of death and not justice. I cannot see that such a lottery would be acceptable in this day and age where we demand transparency in public decision making. Nor do I think the public would accept the number of executions that would be needed to deal with the number of “Capital Murders” that are committed in our cities today.

Furthermore, in the past there were, for legal reasons, very few appeals against conviction; up until comparatively recently there were very few ways a convict could appeal against a jury’s decision. So in the fifties the Judge would don the black cap and 21 days later the trap would open, unless the Home Secretary intervened. Those days have gone too. Now any sentence of death would be subject of endless appeals, questions in the house, demonstrations in the streets and heaven knows what else. The whole thing would become a three ring circus and drag of for years in each case. Nor are we the homogenous society that we were, which would add further grief.

Finally, there is the question of the competence of the police, the CPS and the defence lawyers. Most of the time most of them do their best, but would you trust them with your life? The age of deference to those in authority has gone, only the foolish of extremely gullible would now accept the unsupported word of a copper, or a lawyer (or a journalist or a politician come to that).

Aside from all other considerations the time for capital punishment has passed. For good or ill, we could no more bring it back than we could conscription.

[Ken Stevens]

I would have no qualms whatsoever about execution of the likes of Brady. I suppose my criteria would include elements of premeditation and sadism or other perversion or, as with bombings, a callous disregard for the indiscriminate consequences of the ensuing carnage.

On that basis Derek Bentley would not have qualified for execution, as being "heat of the moment" action (leaving aside other aspects of that case).

[John Pickworth]

Absolutely no.

As someone* said above: "capital punishment for Terrorists, Serial killers, Child Murderers and Police Killers". Okay, what above butchering old ladies in their beds? Yes, lets add that too... and there we go down the long slippery slope. Then comes the secondary arguments; why for multiple murders but not for single murders... shouldn't all victims (and their families) be treated equally? What happens if we reintroduce capital punishment but the murder rate doesn't change? And then there's America or the host of eastern nations that have very tough drug smuggling laws, none of which seem that much of a deterent.

* (quoted for illustration, I'm not attacking that posters actual views)

I'm afraid what we have currently isn't perfect but it will have to do. I do believe that life should mean life (or at least a fair chunk of it). The death penalty just doesn't work as people might hope it should.

[Tony Makara]

"There are others for whom I only feel compassion and sadness"

Each case would have to be judged on its own merits. I don't think anyone would advocate execution in a case of manslaughter. The determining factor has to be premeditation, cases like the moors murders would clearly fall under premeditated killing, even in the case of Hindley who was an accessory. However gang fights between teenagers leading to a fatal stabbings might be more difficult to prove, unless the act of carrying a knife was deemed to be intent. We would have to rely on the skill of our judges to decide whether a guilty verdict should lead to execution and of course the right of appeal would apply. We do need to have capital punishment as an option, as a deterrent. Of course such a sanction would not stop the manic from killing but the criminally insane would not be executed anyway.

I feel that if having the death sentence in place deters one would be murderer then its worth having as an option. If it deters young men from taking knives onto our streets and from buying a gun it will be worthwhile. There is an element of justice and vengence in capital punishment but there is nothing wrong in that. Vengence is justice, if it is measured and reflects the nature of the crime.

[Man in a Shed]

Didn't Labour removed the death penalty for high ?) treason after 1997.

In times of war and national emergency it is perhaps necessary. But rotting in goal for life has to worse.

[al]

Capital Punishment is quite possibly the most evil thing a state can do.

State-sanctioned murder it is, but what really gets me about capital punishment in most countries that practice it is the ceremony behind it. The whole thing is so barbaric. Years on end on "death row" in America, while they decide if they're going to murder you or not. It is generally accepted that the more planned - the more cold-blooded - the murder is, the more evil it is. By that definition, and I feel this strongly, capital punishment is the most evil murder of all.

I can see the arguments for capital punishments. There are many criminals I see who I think, "the world would be better without these people".

But then I stop and think - this is quite often what THOSE people were thinking when they were doing their despicable crimes. If we think the same, we are no better than them.

Plus - and very importantly - were I given the choice of life in jail or death, I would choose death. So, for the punishment point of view, life in jail is undoubtedly more appropriate.

[cosmic]

There's much to be said on both sides, the Timothy Evans case, the Ruth Ellis case, the moral ambiguity of capital punishment.

OTOH, there are some people......

