First a reminder of the basic argument behind retribution and punishment:
Support for the death penalty in Britain seems to be slowly declining although it is supported by many young people who were not born when we still had it.
In the short term say the next 10 yearsthere is no realistic chance of reinstatement, however, despite majority public support for such a move.
Reintroduction of something that has been abolished is always much more difficult than introducing something entirely new. Politically it would be impossible now, given our membership of the EU and our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which totally prohibit capital punishment.
The EU contains no member states that practice it and will not allow retentionist states to join. The present Labour government is implacably opposed to capital punishment and has removed it from the statute book for the few remaining offences for which it was still theoretically allowed.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are also against reintroduction. There is no doubt that capital punishment is a very emotive issue and there is a strong anti-death penalty lobby in this country who would put every obstacle in the way of its return should it ever become likely.
There is concern at the number of convictions that are being declared unsafe by the Courts, particularly for the most serious offences such as murder and terrorism. Yet we live in a time of ever rising serious crime despite what the government tells us. Will people become so fed up with escalating levels of crime and what they see in, most cases, as derisory punishments that they will support anything that appears likely to reduce crime and redress the balance?
Or do they see the return of capital punishment as a return to barbarity? There are very real issues of human rights that will effect us all if it were to be reintroduced.
Will the government introduce laws that are just and contain sufficient safeguards and will the judiciary administer them properly? We are all potentially capable of murder a lot of domestic murders, where one partner murders the other during a row, are first time crimes and, therefore, we must each consider whether we and our loved ones are more at risk of being murdered or being executed for committing murder.
We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is inevitable that it will happen sooner or later. Can the police, the courts, and the system generally be trusted to get things right on every occasion?
They never have been able to previously. Will juries be willing to convict in capital cases? Would you like to have to make the decision as to whether the person in the dock should live or die?
Will the government really be willing to carry out death sentences or will they find every excuse for not doing so, thus returning to the injustices of earlier centuries?
Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that some supporters of capital punishment expect them to be? It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are incapable of rational behaviour sometimes taking their own lives immediately after the crime, as in the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres Certain criminals, e.
It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.
Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction, e. So we go back to the situation where only "sane" murderers can be executed.
Can these scenarios ever be seen as justice? What about crimes such as violent rape, terrorism and drug trafficking - are these as bad as murder? How should we punish such offences? Should executions be carried out in such a way as to punish the criminal and have maximum deterrent effect on the rest of us, e.
Would this be a deterrent or merely become a morbid show for the voyeuristic? Or should they be little more than a form of euthanasia carried out in such a way as to remove from the criminal all physical and as much emotional suffering as possible?A Strong Argument Against Capital Punishment.
By 4–3, the court held that “capital punishment has become incompatible with contemporary standards of decency in Connecticut and, therefore. The Facts: 13 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty. There is a better alternative: life without parole. In Oregon, we have the option of sentencing convicted murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
There are currently over people in Oregon who have received this sentence.
Capital punishment goes against almost. Capital punishment: Arguments for life and death.
Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 28(1), The main purpose of this article was to investigate the effects of the death penalty and the.
Dec 14, · Capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by executing convicted murderers, we will deter would-be murderers from killing people. The arguments against deterrence. The argument surrounding capital punishment has been an ongoing battle for a very long time, and I sincerely believe that capital punishment and liberty can coexist in the same philosophical frame for a number of reasons.
Capital Punishment: The arguments for and against Patricia Gallaher 20/11/17 Given the recent death of infamous cult leader and convicted murderer, Charles Manson, I thought of it as an appropriate time to discuss the ongoing arguments for and against capital punishment.