Should Killers Be Killed?

In the last couple of days, the argument of, 'Should the death penalty be reinstated in the UK?', and the argument for and against, has risen the news heirarchy. Moral, social and financial factors, (moral being the most discussed), are just a few of the factors that make this particular issue incredibly hard to discuss. This sort of thing is usually left to my other blog, (which has been left untouched for many months), but my personal views on this have fluctuated from one to the other as certain arguments have presented themselves.

I can see why people want the death penalty, or capital punishment, to be used in the UK. Certain sentences do not justify the crime that some people have committed. My own belief, is that crimes that are so horrible, so atrocious, so frightful that the fear in the country rises ten-fold, should be credited with capital punishment. The 7/7 bombers, should have received the death penalty. If Anders Behring Breivik did what he did in the UK, I believe he should receive the death penalty. The meer fact that Breivik may only receive the maximum of 21 years in prison, (under Norwegian law), for the crime he committed, is just unthinkable. However, it isn't in the UK, so the UK can do nothing about it.

Until 2008, the only crime that could receive a possible death penalty sentence, is high treason, (for example, trying to kill or overthrow the Monarchy). Under today's law, that crime holds a set punishment of 'life imprisonment'... However, under the subject of 'life imprisonment', we all know that "Life" never means LIFE. The generic meaning of 'life imprisonment' is that the criminal receives a sentence of around 25-30 years maximum, with the distinct probability that they will be released earlier. Only 44 people in the UK hold the 'whole life imprisonment' tarriff at the moment. If a friend or family member was murdered and you saw the murderer, roaming the streets in 25 years time, a completely free man, what would you think...? If a man murdered your wife or husband, mother or father, brother or sister, you would never want to see him again.

Is the death penalty seen as a method of deterrant? Well, clearly it is self evident that that criminal would not commit further crimes, obviously, but it is completely unproven that the death penalty deters people from murder. Maybe the justice system should contemplate the amount of time taken to commit the murder. For example, if the murder was a long, calculated plot to kill one or many people, where the criminal had time to consider the consequences, and they knew exactly what they were doing, then the death penalty may be the right route to go down. If the murder was an act in "the heat of the moment", then maybe not so. The concept of "degrees of murder", such as in the USA, would decipher this.

On the other side of the coin, there is the very real and regrettable circumstance that genuinely innocent people may be executed, and there is no compensation scheme or apology that can make up for the miscarriage of justice. You must also consider the welfare of the murderer's family in every episode. No one can deny the suffering that the victim's family and friends go through, having to accept that their loved one is gone thanks to a murder, but the fact that the murderer's family will not just have to come to terms with the fact their loved one is guilty of a heinous crime, but also grieving their upcoming loss.

It must also be remembered that criminals are real people too who have life and with it the capacity to feel pain, fear and the loss of their loved ones, and all the other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling. It is easier to put this thought to one side when discussing the most awful multiple murderers. There is no such thing as a humane method of putting a person to death. Every form of execution causes the prisoner suffering, some methods perhaps cause less than others, but surely being executed is a terrifying ordeal for the criminal? What is also often overlooked is the mental suffering that the criminal suffers in the time leading up to the execution. How would you feel knowing that you were going to die tomorrow morning at 8am?

Of course, some would argue that having committed such a crime, it is tough. You made your bed, so you have to lie in it.

The alternatives? People who are against capital punishment are more in favour of 'Life Without Parole', or in easier terms, a 'whole life sentence', but the counter-argument to this is that it is worse than the death penalty. What is the point in locking a person up until the day they die? The fact of the matter is, putting the psychology and dangers of the criminal aside, it is a much more expensive route to go down. With this, there is a much higher chance of that person re-committing crimes in jail, or plotting an escape, seeing as they have nothing to lose. However good the security of a prison, someone will always try to make off, and you cannot deny that sometimes it may be successful. If you have an unlimited time to plan an escape, with nothing to lose, it can be a very strong incentive.

However, there are 3 main questions to ask here:

1) Can the justice system be trusted to get every decision correct, given that the result is literally life or death? They haven't in the past... If the death sentence was still around, Barry George, (convicted of the 1999 murder of journalist and presenter, Jill Dando), would have been unjustly killed.

2) Will juries be willing to pass a guilty verdict knowing the punishment will be death? Would you be able to say 'Guilty' with the eyes of the person in the dock on you?

3) Will execution be a worthy deterrent for future cases?

In my opinion, they are all unanswerable questions. It is literally a matter of personal opinion, which, for the time being at least, means that nothing will change on the matter. I think this is a good thing. I am a believer that life sentences should not be 25 years long, but instead take up a greater quantity of the criminal's life. To take a criminal's life for their crime however, I think, would make the State as much of a monster.

Only unspeakably awful crimes should bring the possibilty of the death sentence. The murder of 52 Londoners on the Underground in July 2005, the brutal murder of 76 young politicians on the island of Utoya and the bombing beforehand, the shooting of innocent people in Cumbria, (even if the criminal did shoot himself). All of these should have the death penalty considered, I think.

But the big 2 words in that paragraph are, "I think". It is all a matter of personal opinion, and seeing as I am one non-important young adult living in the industrial town of Bedford, my opinion means nothing. Contrasting opinions will only create controversy, and as we all know, the people we vote to govern us, do not like that word.