Like other bloggers, I am aghast that we are even contemplating a debate on the return of the death penalty.
The other day I posted a link to raise enough signatures so that we could have a debate on our continuing membership of the Stupid Club. Commenters here were quick to point out that 100,000 signatures "may" or "could" stimulate a debate. Not so with hanging. I note that the language has changed slightly and MPs are saying "We could be forced to have the debate". Forced? Make your damn minds up. You "may" discuss a referendum on the EU, but you definitely "will" discuss this barbarity? The mind boggles.
I'll just say this: government sanctioned murder, because that is all this is, can never be right. We can all recall horror stories in which the "wrong 'un" was completely innocent. Mistakes are made all the time in countries/states that have the death penalty. In China they routinely harvest the cadavers and sell their organs to the highest bidder. At that point it is no longer a tool of justice but instead becomes a lucrative business. With the recent "nudging" on organ donating, will we plough this disgusting furrow as well? Unthinkable? Look again at the politicians we have running this freak-show. I don't trust them further than I could spit.
We preach to those in less developed nations. We tell them to move on, improve, treat your people better. How would that lecture stand up when/if we were to re-introduce the death penalty?
And why are we being so selective about who hangs and who doesn't? I keep seeing "child-killers and cop-killers" as the primary targets for swinging from the gibbet. Sir Robert Peel oft stated that policemen were just members of the public wearing a uniform. Why should cop killers be singled out? Why are cops any more special than us? And given the tales of police brutality, corruption and sleaze just lately, who still thinks coppers are "special"? As far as I am concerned a bent copper deserves no special treatment, in fact, his punishment should be doubly harsh. Sends a message to the rest of them. Hold yourself up to the highest standards according to the Oath of Constable and so will we.
Often, when I scribble here I say that piano-wire and lamp-posts are a remedy for wayward politicians, but could I honestly stand by whilst we strung people up? No. No I could not.
The bigger question is this: WTF is wrong with the British people who are baying for this? Is it all really because some publicity-hungry blogger demanded the debate in the first place?
And why didn't we get the same rush to sign up to get us out of the EU?
Like I said: mind-boggling.
CR.
55 comments:
Captain,
I feel so strongly about this debate that I almost feel a little tear of relief in the corner of my eye that the one of the bloggers I respect more than anyone - your good self - is in total agreement with me and a voice of sanity amidst a clamour for bloodlust.
Will link to this post.
TTC
Rarely do I find mind self fundamentally disagreeing with you CR, but I think that people who torture and murder children deserve hanging.
Serial killers like the Yorkshire Ripper or Fred West should be hung.
People who premeditatively go out with weapons and the intention of using them for crime whould be hung if they use those weapons and kill someone.
I am being perfectly serious as well when I say that if they want a new hangman, I am happy to apply! Executing some of these bastards would be a public service I would be happy to perform.
Mad dogs are put down. Some people - note I say 'some' - should be dealt with the same way. It would certainly cut the re-offending rate.
I have never posted on this subject, but I certainly support it for specific crimes and have signed the petition for a debate in Parliament. I suspect that at the end of the day our spineless politicians will support the status quo.
TTC,
Thank you for the kind words. They are most undeserved.
CR.
>people who torture and murder children deserve hanging
How do you know they've tortured and murdered children and it's not just a corrupt state saying so?
It's the thin edge of the wedge. It's like having Internet censorship because of the paedophiles.
Any politician that sells out the country to the EU is gulty of treason and the sentence shall be death,Politicians will not vote for that.
Hope the internet doesn't eat this one.
100% with you C.R. Reblogged.
D, Sue,
I thought hard about this. Particularly the child-killer aspect. I have even written that paedo's should be rounded up, castrated and/or hung.
BUT, some words are written in haste and in the wrong emotional frame of mind. I want these freaks to be punished, and punished hard, but I cannot see hanging as a fitting punishment. What if it's YOU that has been wrongly accused and you have a wanky lawyer who couldn't give a shit? Now that it's YOU walking up those steps towards the rope, are you still convinced?
These fuckers will fit up anyone for anything, and if it's anything to do with kids you aren't going to get any sympathy from anyone.
They've hung the wrong people before. Give them a chance and they will do it again.
80% isn't enough. They have to be 100% certain that you are guilty and that is a tough percentage to guarantee.
Isn't a basic problem with this "new" debate the fact that we are already selecting which people we would happily hang? How long before that scope broadens?
There has to be a better way.
CR.
Analiensaturn,
See?
Already we have gone from child and cop killers to adding treasonous politicians.
This is how it starts.
How long before anarchists or libertarians are added?
Or people with ginger hair?
CR.
