AFS The case for Capital Punishment 08 October 2008
In November 1965 Capital Punishment (CP) was abolished in Britain except for treason and piracy. But, in practice, it has never been used since. I think the main motive of the reformers was that "mistakes are sometimes made". But I am going to argue that there should be serious consideration for its re-introduction. It is a superb deterrent against murder. It was well known in the 1930s that if a gang were considering a job such as raiding a bank or a building society, the older members of the group would frisk the younger ones to see that they were not "carrying a shooter", because if one of the young fools used it and someone got killed, the whole gang "would swing".
Now on the subject that errors sometimes occur, I must agree that this is possible and almost certainly has happened. But if you are going to argue that because man sometime makes serious errors, he should avoid serious actions, then you are off your trolly. Obviously a nonsense! There was probably a so-called mis-carriage of justice in the case of the A5 murders. Hanratty was hanged and it was shown later that he probably didn't carry out the things of which he was accused. But it is my theory that the local police had the press on their back and set up Hanratty as they had enough evidence to put before a court. The local senior copper probably decided "we have to get somebody, and nobody is going to cry over that useless slob". Hanratty was what is today a "petty career criminal".
Going back to the 1930s there were murders, but they were a lot rarer than today. Then and now the police prioritise, and put the most effort into the highest profile cases. It's not fair, but whoever thought the world was a fair place. Most murderers are caught, but the derisory sentences that are passed today are a national disgrace. Don't get me wrong, there are some cases where an illegal killing can be excused. But there are some horrific and sadistic murders that brook no defence. They are JUST EVIL.
A lot of religionist argue that human life is sacred. I don't agree. These 'believers' are totally irrational in that they profess to believe in God, but then ignore the things that God has done. The Boxing Day Tsunami is just one example of many. If there is a god, we are pretty low down on his list of animals he protects.
I don't believe in hanging. It is a barbaric lefty-over from our past. The death sentence should be carried out as humanely as possible, and have three purposes in mind:
1 The first purpose is to act as a deterrent to others contemplating their actions of the future.
2 Two: it will remove from society an evil force that may well
repeat his (and it's generally a him) actions. It also gives a sort-of
finality to the family of the victim. Vengeance is said to be an evil
thought, but it exists in all mankind to a greater or lesser extent. And
the grieving relatives feel that 'justice has been done'
3 Three: The gene that resides in the murderer will be extinguished. As things are at present, this evil gene is spreading among our race. The loons in Whitehall even contemplate giving long-term convicts "conjugal visits". And it is most likely to result in the production of an offspring carrying the evil gene.
I advocate that when a murderer is found guilty, he be despatched as humanely as possible. It could be argued that he is just unfortunate in inheriting those evil genes. But to allow those genes to spread in the population, is an even greater evil.
I do not fear death although some of the routes to that end are frightening. I die each night only to recover in the morning. If one day I failed to wake up, it would not bother me. I sometime feel concerned at the sort of mess I may leave behind, but simply not waking in the morning has no fears for me, If you are put to sleep in a hospital, you are generally unconscious before the needle comes out of your arm. However, it seems that the violent members of the human race are more frightened of death than the more peaceful members.