Orf wiv their 'eads

[davywavy]

There's quite a famous photo from the early 1980's which shows fashion designer Katherine Hamnett meeting Margaret Thatcher wearing a T-shirt reading "58% don't want Pershing" (a reference to the introduction of a new British nuclear deterrent). What is not so famous (perhaps because it is hard to take propaganda-friendly photographs of sharp put-downs) is Margaret Thatcher's response, which was to fix her with a withering glare and observe that 75% of people were in favour of re-introducing the death penalty but she had no intention of taking any notice of that, either.
I suppose all this does is show the worthlessness of opinion polls and the danger of allowing policy to be decided by single-interest pressure groups - I have to wonder what the overlap would be if you drew a Venn Diagram of the anti-Pershing and pro-death penalty groups.

I was reminded of this yesterday when someone observed to me that when Germany abolished the death penalty in 1949 75% of people opposed the abolition, but now only 15% of Germans would approve of the re-introduction. In the UK, the situation is rather different - since the abolition of the death penalty in this country, the number of people in favour of re-introducing it has remained pretty solidly over 60%, with the most recent poll in December 2003 indicating 62% support for a re-introduction of hanging.
It'd be interesting to debate the difference on post-capital punishment opinions in the UK and Germany; whether Germans are more or less civilised than us, whether their history has given them more idea of just how badly wrong state-sanctioned killing can go, or whether the UK's history of IRA insurgency has maintained a desire of state vengeance for extreme crimes.
It's a pretty common myth that the only crimes to still carry the death penalty in this country are High Treason and Sabotage in Naval Dockyards, but the use of extreme sanction even in these cases was removed from the statute books a few years ago and now thanks to this government's lenient sentencing policies Sabotage in Naval Dockyards carries 100 hours of community service and High Treason will get you an ASBO.

With that in mind, a poll:

[Poll #784714]

And always remember the wise words of the Reverend Jesse Jackson: "The death penalty makes the state a murderer, but keeping men in prison makes the state a gay brothel-keeper."

Comments

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

So now you need to compare the sub group "David's F-list + David" with the uber group "British population"

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I always consider my friends list to be a sub group. I mean, just look at them.

[(Anonymous)]

"High Treason will get you an ASBO"

A seat in the House of Lords seems the going rate.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

How true, how true.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

And I wish I'd thought of that joke myself, seeing as it's funnier than mine, damnit.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting dilema - what's worse, removing someone's freedom forever or just removing them from their current existance?

I think it's a fair assumption that the dp is not a deterant, and neither is the prospect of jail.

There are people who will never be rehabilitated, often because they've got a "screw lose" so then you're in the possition of killing someone because they're in need of treatment because "care in the community" doesn't work either.

These days we're in a better possition to know for sure if someone committed the crime, although there will always be instances where the evidence lies. So how do you know 100% that the person you're sending to the gallows is the right one? A confession doesn't mean jack as I think we all know.

Knowing all the reasons against it, I'd still rather see people who've raped children or murdered grannies to be strung up because.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The jury seems very much still out on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent; a quick search of the literature will find very convincing-sounding research backing up both the 'is' and 'isn't' points of view.
I think it is one of those subjects where people are going to find evidence to support their points of view from whichever side, and then rubbish the other as being either naive or evil.
Actual debate on the subject is almost negligible.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

"These days we're in a better possition to know for sure if someone committed the crime".

I am not sure that I agree with you on that one. Though forensic science is much better than it used to be, I have no doubt that miscarriages of justice will continue.

Better to lock up the wrong person than to kill them.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of sentences are a bit on the dodgy side. All this getting out early lark is just rubbish, why anyone should get out of jail after 10 years for murdering someone is beyond me. I think that life sentences should mean life, if you take other people's lives or destroy them then fuck you. As for the extreme crimes that would neccessitate death. I'd think that a life of misery would be better than death for some but seeing as torture, starvation and squallid conditions are out of fashin in prisons then the next best thing is to take their lives.

[tooth-fairy.livejournal.com]

I also think that rapists and paedophiles should be castrated.

That's out of fashion too I realise. Maybe offered the option between being locked up indefinately or having their sentence reduced if they are voluntarily castrated (I think some places do already do this - not in this country of course).

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

While Ian Huntley was on remand, his transportation and court costs were £500,000 a day.