I can't see what everyone is getting in a lather about. It's only a debate. And like all debates, the morons in the HoC will filibuster and pettifog and it won't get passed into law no matter how many people want it.
It's a ruse to see whether the govt. will stick to its promise of holding debates on e-petitions. Guido has made sure that the politicians fell for this hook, line and sinker.
Now if we can get 100 000 people to sign a petition for withdrawal from the EU.....
It's chilling.
Written a tract on this subject over at my place.
Henry,
Sorry to do this:
"Now if we can get 100 000 people to sign a petition for withdrawal from the EU....."
then
"...the morons in the HoC will filibuster and pettifog and it won't get passed into law no matter how many people want it."
It really is hopeless, isn't it?
I wish I knew how to change it all rapidly, to everyone's satisfaction.
CR.
Wolfers,
I went, I read, I agree.
Just haven't commented yet but I are right behind you.
CR.
Thanks for reblogging Richard!
CR.
The treasonous politician was an afterthought and joke although Blair does deserve it.
I wonder how many would feel the same if one of their daughters/sons was tortured, raped and murdered?
We had an incident in our family a few years ago and when I see how badly affected the young person has been since, I would gladly rip the blokes head off, even now, I could kill him with my bare hands.
He served a minimum sentence and is now out enjoying life with his family while that poor kid's life is completely disfunctional.
It wasn't murder he committed but the pain left behind after such crimes is indescribable.
In a word Captain, I'd say this is just another distraction. Something else to put in the limelight, to take our minds off that old elephant in the room, the real issues.
It will ultimately come to nothing, they only want to talk about it. More wasting time.
A question which always niggles me is: Would you prefer to sentence a man to hang (e.g. Ian Huntley), or would you prefer the current alternative: sentence him to a lifetime of being locked up constantly looking over his shoulder, never knowing from one moment to the next when the hardman is going to get him? Which is least cruel?
I can't help noticing how many 'hot button' issues are getting injected into the public conciousness.
They are terrified of something on which we all agree. N'est pas?
and after all these fine words the same rotten bastards are sat in Whitehall and Westminster. The time is for all these wordsmiths to hang up their pencils. Lawful rebellion? Yep - fine words but just another excuse for not demonstrating. Every time I hear someone say no to demonstration I know that here is another person not willing to do what our forefathers did! Put up or shut up. Campaign outside your MP's house if nothing else. Campaign outside Council Offices about the children they have stolen. Campaign outside police stations as they refuse to prosecute those responsible for treason. Wear your Guido Fawkes mask with pride!
Sue,
I confess that my consistency would waver if it was one of my herd that got hurt/killed by one of these fuck ups.
Apart from wars, I have never lost a member of my close or extended family to a violent nutter. Not even so much as a simple assault.
I may well change my mind if that does happen. BUT, I would be taking revenge myself. I don't need the state to do that for me. That way it is on my conscience, not theirs.
CR.
Pesky,
I am sure you are right.
What ELSE is happening that they want to distract us from?
I'm lookingh around to see what it is.
WRT your niggling question: is a short, sharp, relatively painless death cruel? It's certainly harsh. And the dark side of me WANTS these nasty bastards to be forever looking over their shoulders.
CR.
TR,
It certainly goes against their standard "divide and conquer" technique.
CR.
Anon,
A one man/woman campaign gets you written off as a loony. I agree we need huge numbers for that to work.
As a weapon, my keyboard is operating beautifully well. I have done them more harm with my (carefully constructed) words than a banner would have done.
The time will come when the street beckons and I will answer the call.
CR.
Violent crime and murder used to be front page news. The deterrent element worked. Post the abolition of capital punishment, murder has increased from 6.8 per million people to 14.1 in 1997, before mass immigration. We have no personal deterrent but spend billions on a nuclear one.
Cap'n,
Even though in my one of my earlier replies, I stated that politicians should be hung from lampposts up and down the length and breadth of the country with their bellies opened for the crows to peck at, I am against any state sanctioned murder. I would like to see the politicians and their controllers removed permanently from this world which led me to the conclusion that the best way to deal with them would be a No Escapescenario. If you haven't seen the film with Ray Liotta then it's about a future where there are no prisons per se, simply one big island is sectioned off as a huge prison. The people within can live their lives as they would have before, obviously putting up with the fear of being murdered on a regular basis as the really bad criminals would form groups as they did in the film. In other words, the truly bad ones, paedophiles etc would be removed by other bad ones. The best known film with this tyoe of story line is Escape From New York with Kurt Russell.
I've also never agreed in caging humans. I think it's inhumane. Sure the counter argument to that is where do you put the violent people then? I go back to above and put them in a big island there to live the rest of their days in for the crime they've committed. Jailing bad people, violent ones especially only means, the judge is lengthening the time that the convicted will have to get back at the defense, that human being who was beaten, raped, etc. Putting people inside merely makes most angrier. It also turns minor criminals into better ones, associating with the criminal underworld and becoming part of it.
