• Home
  • 231. Finality of the Death Penalty Debate

The Finality of the present Death Penalty Debate in England & Wales

  • Category(s): Most Recent Essays
  • Created on : 01 May 2016
  • File size: 109.38 KB
  • Version: 1.0
  • Downloaded: 288
  • Author: Richard Michael Lamb


Title Page: Paper on the finality of the present Death Penalty debate in England and Wales which began with R.M Lamb’s argued case for Restoration of the Ultimate Penalty on 2nd July 2013. In that short Discourse.
R.M. Lambs Paper on the finality of the Death Sentence Debate started in South East England by R.M. Lamb esq on 2nd July 2013 and still going (1st May 2016)

I have committed in my Nihilism (No 177) essay of 23/3/2015 to resolving this debate by no later than 7/5/2025. Do I resile from that utterance? No I affirm that last mentioned date for the convincing end of this debate. Why do I say that is so crucial?

(i) This debate needs brevity and proper concentration and above all urgency and priority in view of the twin towers attack in New York (11/9/2001), the Madrid bombs (Spain) in 2004, the 7th July 2005 bombs in Central London, the Tunisian massacre of English and other tourists in around 2014, the Parisian atrocities in Nov 2015 and Charlie Hebdo massacre in same Capital City shortly before and the Belgian explosions in March 21st 2016 in Brussels. All such attacks were the causation of killings of many defenceless and innocent persons. They have been perpetrated on the ground by misguided, but grossly culpable, Islamic terrorists including gunmen and suicide bombers supported by their criminal organisations. The thinking of this terrorist and his controller is the West is weak without Capital Punishment. They will hit us again and again to underline that weakness laid bare. It is a form of taunting and bullying. The terrorist has the power of the bomb and the gun and with his quartermasters instigation he goes to the “glory” of martyrdom: religious if shot by law enforcers or killed by his own bomb. Because we have no death sentence we are powerless to hit back save by shoot to kill which plays in to the hands of these Islamic murderers who wish to sacrifice their lives on their own terms as “killed in action”.

The terrorist controller thinks: we will strike with impunity as these European Lawmakers, Judges and advocates have no intention to deliver the counterstroke and bring back capital punishment for murder and related crimes. Yes these controllers and their terrorists do fear the noose, the hangman and the sentencing to death Judge, but such a regime is a long way off. Even the USA is luke warm on Capital Punishment for murders. These Islamic extremists would probably desist and relax their grip if they faced the prospect of judicial execution on capture, for themselves and their henchman. These Islamist “fighters” on European soil and their masterminds abhor the public shame of murder as proven in open court against them. Moreover, they fear the Judges sentencing them to death in that transparent and fairly run due Criminal process. Lastly and most importantly they cower in fear at the very secluded gallows and the power of the Crowns’ Officers with the Hangman’s dexterity. I believe those at large bent on these atrocities would change their tune if we restored this Capital Punishment regime. The crucial link is the Court Room exposure of themselves and cronies and widespread recognition of this sheer terrorism without moral excuse. These terrorists of Islam, so barbaric, crave the moral upper ground. The Death Sentence alone may condemn these terrorists to damnation. That sentence of Death pronounced and carried out is what these murderers fear above all else. Without doubt I believe this Capital Punishment will deter them from their evil doing, so dire, if we have the courage to restore it. These perpetrators of death and injury and their controllers are testing our resolve in Europe and North America, of that I am sure. The answer is bring back the Death Penalty once and for all to make it clear to these convicted terrorists their actions lead not to paradise but to Hell itself from which there is no escape or way out. They will understand that logic.

(ii) If the job of Restoration of the Final Penalty is to be done there has to be a target date for the close of the debate. That end date focuses minds when some persons in the English establishment are beginning to waver and may privately favour the return of hanging. The dreadful international and wanton terrorism, so close to our shores, and so recently committed, drives this thinking in England. You cannot play around with innocent lives and I as a debater will give this debate real immediacy in my deadline. We only have the one chance to go for the Death Penalty is my polernic. To resile from the 7/5/2025 deadline would be weakness and prevarication in the face of these terrible killers and maimers. That I will not countenance. The case deserves, due to these grave calumnies so brutally carried through, presence of mind, self control and above all very prompt and urgent action to restore Hanging for murder in England and Wales. To relax my deadline now would be to sacrifice lives again to terrorism at home and abroad and suggest my case is not as strong as it is in truth. That would be totally unacceptable to R.M Lamb and the people. I seek a discretionary Death Penalty for murder, not mandatory, and for its related crimes.

