• Home
  • 144. Death Sentence Polemic of R.M. Lamb

Death Sentence Polemic of R.M. Lamb

  • Category(s): Death Penalty Essays
  • Created on : 16 December 2014
  • File size: 114.91 KB
  • Version: 1.0
  • Downloaded: 109
  • Author: Richard Michael Lamb

Preface

The stark contrast: a long excruciatingly tedious life in prison or the coup de grace in the best sense of French “esprit de corps”.

1.

Those defending the non-Capital punishment for murder regime argue I am “playing God” by supporting this Death Sentence policy.

2.

No! The lifer policy leaves the lifer with no hope – he is in a Soulless life and is neither alive nor dead. He is half alive and half dead. He has lost all dignity, privacy, possessions and liberty. He is under close watch. Where is his belief in himself? Nowhere. Does he believe in God? Only by make believe. God does not create this living hell for him. There is no exit – no way out. God will not desert him, but it will be very hard for these lifers to believe in God and practise their religion amidst this lifeless regime, surrounded by the darkness of the prince of darkness.

3.

It is the darkness that characterises the lifer apparatus and this concerns me. That impenetrable blackness has no light shining in it. But God is the light shining in the dark we are told. (Genesis). The Death Penalty is the light I argue but too late for our serving lifers in 2014. With the Death Penalty comes release and the coup de grace for the convicted murderer no longer consigned to the never ending boredom and life without meaning.

4.

We are inflicting a brutal and inhumane condition of life on these lifers as the European Courts have recognised rightly. It cannot be justified by any chalk I entirely agree with that modern Continental stream of Criminal Justice based on the ECHR enacted in our law in 1998 by the Blair Administration.

5.

Where I differ is in the initial imposition of these life sentences – that is the root cause of the malaise. Not every murderer should receive the ultimate penalty in my view. Those who merit that death penalty will receive it in my plan. Those who remain alive and sentenced to determinate terms for murder convictions will serve their sentences until release in the usual way. That is my projection of the new regime for sentencing convicted murderers in my thinking.

6.

The Soul – I value the Soul more than the body and mind. The Soul is supreme and remains eternal – it leaves the body on death and can never be eradicated, not even in the next world. This regime I offer, with my not inconsiderable supporters, will rightly enhance the value of the Soul as against the mere biological existence prized by the architects of the lifer regime. Our Society has become irreligious, un-Godly and un-Christian. Is it surprising this harsh lifer regime prevails in the European Union and England and Wales?

7.

Conscience and Politicians – We must re-examine our consciences before we dismiss the Death Penalty option and persist with the draconian lifer programme, which drives the convicted in to misery. I urge our legislators to consider this issue properly. The public are entitled to be heard on seceding from the EU, removing the Human Rights edifice and Restoration of the Death Sentence. The Commons must take the lead and thus the Cabinet also on this matter. (The immigration issue will also not go away.) The people must be listened to on all these four issues. If the politicians do not respond positively they must think seriously of standing down whatever their personal positions. The politicians are not being asked to act unlawfully, and the Judges will only pass sentence of death when it is legally permissible to do so. We cannot have the politicians passing the buck to an English referendum on the EU. It is a matter for parliament to decide and I would say the same for the Human Rights dismantlement issue with Death Sentence Restoration. (My 2nd July 2013 essay on Capital Punishment mentioned a plebiscite which I now concede would be an improper way of proceeding vis a vis Capital Punishment.) If the politicians will not drive these tripartite issues through to law they will never be put onto our Statute Book. It is down to the ruling parties or party in the Commons who form the Administration. To ignore the vox populis is condescending on these four issues, and may bring on a strident right wing and xenophobic backlash. If the situation is managed along the lines of our tripartite policies the danger may be averted and stability will return. Cameron has my full support going in to the 7th May 2015 fixed term election. I do, however, invite him and his advisors to consider this paper and the urgent need to represent the electorate on these three issues of vital National importance.