Ministry for Righteous Indignation
Ohh the Lord loves a hangin'
Westmonster's had a hankerin' for some hangerin' since way back in 1964, when the UK last killed one of its own criminals. What better way to get our collective vengeance flowin' agin, jus' like our cousins over there in 'merica?
Not to diminish the pain and suffering felt by the families of Steven Wright's victims, but isn't this the same Britain that was horrified about then-Texas Governor George W. Bush's propensity for rushing death row criminals to the chair — way back in 2000, before he screwed up the whole world?
The Nicol family argues:
"The public must insist that this Government look at returning the death penalty for cases such as this, otherwise many more families will go through the same suffering that we have had to endure."
Let's set aside for just a moment the ethical question of whether the state should be responsible for killing people, and look at this on the factual basis of what the Nicols said. They're arguing that the Death Penalty is a deterrent to crime. Westmonster argues it isn't.
Numerous studies have shown that, at least in America, the death penalty is no deterrent to serious crime. Direct statistical comparisons of murder rates in US states that have the death penalty against those that don't have it show that states without tend to actually have a lower murder rate.
The American question is relevant here, because they're the single largest Western democracy that still allows its citizens to be executed. But even bearing in mind the above-linked studies and statistics are published by a group that opposes the death penalty, would anybody in Britain exchange the murder culture here for the murder culture in the US? Does anybody, off the top of their head, think the death penalty has lowered the number of murders in the US?
The Nicols' desire for vengeance is understandable, and in a time of crisis, or if, for example, one of Westmonster's loved ones were brutally murdered, we might forget our principles too.
But Britain decided some time ago what even Americans are starting to realise: civilised peoples don't permit state-sanctioned murder. Hammurabi's time passed long ago.
Reopening the debate on that already-resolved question may be tempting whenever we're faced with a sociopath like Wright, but there's a reason why we don't allow aggrieved victims to decide on punishment for crimes.
Britons are right to be concerned about the rise in violent crime, and to look to the government (or the opposition) for solutions. But the death penalty is not a solution to violent crime, it's a solution to anger over violent crime. Westmonster thought we already knew that, and hopes this long-settled debate disappears post-haste.
del.icio.us
digg
Facebook
Newsvine
reddit
1 Comments
They should be confined for life and made to work on whatever needs doing for the benefit of society. They should be paid for this work and the money should go first to take care of the resposibilities and obligations left by the victim/s and the rest in any should go to take care of the responsibilites and obligations of the prisoner. When all those monies have been paid then any remaining can be used to feed, house and cloth the prisoner. Ans stuff the PC, bleeding hearts, human rights, bunch of ne'er do wells.