But luckily, no need to worry about it. We couldn't reintroduce the death penalty in the UK because it would be against EU law.

[Tory Member]

Capital Punishment/Abortion?

Are we not trying to show the electorate we are a modern liberal conservative party. Let's not get complacent that we will win the next election because we certainly will not if voters think we are the Republicans.

[Ash Faulkner]

"State sanctioned murder raises one to no great a level than those you criticise for the same thing."

That's like saying a bailiff is as bad as a thief. The former is a representative of the law, the latter breaks it. The former has acted in accordance with a court and a fair trial; the latter has arbitrarily decided to rob you of your property for no reason whatsoever. If the laws of the society of which you are a part state 'if you go out and kill someone, you yourself shall be killed upon proof of guilt in court' and you then go out and violate that law in the sure knowledge of the punishment you shall face, it is your own fault if you are killed. There is the world of difference between someone who kills violating the law, and someone who kills enforcing it.

I'm on the fence over capital punishment. I still find it somewhat difficult to actively support, but I think most of the arguments against it are illogical; the only one with substance is the miscarriage of justice one.

The first argument is that no-one, not even the state, has the right to take life. But I'm not a pacifist, and I don't oppose abortion, so why would I select criminals as more important than innocent civilians caught up in war, or for that matter, innocent soldiers who die in combat? The state clearly can cause death, and is perceived by all but the purest of pacifists as legitimate in doing so.

The second argument is that the state can do everything to a criminal but take their life. But (and I'm aware this is the American view, but it applies to most of the West I think), people are entitled to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. Liberty is not an absolute right: we arrest people, send them to jail - potentially forever - and take away their right to vote amongst other things. So why is life so different? It reminds me of Mike Huckabee saying in a debate that he supports the dignity of human life for all people and in all places. And I thought, how can you possibly support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then? Because we know that civilians can get caught up in wars, and invariably do, but we make the utilitarian judgement that that is a price worth paying. That is a judgement Huckabee (and others like him) clearly made when supporting the war on terror (or any war, for that matter), so by definition life is not sacred.

The final argument is that it's better to let the criminal suffer. I think that's an odd view of our system. I don't believe our justice system exists to punish people. People who are candidates for execution are, by definition, not the sort of people we would let out of jail. So the punishment does not serve as a deterrent, as it might to minor criminals. Instead, it is punishment for its own sake: it is vengeance. I think that a far darker quality for a society to encourage. Afterall, if prison is about punishing people, why don't we torture prisoners? No, in my view, the purpose of prison is to keep dangerous or repeat offenders away from the society they would otherwise harm. If, therefore, someone is deemed so dangerous that they should be removed permanently, why should we waste money and time keeping them there? We gain nothing from it, aside from the perverse satisfaction of watching someone suffer. It would seem to be totally logical - and a better use of taxpayers money - to simply remove them altogether.

So that is why I think the rational arguments against capital punishment don't stand up to logic. The only exception is the potenital to execute someone who is innocent. Someone who is in jail but innocent can be freed; someone who is dead cannot. That, and a gut feeling that I can't explain, is all that keeps me from saying 'yes'. But I can't say 'no' for one simple reason: if I opposed capital punishment, I'd have felt remorse at the execution of Saddam Hussein, or would oppose the execution of Hitler or bin Laden. I didn't, and I wouldn't. So I am sitting quite uncomfortably on the fence.

[Dave J]

"The whole thing is so barbaric. Years on end on "death row" in America, while they decide if they're going to murder you or not."

Who's the "they" in this sentence? Typical capital defendants in the US spend decades in appeals and other post-conviction proceedings. Would it be better to cut those short? Or perhaps you think these people should just remain on the streets AFTER they've been found guilty?

"So the punishment does not serve as a deterrent, as it might to minor criminals. Instead, it is punishment for its own sake: it is vengeance."

Yes, but as you note it also IS a guaranteed deterrent: 100% of people who are executed never reoffend. To people who say a life sentence is always sufficient, what exactly would you do with someone who commits a new murder in prison while already sentenced to life?

FWIW, while I know this is all purely academic to most of you, they're practical questions to me as an American prosecutor.

[Arron Fitzgerald]

The death penailty should be reintroduced, but only for those in public office (or having previously held public office), and for crimes such as treason (which should be modified to include misleading the country into war).