I disagree in torture of any form and prison is.
So I'm with you that there should never be a state death penalty, instead use landmasses where prisoners can create their own society, albeit without that which they've left behind. Tribal society would most certainly ensue, but the people outside these biological prisons, wouldn't have to worry about the threat of these people anymore.
In essence the prisoners in the 'Escape From New York' scenario would be free and caged at the same time.
Harbinger
As much as I'd like to take personal retribution, one of the things that our government is meant to do, is to uphold the law and protect us, especially the vulnerable.
Either it does that, or we should be allowed to own guns and defend ourselves and our families.
The fact that we have a corrupt government/police force/judiciary is the reason why some people are against this.
It's a bit like saying we have terrorists in our midst, so you all have to suffer intrusions in your lives.
If we had a decent, honourable judiciary and government, this subject would not be so contentious.
.. and you're all correct, this is a diversion we do not need! We need to get out of the EU first and foremost.
Sue,
"Either it does that, or we should be allowed to own guns and defend ourselves and our families."
All people should have the liberty and freedom to defend themselves from attack with whatever weapon available. No one has the right to invade your personal space and I agree fully in your above argument.
Harbinger
In principal I'm for it - in practice - I wouldn't trust the police and the judicial system to get it right - at all...
Just look at the sorry arsed procession of miscarriages of justice perpetrated by our enforcers of the law and legal eagles. In that procession we see examples of falsification of evidence, witholding of evidence and far too many examples of mean spirited spiteful obstructiveness by those we employ to enforce and meter out justice. Some of the present ranks of senior judges have knowingly perpetrated miscarriages of justice that would have ended at the and of many a rope.
How mean spirited can you get? Well, do you think that somebody who'd charge an innocent man rent for his time banged up would turn a hair putting a black hanky on his head when there was reasonable doubt?
This is just some grandstanding to distract from the foul stench coming from our legal / criminal justice system.
I'd add that m'lerned bewigged ones will expect more lolly for capital cases (maybe that's why this has popped up - barrister's fees have dropped recently....) - although as usual will shy away from any responsibility for the consequences of getting it wrong.
I think many will be surprised that the EU has a footnote in the charter which allowed for the death penalty the charter says that there is no death penalty, and then it also has a footnote, which says, “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval” – then the death penalty is possible.
They know one day there will be an uprising against them so they are prepared.
The puppets in Westminster and the pondlife in the MSM produce an impossibility for us to muse upon, and look at the havoc it has wrought. Pitting fellow blogger against fellow blogger, their comment pages and Twitter feeds bulging forth with all manner of debate, argument, insult and other kinds of vituperative wordplay.
There's the real point. [Not that a vibrant blogosphere with discussion and differing opinion is a bad thing. ;) ]
E-petitions are an exercise in distraction, pure and simple, and the most emotive subject has been chosen to receive the first full glare of publicity so as to get as many people as possible wrapped up in the subject. Place emotions aside, cease reacting. It's what they want us to do. Yet we will react, because the death penalty is an emotive subject, which explains its prominence in all utterances on e-petitions by both the politicans and the MSM; cynical, as ever, in their use of loss and suffering for their own ends.
Guido's petition actually calls for "the government to review all treaties and international commitments which may inhibit the ability of Parliament to restore capital punishment". Chief among which being the ECHR. We would have to leave the Council of Europe and the EU in order for capital punishment to be restored. Most people won't know this and will react to the headlines emotionally, be that for or against, which is the ultimate point of all this. Keeps them thinking about other things, serving a purpose as this week's “two minutes' hate”, to distract and divert energy and attention.
[Whether or not you are “in favour” of ECHR is irrelevant to this discussion; we're not withdrawing from either it or the EU any time soon, unless things really do start changing...]
The Express's petition would lead to a withdrawal from the EU yet, as you say, CR, it is barely being mentioned by the MSM, because capital punishment is always going to generate a bigger reaction with the punters. It always has done; the MSM has much to answer for here as does the (in)justice system. (Lex talionis is a deeply-held idea, ultimately going right back to Babylon. As do all of our present problems, according to some.) Govt also knows how the death penalty figures in the minds of the public, which is why the spin machine is going on it as a means to big up the e-petitions system and promote it as a way of “opening up” democracy.
Ever since the death penalty was abolished, every parliament has had at least one debate on restoring it. The resulting pointless theatrics were easily defeated every time, usually by a combination of MPs from all parties. The last time such a debate happened was during the 92-97 session. Should the HoC business committee decide to put it forward for debate any "vote" (entirely symbolic, as it is non-binding on the govt anyway) would likely be "defeated" again, thus putting the matter to rest. No further debates will happen irrespective of the number of petitions that may follow.
