Guido’s Petition to Bring Back Hanging: ‘What the Fawkes?’
Posted by Sam Butler in Blogs, Death penalty, Politics, Sentencing, Tough on crime, UK Criminal Justice on July 31, 2011
Gallows humour indeed
Last week, right-wing political blogger Guido Fawkes posted a link to a petition on the Government’s new e-petition facility calling for the reinstatement of capital punishment in Britain for cop and child killers.
The statement of the petition reads:
We petition the government to review all treaties and international commitments which may inhibit the ability of Parliament to restore capital punishment. Following this review, the Ministry of Justice should map out the necessary legislative steps which will be required to restore the death penalty for the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty.
The findings of the review and the necessary substantive legislation to be presented to House of Commons for debate no later than 12 months after this petition passes the acceptance threshold.
One can only surmise that Guido Fawkes, aka Paul Staines, is cynically capitalising on the recentevents in Norway - much in the same way that certain tabloids have in the wake of some of Britain’s most horrific crimes, in order to push his agenda. “But it’s the will of the people!” he cries, stating that “All polls show that there is majority support for capital punishment, yet there is no majority for it in parliament.” That may very well be, but I have found that more often than not the ‘will of the people’ – in terms of capital punishment – is based on an erroneous notion of the practical application of a death penalty.
- Note: I am not addressing moral issues here, although there are myriad more in opposition than in favour in my opinion, as they are more subjective and therefore debatable.
Guido Fawkes is not the single ‘voice of reason’ in the hubbub of the loony-left media that he would have you believe. Recently, Conservative MEP, Roger Helmer, posted on his blog a call for the return of capital punishment (to which I wrote this response). In it he used nearly every ‘common sense’ cliché and pejorative sneer to ridicule those who oppose it as ‘Guardian readers’ (yawn) and disciples of Polly Toynbee. Does there always have to be this trite notion that supporting progression, rather than banging your head against the same punitive brick wall, is indicative of being a lentil-munching, reality boycotter? If any group is being quixotic and ignoring the facts, it is those in favour of restoring capital punishment, not those who oppose it. Capital punishment is not the answer to a rising murder rate, crime is born of a plethora of socio-economic and cultural variables that cannot be solved with any one quick fix. Least of all the putting to death of one, two or even a hundred murderers.
The mantra of the ‘bring back hanging brigade’ is “But only if you definitely know they’re guilty”. I was under the impression that someone had to be ‘definitely guilty’ to be convicted of shoplifting or speeding, let alone aggravated murder. There is no ‘definitely guilty’, which is why guilt is determined ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, what about unreasonable circumstances or anomalous conditions? “But what about DNA evidence?” people then say. DNA evidence was never intended to be a magic bullet to determine guilt or innocence; but merely a way to determine certain chronological, geographical, and physical aspects of a crime. It is also not infallible, nor iseyewitness testimony or expert witnesses. Barry George was supposedly ‘definitely guilty’ of the murder of Jill Dando and was convicted on the basis of forensic evidence, which it then transpired was faulty. ‘Luckily’ he only spent eight years in prison, rather than being given an impotent posthumous pardon, a la Timothy Evans. DNA and forensic evidence has been around for over 25 years in Britain, yet people are still being discovered as having been wrongfully convicted. Riddle me that, Batman.
Another reason cited by those in favour of capital punishment, is that it would be cheaper than a life sentence (although often with the caveat, ”I don’t for a moment suggest that anyone should be hanged just to save money” – Roger Helmer, MEP). This is also incorrect. While Mr Helmer suggests that Britain would somehow avoid the lengthy appeals process that “disfigure American justice in capital cases”, he fails to offer any solution for this. Currently, appeals against sentences in Britain are already protracted and painstaking affairs. If Mr Helmer is suggesting foregoing due process and expediting executions in an effort to increase the deterrent effect of the death penalty, or simply to save money, then he is being incredibly cavalier with the lives of people he is supposed to represent. If people languish on death row in states such as Texas, which has the highest number of executions per year than any other US state, for sometimes decades, what would enable Britain to speed up the process? Death row prisoners would have to be housed in super-maximum, certainly solitary confinement conditions and more than likely watched 24 hours a day. Who pays for that; our already cash strapped prison system? Who pays for the team of lawyers needed to represent someone in a capital case and throughout the appeals process? Society. It cost the state of Florida $5m to send serial killer, Ted Bundy, to the electric chair. It would have cost just under $2m to keep him in prison until he was 90.