[Steve]

I like the way the emotive suggestion that it should be used for terrorists is tried. Murder is murder - so why single out one group.. oh hang on, that's because Muslim murderers are worse than normal Christian ones.

Most proponents of the death penalty will happily use irrational emotion to pursue their agenda. We should have nothing to do with it. This is not poltics.

I don't want to live in a country with criminals or murderers, and I don't want to live in a country with the death penalty. I'm quite happy to toughten up prison terms, and make life mean life.

It's such a silly debate, no party is ever going to introduce legislation or have a referendum on the subject. It's a political fettish for these people who obsess about how things are done in America.

[Bob B]

"Let's not get complacent that we will win the next election because we certainly will not if voters think we are the Republicans."

Surely, sound advice there.

What with the serial problems Americans have had from some of their TV evangelists and the local difficulties potential presidential candidates have had from endorsements by their respective pastors, a bit of secularism could be timely too.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The following is from the EUReferendum on the 16th May, posted by co-editor Helen. She takes an ironic swipe at the "superior" attitude of the EU toward the USA over capital punishment. Read it all.

"According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.

The effect is most pronounced, according to some studies, in Texas and other states that execute condemned inmates relatively often and relatively quickly.

The studies, performed by economists in the past decade, compare the number of executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time — while trying to eliminate the effects of crime rates, conviction rates and other factors — and say that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. One influential study looked at 3,054 counties over two decades.
At least one of the studies was carried out by an opponent of capital punishment but he found the figures hard to argue with. Naturally enough, the studies have evoked sharp responses, not least from lawyers, who argue that purely economic arguments do not apply to complicated matters such as capital punishment which is, in any case, a rare occurrence in the United States.

"Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that "the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its 'apparent power and unanimity,'" quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science"

The Capital Punishment UK website states that in the 10 years before abolition there were 150 hangings plus 5 women. In one year alone - 2004 - there were 900 murders - capital and non-capital.

The EU "superior"? The road to hell is paved with good intentions and politicians are busy laying the stones.

[Gospel of Enoch]

It should NOT be re-introduced - there have been too many miscarriages of justice.

BUT: Life should mean life, i.e. you should never be released from jailk until found innocent.

[Bexie]

Difficult in that many miscarriages of justice have been found, but keeping a lag in prison is something like the equivalent of 100 hip operations per year.

Since I am not seeking high office I can have a bit of a rant tho, So...

I would favour a return of hanging drawing and quartering for politicians who use high office to feather their nest at the expense of the citizenry. The thought of Blairs head on a pole outside the tower is rather appealing, and I would rather like to be able to go and wave at it as Vir Koto did to his nemesis in the series Babylon 5...

I would also favor the hanging drawing and quartering of those who aid, abet or attempt mass murder as 7/7, and in the case of that particular bunch of nutters, would compound the insult by feeding their remains to pigs.

/rant over... Back to sane posting

[Allan McKinley]

As a liberal right-winger, I cannot see how anybody can support a totalitarian tool such as the death penalty. Are we so intolerant that we wish to eliminate those who transgress certain norms? So why stop at those who kill - why not those who plot, or we see as corrupt - if we have a penalty that allows elimination of those we do not like (or those we can frame?). Small 'reasonable' steps can be made which increase the scope of a penalty (I believe this is a tendency of big government) with public approval. And before you know it, because you hold opposing views to a powerful and rather dictatorial leader you are in danger of the gallows (or whatever 'humane' equivalent you want to suggest). Remember, totalitarian regimes often start by being elected (partially at least). If democrats give them weapons, their life becomes easier. It is a matter of principle, to live in a state which considers life sacred or humanity disposable in the interest of votes, opinion or some ideological end. I know what I chose.

[Yet Another Anon]

The UK should leave the EU, European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice and introduce a new system of Capital Punishment and other forms of punishment with a variety of types of Capital, Corporal and other punishments to fit the crimes concerned.

It is pointless being fatalistic about the possibility of it being re-introduced or indeed assuming that it will only ever be Conservative or Unionist MPs who support it, there used to be Labour and Liberal MPs who supported Capital Punishment, most of the public support it. Cyril Smith for example was an elected Labour councillor and later an elected Liberal MP - he was a strong advocate of Capital Punishment throughout his life.

It was abolished without a referendum and could be introduced without a referendum.