One hobnailed boot - £20 from Brantano.

I'm in favour of the death penalty for serial offenders - not serious ones, who may indeed repent in the David Wilkerson/Nicky Cruz/Leslie Grantham style, but those who persist in rejecting the opportunities for reform that are offered should simply be removed from the gene pool. It's not even a matter of ethics or punishment, just pure economics. That £500,000 could be spent on a community project to get young kids off the streets and prevent them going further into a life of crime. We have responsibilities as members of society - not just us, but the scrotes and scumbags have a responsibility, too, and that is never to be more of a burden than benefit you bring.

I don't hold with the idea that all human life is sacred just because we share opposable thumbs, bipedal status and monthly period cycle. I don't follow the slippery slope argument, either, or the idea that we become the same as the monsters we execute. If it was done for revenge, or even as a deterrent, then yes - we would be no better. But we have a society to maintain, and that society is greater than a single individual. If the death of one serious repeat offender saves enough to prevent others taking the same route, then society has done its duty.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

I like your thinking. I'm with you.

[(Anonymous)]

> While Ian Huntley was on remand, his transportation and court costs were £500,000 a day.

Really? That's a fair amount of wedge. How did it break down? The obvious costs are: salaries of the people involved, such as prison officers, transport drivers & staff, lawyers, judges, court recorders, police officers, etc., diesel for the transport, and associated utility costs attracted when housing people on remand.

But half a million quid? Per day? I know lawyers generally trouser an astronomical amount of money (if they didn't, there'd be no incentive for them to do that job), but that just seems an incredible amount of cash.

[commlal.livejournal.com]

Can't take it back though... if you get the death sentence wrong, its awfully hard to say sorry.

Besides, its a damn easy way out. Where is the fun in that, I would rather they rotted in prison for life rather than get a quick escape (assuming "life" means an actual life sentence). Perhaps setting up a prison island and just air dropping supplies every now and again would be a better option.

Plus chemical castration for kiddie fiddlers etc. *nods* or Botox in the right place.

[(Anonymous)]

"Perhaps setting up a prison island and just air dropping supplies every now and again would be a better option."

And you could make a film of it, starring Ray Liotta and Lance Henriksen. It'd rock.

[(Anonymous)]

I think this post stems (at least in part) from an idea David & I talked around the other night (?)

When I did reaction dynamics at college, at one point there was a model we had to study, which assumed that reactive molecules would somehow move along a hypothetical gradient towards the reaction, and thus be removed from the system. I didn't like it, because as far as I could see, in reality the gradient didn't exist - even at the moment before reaction, the molecules were just moving about with random Brownian motion and no idea what would happen.

Nevertheless the "gradient" model seemed to work.

The idea that came out of this the other night was that, if you regard individual criminals as if they were equivalent to reactive molecules to be taken out of the system, then from the point of view of any particular criminal or molecule, there may be no perceptible deterrent effect; nevertheless, to an outside observer, the system might still behave, overall, as if there were a "gradient" or deterrent effect.

You'd have to look at the statistics I assume.

H

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I'm grossly disappointed you didn't add a section that said 'you are Tiffany.'

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I expected you to go for the first option, given that you're the voice of screaming vitriol anyway.

My tuppence

[applez.livejournal.com]

1. Justice vs. Revenge - it seems to me that a whole lot of death penalty support is driven my an entirely understandable emotional desire for revenge - especially by victims' families. But I see at least two problems with this: firstly, it doesn't particularly serve a civilized sense of justice, and does not "bring back" the victims on the one hand; and on the other hand - if one really seeks revenge, wouldn't death actually be "too merciful to the brute(s)?" I think a life denied freedom of movement, of expression, even of regular communication and contact, and a denial of any future of that is far crueler and more punishing than death.

Just ask anyone in Guantanamo...

2. Error rate - A significant number of people killed by the state have been erroneously found guilty in their trials. It is an imperfect system, and I would rather not accept the logic of 'collateral damage' in our justice system that necessarily coarsens that society, and its alleged values of human life. A lifetime sentence with plenty of real opportunities for appeal, verification, retrial, and other corrective actions are imperative for a merciful and lawful society, I believe.