The question of ‘closure’ and the rights of the victims to see their loved one avenged is also often raised. I think it is a touch arrogant to assume that everybody wants to see his or her relative’s killer executed. In the US, there have been numerous incidences of the victim’s family campaigning against the execution of the victim’s killer, through either their own, or knowledge of the victim’s opposition to capital punishment. “You might change your tune if you had had a child or loved one murdered” is often suggested to those who oppose the death penalty. That may be, but I could also suggest that perhaps those in favour of it may also change their opinion, should it be their brother, son, sister or mother, who find themself standing unjustly on the scaffold.
The ‘common sense’ narrative on capital punishment may appeal to the visceral sense of revenge and ‘justice’ that naturally resides in most people, but the pragmatic truth is that it is an impractical and dangerous step backwards. While it may seem to many to be wholly righteous to send monsters such as Roy Whiting to the gallows, the risk of there being another Timothy Evans, or indeed the cost of the death penalty as a whole, is far too high. What do you say to the family of a person who has been wrongfully executed? Perhaps the Daily Mail-reading, Guidoites would like that job? Or, should his quest succeed and as he is so hell-bent on seceding from Europe (“Yet another reason why we should be Better Off Out”), perhaps Roger Helmer, MEP, would volunteer for the role when he is out of a job?
I have created another petition in opposition to the Guido Fawkes one. As soon as the link arrives, I will add it to this blog post.
Norway attacks: The truth about the 21 year sentencing limit
Posted by Sam Butler in Anders Behring Breivik, Norway, Sentencing, Tough on crime on July 25, 2011
Norway killer, Anders Behring Breivik, 32
The shocking events in Norway this weekend have drawn the attention of the world to a country that one could surmise is unprepared for such brutality.
Norway has, according to a 2010 report by Eurostat, one of the lowest murder rates in continental Europe; an incarceration rate lower than all but a handful of other countries (most of them in Scandinavia) and an actual prison population of 3,420, spread across 50 facilities in a population just shy of five million people. According to a report by the Howard League, Roughly 20% of this number are pretrial detainees.
It is easy to understand why, in a country as seemingly idyllic as Norway, sentencing provisions do not exist to deal with, to coin a popular phrase, ‘the worst of the worst’. Or do they? By now almost everyone has read or heard about the apparent limit of 21 years on prison sentences in Norwegian law. This is not strictly true.
Granted, Norwegian sentencing policy, as of 2002, states that the maximum determinate sentence that can be given is 21 years. However there is a provision for an indeterminate sentence, also initially limited at 21 years and with parole eligibility after a mandatory 10 years confinement. In addition to this, the parole board can decide that the prisoner is a continuing danger to society and extend the inmate’s sentence by five years at a time. This could theoretically result in a whole life sentence if the prisoner was never deemed safe for release.
Given that 32 year old Anders Behring Breivik has committed the most heinous crimes in Norway since the end of the Second World War, motivated by hatred and executed with shocking inhumanity and disregard for human life, it is highly unlikely that he will ever be considered safe for release. Added to which, the political pressure to punish him as severely as possible will most likely result in his sentence being extended far beyond even the extremely rare 21 year sentencing guideline. Very few prisoners in Norway serve more than 14 years. Serial killing nurse, Arnfinn Nesset, served 23 years for the murder of 22 patients and was released in 2004.
Norway has legislation in place to deal with men such as Breivik and should be left to do so without lurid and inaccurate speculation by foreign media on letting him “get off Scott free” or any of the other tabloid hyperbole synonymous with liberal sentencing policies.
A Response to MEP Roger Helmer’s post supporting capital punishment
Posted by Sam Butler in Death penalty, Tough on crime, UK Criminal Justice on June 27, 2011
Roger Helmer, Conservative MEP
On June 26th, Roger Helmer, Conservative MEP for the East Midlands region, posted on his blog a lengthy argument for reintroducing capital punishment to the UK. Here is my response…
Sir,
Your assertion that opposition to capital punishment is a fashionable position – expounded by the BBC and Guardian – is a typical yet revealing one. You also present the prerequisite of those who oppose it automatically holding the belief that anyone in favour of it is an “unreconstructed redneck fascist”. While I expect that some of those in favour of it probably fall within this bracket – as I am sure some who don’t also do – I find that usually a person’s support of capital punishment is based, much like your own appears to be, in ignorance of the complexities of the practical application of such a penalty.
