• Home
  • 53. Capital Punishment Essay Part II

Capital Punishment Essay Part II

  • Category(s): Death Penalty Essays
  • Created on : 24 September 2013
  • File size: 160.51 KB
  • Version: 1.0
  • Downloaded: 259
  • Author: Richard Michael Lamb


The power of radicalism in the modern Conservative party as demonstrated by my call for the restoration of the death penalty.

1. Introduction

I start with my own political advocacy for the restoration of the death penalty as articulated in my first discourse on this subject of 2 July 2013. I return to this subject to expand upon my reasons for supporting restoration of the ultimate penalty. My essay on the EU and HR Convention established my strong argument for withdrawal from the EU and repeal of the Human Rights Act enshrining this Convention in our Law of England and Wales (28 July 2013). All my essays are released on Kindle Amazon. Thus I have made the way straight for my polemical advocacy for the death penalty. Many will disagree with me on leaving the EU and HR Convention – they are entitled to their opinions but they are not mine. The Judges must be kept out of the debate on the restoration of this death penalty – it is purely a matter for Parliament and the Country – I submit once we have left the EU and the Convention. Clearly the death penalty cannot be restored until we have seceded from EU and repealed the HR Convention in our Law. In Europe they may carry on undisturbed by our secession, repeal and enactment of the ultimate penalty. In this essay I am only concerned to attend to the arguments for and against this death penalty and its implementation in our Law. I make no bones about it – I am very strongly in favour of this death penalty restoration when Parliament has made the way through the mountains to speak figuratively.

2. The Starting Points and the Polemic

Often the argument is used to defeat the death penalty’s restoration that how can you be sufficiently sure of the guilt of the accused of the alleged murder. Well Ronnie and Reggie Kray, Ian Huntley, Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe were all indisputably properly convicted murderers and are still alive save for the Krays. Therefore we start with the proposition: certainty of guilt is attainable and was attained in these examples. Myra Hindley was also truly and properly convicted of murders without doubt, she is now deceased. Another argument employed against restoration is that some of these named murderers have psychiatric conditions and they were treated or are being treated in prison hospitals e.g. Ronnie Kray and Ian Brady. That leaves several in my sample who were held on ordinary non-mental health wings e.g. Reggie Kray and maybe Peter Sutcliffe and Ian Huntley. This information is not in the public domain. May prison psychiatrists decide whether a murder conviction will lead the culprit to the gallows or not? I say no. The position is complicated by diminished responsibility which is an artificial and false distinction between one murder and another murder. I argue for one crime of murder to be reduced to manslaughter in the event of provocation. Diminished responsibility has no real meaning and hides the true guilt of the accused. It should be abolished and the clarity of the crime of murder returns to our statute book and our Crown Courts and the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Psychiatric evidence to justify diminished responsibility will become otiose. If an accused is convicted of murder on my argument he is at risk of hanging. The forensic psychiatrist should not have a tussle with the trial Judge nor with the Home Secretary on the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty on a particular murderer. The trial Judge always take first place who on my polemic will be sitting alone and he will have a free and unfettered discretion whether or not to exact the ultimate punishment. There are some extremely cruel and premeditated killers who are rightly brought to book by the Metropolitan Police at the Central Criminal Court. The Rule of Law must prevail. The medical evidence will not be on culpability but it will be confined to the sincerity and depth of remorse and repentance in the defendant. The Judge at first instance will pronounce sentence and because the process as refined will be so thorough I honestly say the executive will have no right to interfere with that Judge’s sentence. I have discoursed on this aspect in my Trial by Jury essay of 17 September 2013 and I now adjust my argument to deny the Defendant the right to reprieve by the Home Secretary. I wish to uphold the trial Judge’s prerogative upon sentencing subject to the Defendant’s right of appeal to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division which will be the sole check on the discretionary sentence of capital punishment imposed by the Judge at first instance. The essence of undiluted Judicial responsibility must be maintained I argue as I wrote on 2 July 2013.

3. Conclusion

What are we left with? Pipe dreams? Fond imaginings? Wishful thinking? No! Why do I disagree with this sentiment? Nothing can be done without proper political backing and initiative. If Parliament takes us out of the EU and the HR Convention the former may become more likely as time passes with a Conservative Government alone in power thus the building blocks will be in place to repeal the HR Act unwisely introduced by Blair’s administration in 1997. There is parliamentary support amongst Conservatives for such repeal even now. Then we will be free to flex our political muscles at last and make out own decisions as a Government and in our Courts untrammelled by Europe. The door will open therefore to the restoration of the death penalty debate once again. By then the vox populis will be vociferous stimulated by these ground shattering and liberating events of succession from the EU and abolition of the HR Convention in our Law and Jurisdiction. The popular feeling will support restoration I anticipate.

4. Afterward

Who commands the moral and political high ground? He who represents the people and leads the nation of England and Wales forward. A policy and strategy must be written out. If we meander on as at present we have no hope. I never thought I would say this but only the Conservative Party will deliver the policy I have outlined. Thus I must offer their Leader the Rt Hon David Cameron MP and PM and his parliamentary party my unconditional support. He will have to sever from the Liberal Democrats who would never agree to such a radical policy. Thus David Cameron must call a snap election for an administration: radical to be formed and these measures I have set out to be put in place. Delay is always fatal and weakening. To wait until next year would be unwise – Strike Hard, Strike Sure (Bomber Command Motto). Radicalism is the name of the policy not authoritarianism.