I think it quite possible and indeed hope that Peter Hitchens is right when he concludes that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will ultimately be forced to conclude that rising social disorder and disrespect for the law and increasing terrorist threats can only be tackled by ruthless application of zero tolerance and execution and other punishments, I have high hopes that internment will be introduced for terrorist and organised crime suspects too - just as in the Deathwish films where a liberal architect is forced by circumstances to change his views of the scum on the streets when his own family is targeted, so the General Public will rise up and demand retribution and maybe liberalism will go into terminal decline and a new strong concensus on maintaining discipline in society will rise from the ashes.

[GreenLanternCorps]

I live in a state with the death penalty (The State of Ohio).

Below is a somewhat lengthy listing of the requirements to impose the death penalty in Ohio. If you all are going to talk about the death penalty in the UK, I thought you might want to see what that law might look like and what circumstances are covered by it.

To get the death penalty in Ohio you must:

1. Be convicted of aggravated murder by unanimous vote of a 12 person jury.

Aggravated murder is defined in the Ohio revised code as:

(A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design,
cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's
pregnancy.
(B) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the
unlawful termination of another's pregnancy while committing or
attempting to commit, or while fleeing immediately after committing or
attempting to commit, kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson or arson,
aggravated robbery or robbery, aggravated burglary or burglary, or
escape.
(C) No person shall purposely cause the death of another who is under
thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
(D) No person who is under detention as a result of having been found
guilty of or having pleaded guilty to a felony or who breaks that
detention shall purposely cause the death of another.
(E) No person shall purposely cause the death of a law enforcement
officer whom the offender knows or has reasonable cause to know is a
law enforcement officer when either of the following applies:
(1) The victim, at the time of the commission of the offense, is engaged
in the victim's duties.
(2) It is the offender's specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer.

2. In addition to being convicted of aggravated murder, one of the following must be true:

(A) Imposition of the death penalty for aggravated murder is precluded
unless one or more of the following is specified in the indictment or
count in the indictment pursuant to section 2941.14 of the Revised Code
and proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) The offense was the assassination of the president of the United
States or a person in line of succession to the presidency, the governor
or lieutenant governor of this state, the president-elect or vice president-
elect of the United States, the governor-elect or lieutenant governor-
elect of this state, or a candidate for any of the offices described in this
division. For purposes of this division, a person is a candidate if the
person has been nominated for election according to law, if the person
has filed a petition or petitions according to law to have the person's
name placed on the ballot in a primary or general election, or if the
person campaigns as a write-in candidate in a primary or general
election.
(2) The offense was committed for hire.
(3) The offense was committed for the purpose of escaping detection,
apprehension, trial, or punishment for another offense committed by the
offender.
(4) The offense was committed while the offender was under detention
or while the offender was at large after having broken detention. As
used in division (A)(4) of this section, "detention" has the same
meaning as in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code, except that
detention does not include hospitalization, institutionalization, or
confinement in a mental health facility or mental retardation and
developmentally disabled facility unless at the time of the commission
of the offense either of the following circumstances apply:
(a) The offender was in the facility as a result of being charged with a
violation of a section of the Revised Code.
(b) The offender was under detention as a result of being convicted of
or pleading guilty to a violation of a section of the Revised Code.
(5) Prior to the offense at bar, the offender was convicted of an offense
an essential element of which was the purposeful killing of or attempt to
ill another, or the offense at bar was part of a course of conduct
involving the purposeful killing of or attempt to kill two or more
persons by the offender.
(6) The victim of the offense was a law enforcement officer, as defined
in section 2911.01 of the Revised Code, whom the offender had
reasonable cause to know or knew to be a law enforcement officer as so
defined, and either the victim, at the time of the commission of the
offense, was engaged in the victim's duties, or it was the offender's
specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer as so defined.
(7) The offense was committed while the offender was committing,
attempting to commit, or fleeing immediately after committing or
attempting to commit kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, aggravated
robbery, or aggravated burglary, and either the offender was the
principal offender in the commission of the aggravated murder or, if not
the principal offender, committed the aggravated murder with prior
calculation and design.
(8) The victim of the aggravated murder was a witness to an offense
who was purposely killed to prevent the victim's testimony in any
criminal proceeding and the aggravated murder was not committed
during the commission, attempted commission, or flight immediately
after the commission or attempted commission of the offense to which
the victim was a witness, or the victim of the aggravated murder was a
witness to an offense and was purposely killed in retaliation for the
victim's testimony in any criminal proceeding.
(9) The offender, in the commission of the offense, purposefully caused
the death of another who was under thirteen years of age at the time of
the commission of the offense, and either the offender was the principal
offender in the commission of the offense or, if not the principal
offender, committed the offense with prior calculation and design.
jury shall be instructed that a specification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in
order to support a guilty verdict on the specification, and further states that the instruction
“shall not mention the penalty that may be the consequence of a guilty or not guilty verdict
on any charge or specification.” Id. This ensures that the guilt and sentencing phases are
bifurcated in accordance with the requirements set forth for death penalty cases in the
United States Supreme Court’s holding in Gregg. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