Firstly, you state that “to many of us” a “life for a life” simply represents natural justice. Is this a reason to reintroduce a law or practice that to many, more qualified, people is a flawed and archaic practice? Retribution is not necessarily justice. Rapists are not sentenced to be raped. Arsonists are not sentenced to be burned. While you may think that these are facile analogies born of ‘fashionable’ thinking, I would urge you to put aside your preconceptions of any school of thought outside the visceral and reactionary.
Secondly, is it right? As one commenter on your blog wrote, “That isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion that you’re in favour. Someone else could assert, “It’s wrong”. This is a very subjective statement and there are myriad cases against it. In the United States there have been numerous occurrences of the families of victims campaigning to save the life of their relative’s killer; through either their own, or knowledge of the victim’s, opposition to the death penalty. Human rights were cast as inalienable – while it may be hard to swallow in the case of someone like Levi Bellfield – it is crucial that they remain so.
Thirdly, does it assuage the anger of the public? Some studies suggest that far from having a consoling effect on families, the procedures, endless appeals processes and the strain of watching an execution is actually quite damaging. Secondly, while it is as yet unproven (as are many aspects of the capital punishment debate on both sides), it has also been suggested that executions may even exert a ‘brutalizing effect’ upon society – resulting in an increase in murder rates and violent crime.
Fourthly. Is this really an argument? Bellfield is sentenced to die in prison. Given the public sentiment surrounding this case, it is a 100% certainty that he will. Surely, it is up to the prison service to ensure that he doesn’t escape? Also, your suggestion that a prisoner should be killed in case a future administration decides to parole them is very questionable. Following a 2002 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights – part of the organisation that you so heartily decry, yet see fit to be paid to be a part of - only the courts of appeal and the supreme court can readjust a sentence once it has been handed down by a judge. As a member of parliament, you should know that.
Fifthly. You are suggesting that people should be hanged to save money. And as a commenter stated on your blog post, this is also disingenuous, as capital cases cost an exorbitant amount of money. The state of Florida spent $5m to electrocute Ted Bundy, it would have cost a little over $2m to keep him in prison until he was 90. You state that it would cost more to house Bellfield if he had to be kept in solitary confinement. What do you think death row is? It costs roughly three times as much to incarcerate a prisoner on death row that it does to keep them in general population. In California (which has spent $4bn on its death penalty since 1978, for a grand total of 13 executions yet a death row of nearly 700) capital cases cost up to 20 times as much as a life without parole case.
Your assertion that in Britain “It is quite conceivable that there will be clear cut cases where the culprit is proven guilty 100% and that in this country we would not allow appeal after appeal” is a slightly more eloquent way of putting the old “But only if you definitely know they’re guilty” argument. I was under the impression that a guilty verdict was 100% guilty, and that anything less was not guilty. Weren’t the Guilford Four and Barry George “proven guilty 100%”? Hence the lengthy (and costly) appeals process in the United States. If anything is a “straw man argument”, it’s this.
To pooh-pooh the example of capital punishment in America is short sighted. How exactly do you suggest Britain “avoid the excruciating, decades-long appeals procedures that disfigure American justice in capital cases”? Even in Texas, which consistently conducts the most executions each year, the average wait on death row is nine years. Do you not think that if there were a quicker route to the death chamber, they would have found it? No system is infallible and your suggestion that DNA evidence provides a magic bullet to prove guilt or innocence reveals a lack of knowledge on the subject. DNA evidence was never meant to provide anything other than a chronology of movements, contact, and events – not a definitive answer to guilt or innocence, which is far more complex. Its construction as such is commonly referred to in criminological and legal circles as “the CSI effect“.
Exactly what the point of your fatuous jibe about having visited Disneyland is I cannot fathom, nor your comparisons of the use or abuse of electricity and psychiatry. The use of the death penalty in the United States is opposed by some of the highest-ranking police officers in the country, who see it as costly and pointless. And suggest that the money could be better spent solving crimes and improving social problems that are the source of much of it. I suggest that it is politicians, such as you Sir, who cynically use it as a ‘tough on crime’ lightning rod for indignation and public outrage in the wake of horrific crimes that maintain its use in 37 states and by the Federal Government.
Your blog that this was posted on is self-proclaimed as ‘straight talking’. If this means avoiding all the complexities and counter-arguments in order to arrive at a preconceived position, then congratulations.