(iii) To elongate the debate and go back on my 7/5/2025 deadline would be childish and partisan by R.M. Lamb as serving his own selfish purposes not God’s law, I would be forcing a stalemate to save my own reputation in case I have not won by 7/5/2025. I would thereby destroy my moral leadership of my policy by playing safe in such a course of thinking. I would be saying I did not mean what I said regarding that deadline in my said Nihilism essay to end this debate which I have set. Our parliament rules by herself alone, subject to our High Court Judiciary. God the Father in the Trinity is the Almighty Author of all goodness. I work on the basis of the first proposition, but above all else I submit to my Creator. I am a mere mortal, if an avowed Roman Catholic.

(iv) Any debate must have a limited duration as coming before, in time, the decision of the executive. (President John. F. Kennedy). This debate is crucial to forming and defining the Presidential policy was his meaning. I don’t expect to make the closing speech as a matter of right. I have had the honour to open the Restoration of the Capital Punishment debate in England and Wales for the Restorationists. I firmly believe to restore the Death Penalty now in our Country would be a formidable example to all our people at home and to all the nations of our World.

(v) I cannot expect “the people” to whom I owe so much to put up with no result either way on this debate. It must come down conclusively in favour of Hanging or resolutely against. For the sake of “our people” it cannot be left undecided. They yearn for this debate to come down in favour of the Death Penalty, and strongly so.

(vi) Persons of importance will not bother to join in this debate if it has no meaning ie; limitless in time and never producing a binding decision pro or contra the Death Sentence principle in our Criminal Justice. Its very decisiveness will draw in the main thinkers and protagonists.

(vii) Hanging is final and irreversible. Therefore this debate must be the last word on this Death Penalty for England and Wales. The debate must fit the subject matter with opening speeches, speeches from the floor, closing speeches and the decision dependent on “the votes” of those “present”. The debate will not be reopened as certain criminal cases of the 1970’s were challenged and changed namely the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and the Birmingham Six. The vogue to overturn and retry criminal cases is destructive of confidence in our Criminal justice and the Death Penalty. But I will submit to the outcome of this debate. If my cause is lost it will be lost for good. If my case succeeds may everyone assent to that result. This debate depends for its vitality on this conclusiveness. It will not matter to anyone without this finality. More than any other debate this matters. Let us do it proper justice as the very life and death issue it has become. This debate is so important to England and Wales and to Scandinavia, Europe, the Baltic States, the Near East, central Asia, the USA, all Asia and the East, Africa, South and Central America, the Caribbean with Canada, the Pacific and Australasia. The result is crucial to these Countries and their Criminal Justice and above all the imposition or not of Capital Punishment and its vigorous application. This debate turns on the anti-ECHR argument that innocent lives count above the convicted murderers continued enjoyment of his or her life.

(viii) A searching public and nationwide indeed international debate is essential to our people. It must be driven by morality on both sides. We must not let our people down by allowing the debate to proceed haphazard without Rules or a Referee or a closure date. My case will never prevail if these Rules are not laid down. Those rules will concentrate minds. The debate will be driven in to the sand without proper orderliness and orders. The “ropes” around the “ring” and the Referee and fixed length of the “bout” will create lively and earnest interest. The “people” are watching and cheering have no doubt. But this is for real and no boxing match.

CONCLUSION It is the Case of the newly discovered Death Penalty polemic of R.M Lamb esq as I am lead forward by Sir Michael Havers QC, himself, against those, who go for the Case of the English status quo in Capital Punishment thinking in the early 21st Century. Sir Michael Havers QC is that outstanding Senior Crown Counsel of the 1970’s to ensure fair play on R.M Lambs side, as befits this debate so deeply moral and ground breaking. This early 21st Century status quo on Capital Punishment in England I speak of, will not lack eloquent and sincere adherents and advocates to oppose this Death Sentence case I am sure. The Referee will ensure each side’s case is given the same chance of success and that impartiality is observed. But there can only be one winner as with all debates of this kind. The Referee is God the Father who is bipartisan par excellence and that Trinity, so Holy, likes a contest of this magnitude. Will there be a knock-out blow? There will most definitely be that strike to the head metaphorically speaking. Who will deliver it? Let us see. I began the contest on the 2nd July 2013 with my first Restorationist essay. I will be in at the endgame, you may be sure, as I was in at the outset on that memorable day in early July 2013. May the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be with all the protagonists and above all our Country so blessed: England and Wales during this debate so profound.

1st May 2016 RM. Lamb
R.M. LAMB esq