Civilised Societies Do Not Execute People

The death penalty advocates in the UK have relentless groaned on about the imaginary positives associated with capital punishment since its permanent removal as a punishment for murder in 1969 (after and experimental period beginning in 1965). Its removal occurred via a vote by an overwhelming majority in parliament, since then supporters of such drastic measures have lamented the ability for the state to end a persons life, and with it our transition into a 'civilised' society. Every time a major news story breaks, particularly when it involves a group of people who are currently the subject of a moral panic, the pro-deathers come flying out the gates screaming bloody murder with a wilful disregard for the consequences, statistics and faults.

One such consequence, and in my humble opinion the most severe, is the ever-present risk of taking an innocent life through capital punishment. Often proponents of the death penalty at this point will use tired and false arguments such as: very few people executed will be innocent, that murderers and other criminals deserve the most sever form of punishment, and that it acts as a deterrent (supported via questionable economic theory). 

Who cares if most are guilty? That is not acceptable justification for those who have been wrongly executed and their families. You cannot undo a death penalty no matter how many Derek Acorah's you use! It is pure injustice and advocating the use of it is tantamount to advocating the murder that it is supposed to discourage. They point towards cases of criminals being released and killing again and act like this is justification for blanket killing. The irony of this is that many, if not most, of these pro-death penalty advocates are strong anti-abortionists, or pro-lifers as they are commonly called. Surely this would be taking away even more people's right to life? Innocent people's right to life! Just like those innocent babies they often harp on about! Some supporters even going as far as advocating swift executions to better serve as a deterrent for extreme crimes (once again ignoring the wrongly convicted).

The second important point is this. Is capital punishment even a deterrent in the first place? There are plenty of countries that continue to practise this archaic punishment, but facts prove it to be ineffectual and at worse counter-productive. State legalisation of murder serves as a kind of normalisation to homicide. Therefore, the adoption of institutionalised murder as a punishment and deterrent actually increases murder. Unlike the many advocates who base all arguments solely on conjecture (or rather bizarrely the previously mentioned economic theories), the statistics prove this normalising effect to be the case.

That's even before you mention the cost, and the final point I am going to make. The extremely large amounts of money spent when executing someone convicted of a crime, in the cost of the executions; also in the cost of the trials. Money that could be put to much better use in fighting the causes of murder and violent crimes. Such as alleviation of extreme poverty, drug rehabilitation, domestic violence support programmes, and an alienation for many youths from society and its markers of success. Money better spent on creating a caring, loving and forward looking society. Not one full of the hate and the fear of yesteryear, synonymous of a time when executions were considered acceptable punishment. As Martin Luther King once said "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that".

Anyway, I will leave this post there. However, if you fancy a bit more reading have a quick gander at this. I found it interesting.