[Ben Stevenson]

The Economist recently commissioned a survey which provides evidence of public support for the death penalty.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/FullPollData.pdf

"Do you favour the death penalty for murder?

Yes always - 21%
Yes sometimes depending on the circumstances - 53%
No the death penalty is wrong - 24%
Don’t know - 2%"

Results from a survey of 1,000 people, carried out by YouGov.

The difference between me killing someone, and the state executing a convicted murderer would be that the state is allowed by God to execute murderers. It is God who ultimately sets what is right or wrong.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." -- Genesis 9:6

"For he [the governing authorities] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." -- Romans 13:4

[Yet Another Anon]

If you all are going to talk about the death penalty in the UK, I thought you might want to see what that law might look like and what circumstances are covered by it.
Just because that is the way it is implimented in Ohio does not mean the UK has to copy that system, there have been vast numbers of methods of execution and of types of crime down the ages to which it has applied.

There is a system for convicting people and sentencing them, there is no reason why capital sentences should not be applied in the same way as custodial sentences, and indeed there is a strong argument for making people suffer as part of their punishment.

In having a detterent effect, in eliminating a sizeable number of persons considered to have forfeited their right to life and so preventing their ever being released the UK could come up with a new system based on elements of different systems both current and past, as well as new experimental ideas.

[Oliver McCarthy]

Obviously yes it should. It is the duty of the State to maintain moral order, moral order cannot be maintained without justice, justice cannot exist unless punishments are proportionate to crimes committed.

It's not going to happen unless and until Britain leaves the European Union, which it can only do unilaterally. There is nothing in our history that suggests we are remotely capable of such a radical political step. Therefore this country will continue to exist in a state of moral chaos for the forseeable future.

The death penalty obviously only works for criminals. Those fighting terrorist insurgencies (or, from their point of view, guerilla wars) should be treated as war criminals and tried as such after their wars have been lost and won.

[Tony Quann]

Some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty of death. To those who argue that it is not a deterant, how would you know? If somebody was deterred they would never have comitted the crime. To those who say what about innocent people being executed, i can tell you that in the UK over 130 innocent people have been murdered by convicted murderers who have either been released or murdered whilst still incarcerated, pre 1964 they would have hung and would not have been able to carry on with their brand of contributing to society.I think with DNA ( which also prooves innocence) but is not always conclusive cctv and the like there is a much better case for dispatching these people. To those who say there are examples in the USA were there are examples where homicides have gone up i would suggest thats more to do with drugs. I recently travelled to Singapore which informs you as you enter its borders that if you are caught trafficking drugs you will meet the hangman personly, and what a law abiding friendly place it is. The last 40 years of hugging all the wrong'ens and human rights instead of respect for law and decency towards society has left us on both sides of the atlantic with societies that are descending into moral meltdown and chaos. Ask the 18 families of the victims of teenage knife murder crimes in the last six months in London alone, not too mention guns and other weapens of choice. It seems to me wrong that law abiding citizens are now more scared of the thugs than the thugs are more scared of the law. ITs time to realise the road we have been going down has been nothing but damaging to society.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

In the current idiom: Tony Quann "gets it". Unfortunately the leaders of mainstream politics do not get it (even if they did the EU would not let capital punishment be reintroduced)
If you wish to return Britain to a more peaceful society, then I regret to say, that there will be no point in voting mainstream. Cameron recently went to assist Davis, in Yorkshire to help, imho, suspect criminals to avoid detection.
Now that should get the comments flying?

I shall return later stating why the vote should not be for Davis, but for Jill Saward - a victim of rape - and her support for a DNA data base and CCTV. Until then amuse yourselves commenting on the use-fullness of Davis and his cure for all ills - the Magna Carta.