3. Deterrence - I have never quite understood this notion that death penalties deter extreme violence. I haven't seen strong statistical analysis connecting the two, and from a personal viewpoint - if I'm in a situation where many possible actions will lead to my death, then why not go for broke? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde)

Re: My tuppence

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Now, the reason I'm leery about the death penalty is that when the state gives itself the authority to bump off it's citizens, that's really the thin end of the wedge and can go badly wrong very quickly as was demonstrated repeatedly over the last century.
That said, if Tony Blair were to drop a hint to the SAS that Robert Mugabe should have a really nasty accident I would do a little dance and think that finally he'd done something worthwhile with his life. There's obviously a point where I htink bumping people off is a reasonable reaction, but where that point is is debatable.

[(Anonymous)]

As with most things, you probably already know this, but Katherine Hammnet went on to join The Conservative Party, in 1998. She's been a member ever since. I wonder whether she has been selected as one of Dave Cameron's 'A List' mediocrities?

Joanna

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I actually didn't know that. I suppose it's the old saw about someone who isn't a socialist when they're young they have no heart, and if they're not a conservative when they're older they have no head.

Of course, I'm famous for having no heart.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

The death penalty is wrong.
End of story.

Oh, don;t get me wrong- there are a whole host of people I would LOVE to see burn like little piggies on a spit for their crimes... HOWEVER...

1- Sorry guys. I studied this. There is NO evidence- NONE- NOT ONE JOT- even the smallest iota what-so-ever that it prevents crimes. In fact all evidence suggests the death penalty escalates crimes. Remember, we use to hang people a LOT here- and crime rates were much higher than they are now. Doesn't work.
2- I do not say this as a liberal- I say this as quite right-wing: the death sentence should be allowed ONLY if, the Judge, the presecution AND the jury are automatically sentrenced to death IF there is a miscarriage of justice. No appeals, no trial- you participate in a murder- welcome to your reality!
What? No one wants to participate? REALLY?
Ohhhh, so ones faith in the justice system is not enough to put your life on the line? Then to put others life on the line is hypocrisy!
3- Only child rapists and terrorists? Murderers? Rapists? Who else?
Granny Murderers? Child murderers? is one victim worth more than others? I mean, lets face it- artitarily deciding who should make the list based on subjective opinion (and by extension becing who is NOT on the list).
ALL murderers? Life for a life?
4- Victims rights. Yeah right.
This is how it goes.
if someone murdered my nearest and dearest, I of course would want them dead.
I also want to live in a state that does not allow such things.
If I REALLY want them dead- then here is the truth- I will kill them. I will commit murder, taking the responsibility for taking a life upon myself.
I do not want to live in a so-called civilised state which wears a vaneer of civilisation but murders.
5- Vengence v Justice.
The moment a legal system allows the right of vengence override the desire for justice, it is no longer a legal system. Call it what you want. This is black and white. Vengence is the responsibility of the indivdual. They seek it, they MUST take respopnsibility for their actions- otherwise they are not a man/human, just a parasite!
Do not sanction a state vengnce- that is the advocation of cowards!
Yes, COWARDS!
Haven't got the guts to do it yourself and take the responsibilit for your actions... gutless, spineless cowards.
You want vengnce- PAY FOR IT! Frankly, someone murdered a mamber of my family- I think 25 years for their torture and brital murder would be worth it!
Guilty m'lud! Please make an example of me!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

1) Are you seroiusly proposing that the decline in the crime rate is attributable to teh abolition of the death penalty? Does that mean if we abolish prisons then crime will drop further? If the abolition of the death penalty had anything to do with the decline in crime then I'm a Dutchman - the decline in crime is due to teh increased wealth of society which basically results in people having less need/desire to commit crimes, which are mostly inspired by property.
The only way to decide if the death penalty has an efect upon crime in society is to compare two societies identical (or near enough) wherein the major difference is the death penalty. Never done, but it would be an interesting experiement to round up two communities, stick 'em in camps without enough to go round and let the inhabitants of one camp know that looters would be shot, and the inhabitants of the other know that they wouldn't...

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the death penalty gives the populace the impression that killing is sometimes justified. If you're gonna take the law into your own hands then state-sanctioned killing is a good way to rationalise offing someone who done you wrong.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

From your other comment: killing (euthanasia) is justified when someone has asked you to do it? I'd be more likely to argue that someone asking to be killed is not in possession of their senses - something which often prevents execution in states which allow it,