Sincerely,
Sam Butler
David Cameron proposes new ‘tough on crime’ mandatory-minimum
Posted by Sam Butler in UK Criminal Justice on June 21, 2011
Dave knew he'd never do a day for the one he left between Nick's shoulder blades
“All knife thugs to get six months: David Cameron cracks down on crime” thunders the front page of today’s Evening Standard. A win for ‘ordinary decent people’? Perhaps not.
This smacks of a cynical mounting of the ‘tough on crime’ platform, to garner support from the ‘common-sense’ crowd for a government that has so far failed to dazzle a depressed and demoralised public.
In May, Lord Ashcroft stated that crime was the Conservative party’s biggest vulnerability, with polls detailing a perceived 36% “priority gap” by voters in Conservative policy.
The principle flaw in David Cameron’s grand plan to combat knife crime, is that England and Wales already have laws that cover offences of this nature; the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 139.
All Mr. Cameron‘s new shiny law of “aggravated knife carrying” could possibly do is take away the capacity of the police to issue a caution for offences such as these. This, I have on good authority, would never happen as the CPS would inevitably charge for an offence of this nature; which would almost certainly result in a custodial sentence of at least 6 months.
It seems that the Prime Minister is simply re-branding existing legislation and judicial practice as his own. The proposed new law, in its current form, would simply strip judges of their theoretical discretionary powers in these cases. A slippery slope…
It’s not that I think that those using knives to threaten and intimidate people don’t deserve at least six months in chokey, but because I don’t think that politicians should chip away at the discretionary powers of the judiciary.
Does the separation of powers not exist for a reason?
In 2002, it was ruled by the Law Lords that only judges could set minimum terms, and only the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, not the Home Secretary, could make amendments to sentences.
This followed the case of double murderer, Anthony Anderson, who was sentenced to life with a minimum tariff of 15 years. Six years after Anderson’s 1988 trial, then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, increased his tariff to a minimum of 20 years.
Anderson’s original appeal failed in 2001. In 2002 the Law Lords found, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that:
“A defendant should be sentenced by an independent tribunal (that is, a judge) and not a politician who will have extraneous and irrelevant concerns which may affect his or her judgement.”
The Attorney General‘s office still reserves the right to appeal sentences that it feels are too lenient, in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
It is precisely these “extraneous and irrelevant concerns” that should provoke some concerns of our own over the motivation for legislation passed under the guise of ‘tough on crime’.
To whom do we entrust the power of justice? Men and women who have spent years practising and poring over the minutiae of English law before becoming a judge; who cannot be sacked and therefore have no vested interest in passing judgements that may be appealing to the ephemeral will of the public?
Or to electioneering politicians, interested in nothing but tomorrow’s front pages and clinging onto power for as long as possible?
The prison population of the United States has exploded since the 1970s through four decades of tough on crime legislation. America now has the dubious honour of being the world’s most prolific jailer by incarceration rate and actual number.
England and Wales already have the highest incarceration rate of any major Western European country. Do things need to get tougher?
It certainly hasn’t done our cousins across the pond much good. Violent crime is still relatively high compared to Europe (although nationally the number of murders has fallen considerably since the 1993 peak of nearly 25,000) and has created a carceral apartheid that will probably take another 40 years to remedy. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of imprisoning nearly 3 million people.
One of the most oft-cited reasons for the American prison boom is the number of tough mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing enhancement legislations that render the hands of the judiciary tied in terms of discretion.
So when a politician paints a lurid picture of a “knife-wielding thug” lurking around every corner and vows to protect you from them through dishing out the ‘appropriate sentences’ that the courts seem reluctant to; like some Savile Row-clad superhero – stop and think:
Whose interests do they have at heart? Mine, or their own?
A new blog on penal reform
Posted by Sam Butler in Uncategorized on May 20, 2011
Dear readers,
This blog is intended as a discussion forum for all things penological in an international context. Comment is welcome but should be constructive and on point.
Prisons, punishment and the way that they function as part of our society, as well as the impact that they have on those we apply them to, are some of the most complex and disputed issues faced by modern society.
Is it better to punish than to reform? Is deterrence an effective penal hypothesis? Is it ever right to take a human life in the name of justice? Should prisoners be allowed to vote? Is there an alternative to prison? These and a myriad of other issues will be dealt with on this blog; as well as more topical posts relating to events salient in the media.
I hope that you find this blog informative and compelling and any constructive criticism is received with thanks.
Sam Butler
About the author
RSS subscription
