Why Do I Campaign for The Restoration of The Death Penalty for Murder?
This elucidation both personal and deeply professional goes to the heart of R.M. Lamb’s method. I work to the command given to me and by the binding authority of those above me.
1. The Opener
This question I have been asked recently by a complete stranger. The answer lies in my love for my Country, our people and yes the intrinsic virtue of our Criminal and Civil Justice. The answer also lies in my belief this Capital Punishment for Murder regime is to be sent out like ripples across the pond when the pebble is thrown in, not only across our Jurisdiction, but to our friends abroad particularly those who share our Common Law jurisprudence.
I consider I have a duty to argue this case for the benefit of our Country and all nations who look to England & Wales for leadership. Currently I am the lone voice so if I fell silent there would be no one to make the argument. If I believe in our Judges and their independence I must pursue my polemic – they are not permitted to express a position themselves. Certain unnamed but significant persons in politics have pronounced for the Final Penalty, but they are not prepared to resign their offices and fight for the Death Sentence.
They will not argue for unilateral and unconditional secession from the EU and dismantlement of the ECHR. They are “play acting” and seeking to curry favour with the public – they will not put the Death Sentence before their political careers and private interests. They are shams!
2. What is the Personal Position of R.M. Lamb?
Essentially my law career ended after 38 years in May 2013. Since then I have written 191 short essays and the overt theme and background “music” has been Capital punishment for murder. I did not have to sacrifice a professional law career – that ended finally and naturally on 25 May 2013. The essays began in mid-June 2013 and the first Death Penalty essay supporting hanging for murder emerged on 2 July 2013. Thus my position was enunciated not to be resiled from. The whole impetus behind my essays, some expressly for the Death Sentence, several more essays: preparatory and widely discursive, became apparent in both my published essay writing phases: namely 1 June 2013 to 1 March 2015 and then 1 November 2014 to date and continuing.
My German Generals working paper (WWII) in March 2014 was centred upon the Court Martial for Adolf Hitler and the firing squad. I have thus been moved intellectually to follow the path of defending the Death Sentence. It was not all planned meticulously from mid-June 2013 – the flow of essays gradually defined the Death Penalty Campaign in my mind and heart with ever increasing clarity and resolve. The essays, as they unrolled, established my belief in this core tenet for R.M. Lamb Esq. that murder puts the convicted murderer at risk of the gallows by the discretion of the trial Judge.
I am utterly determined in my campaign, even though I realise I may fail by my self-imposed deadline of 2025. I argue as Counsel does but not without belief in my client, which is of course my cause. I have arrived at this belief by my personal journey through writing my essays – 126 in the first wave and 127-191 in the second. The personal journey is now left behind – my arguments have become reinforced by the steel of cogency not seen in the first phase. What began as R.M. Lamb Esq. expressing himself has become the tower of essays built upon the rock of my whole being. The first Catholic Church essay, so seminal, written on 23 June 2013 foreshadowed the Death Sentence policy. Moreover it portrayed R.M. Lamb as the Senior Officier in Christ’s Grande Armée sur la terre. This concept introduced the role of command for R.M. Lamb with responsibility for others and generalship. Thus even at that early stage I was signalling a position for myself way beyond the personal and private level to seriously important leadership and authority.
3. What Stage Have I Reached Now?
By all these steps I have carved out a bastion, not for myself, but for my Death Penalty argument which will stand regardless of myself if it is of true value. All I have written and published may be discarded when I have gone. That is the nitty gritty. My own view of my generalship is worth nothing – it is the opinion of others that counts. I also speak now of the literary critique and worth of my essays to a potential publisher. However I write to advocate and persuade not for literary acclaim. I would much rather a public debate began on this Death Sentence so close to my heart. I will happily have no national publishers and no reviews in the nationals of my essays if I could engineer this vibrant public debate.
I write my essays because I believe wholeheartedly in my polemic in every single essay. That does not make a good creative essayist, but a Newmanite story. Newman’s 19th Century works make difficult reading in the 21st Century. His Sermons are not being reissued. I do write to be read by the modern readership. I have not broken through to the widespread public debate. I make no broadcasts no speeches and I give no interviews. I am not considered acceptable by the media and others for such roles. I will not give up! The very impervious and silent response to my essays will not deter me – it makes me wish to go on trying. But it is my belief in the Death Sentence which drives me forward. I am no mere opinion former – I challenge the status quo and complacency by shock tactics. I am a storm trooper who will overcome by elan – the sudden onrush.
Of course I can still be measured, but make no mistake, I lead from the front as my friends will tell you. I can take the blows and throwers of javelins in my stride. I am no Charles Lamb. I write with real power for the reader’s benefit: first and foremost. I cannot deny I have always harboured the hope of widespread publication and publicity to achieve my goal of an unstoppable charge for the Death Sentence for murder. I would be insincere to deny that intention. The matter is out of my hands. I will “pass the parcel” to those who know and understand much more than me. I must constantly say to myself my own personal satisfaction is of the least importance.
There is another reason I write. Not only have I been selected to do so as effectively no one else will. But also there is a brief to be argued and I have been given that case to submit because of my seven years the Bar – six years in Sir Michael Havers QC and Attorney General’s Chambers (1976-1982). It is a job for Counsel yet I, no longer practising, at the Bar since 1982. I do not hear voices but the word has gone out: Lamb I want you to do this case and may the best man win – as my old Barrister’s Clerk would say. I have gradually realised the enormous responsibility of this task – I will not let my client down. The Judge and Jury will decide the issue, not me. I always believed in my criminal cases as Barrister and Solicitor – that is why I have been chosen. I was not indifferent to the result. If I defended the accused was always innocent I believed. If I prosecuted the Defendant was guilty I avowed. There was no halfway house for me. I have picked up the gauntlet and I will not let it go until I have won or I have been beaten.
Yes the QC I mentioned knew my character and calibre as Counsel. He has not been mistaken about R.M. Lamb’s advocacy. I will not disappoint him and those who went before him. The way is open – let battle be joined. I have no doubt with this backing the chances of me losing are slim indeed. Go forward Richard – your time has come.