@Anon 14.55; that used to be the case under ECHR Protocol 6, but both the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR Protocol 13 did away with that. Protocol 13 is what now prohibits the death penalty completely:
Article 1: “the death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.”
Article 2: “no derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.” (Art. 15 allows derogations in times of emergency)
Protocol 13 has been in effect in the UK since 2004. Perhaps they were preparing after all.
What is more important here is the reaction this is causing. Not that reacting to this news, blogging and commenting about it and such is wrong, but look how worked up people are getting over something that ultimately will not change, whether you are for it or whether you aren't.
I wonder what else is going on today...
Regards
TSL
I say this time and time and time again: it simply astounds me that so many people who are so critical of the state - an entity that so many of us agree is corrupt, incapable of finding its arse with both hands and prone to abusing its authority if not acting ultra vires - are willing to give it back the power to kill its citizens. Fuck the criminal scum, a noose around the neck of the most evil man in the land is a potential noose around the neck of all.
Oh, you might be safe with a Cameramong or Millivanilli government but which of you death penalty supporters knows what kind of toad-licking swivel-eyed fucknuts you'll have for PM in 10, 15, 20+ years? For all we know right now the future could hold a Chancellor Sutcliffe or a British Mugabe, and why the hell would we want to make the bastard's job any easier? And I can't think of any democracy that hasn't elected a bastard at some stage and we all know that some have elected utter batsards, so there's really no reason to think it can't happen. In fact I'd bet that if you wait long enough it's almost inevitable.
If you love liberty the answer is straightforward: you must never, ever entrust the state with any power that you would not also be happy giving to a homicidal dictator.
Capitan,
Let the jury decide the punishment for guilty murderers, leniency,life imprisonment or death, the jury can take into account all the factors then the state isn`t making the final decision.
I`ve not read the petition but I doubt this is an option so I vote no, if it is then yes!
CR, my point was that this is forcing the HoC to debate issues that the electorate want them to debate. If we can force them to debate the death penalty (as distasteful as many find it), then we can force them to debate EU membership.
The next logical step is that if we (and by that I mean "the people" collectively) can force a debate in the HoC, then why can we not also force a referendum should the topic garner sufficient support.
Angry Exile,
Completely agree with you on your post. It continues to amaze me that those who speak out against the state are quite happy to give it the freedom to kill.
We have already seen just how powerful the state has become and now they want to give it the power to kill? What next, being hanged for stealing a loaf of bread? being shot for killing a rabbit on Dartmoor? Electrocuted because you supported the anarchist party instead of the main three?
People really are totally mad if they want to give yet more power to an already far too powerful state.
Harbinger
"If we can force them to debate the death penalty (as distasteful as many find it), then we can force them to debate EU membership."
Henry,
We have no need to force debate on EU membership. EU membership is 100% treasonous and anti constitutional. There is no need for a debate to stay in or leave the EU. We shouldn't be there in the first place.
Harbinger
Captain,
I don`t believe it is the state who try criminals, its a jury under Oath or Affimation,
eg, Christian Oath,
"I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence."
To take an Oath in this example is asking God to witness the juror`s integrity during the trial and deliberations, and also to demonstrate to the public their commitment to be just and impartial, no state involved!
Stan,
Bear this in mind: the only qualification you need to be a juror is a pulse.
Also, the only people who end up on a jury are those not smart enough to get out of it.
You are likely to be judged by 12 (15 in Scotland) idiots addicted to X Factor and their benefits.
Scary, but true.
I do not want my life in their hands.
CR.
Henry,
We are at the early-to-mid stages of economic collapse. The EU may cease to be important in a matter of days or weeks.
(But I strongly agree with your comment!)
CR.
Oh dear Capitan I think you`ve far too low an opinion of your fellow man not that I blame, you some folk are beyond contempt.
There`s a jury selection process, you can refuse and you can be challenged (peremptory challenge), tis better to be tried by a jury under oath than any other method surely, even now a jury can find a defendant not guilty but guilty of a lesser crime or even aquit them at any stage of the trial.
Why not give them even more range and say in sentencing, like the death penalty for the worst of crimes, and we all know what they are.
Stan,
You are right.
I would much rather state my case to 15 (12) jurors than to one judge/magistrate/sheriff.
Their job (the jurors) is to interpret the law and ensure that it is applicable. In Scotland we also have the third verdict-not proven.
CR.
Wolfers,
I went, I read, I agree.
Just haven't commented yet but I are right behind you.
Me too but I have commented because he has caused me to pause, and think, and change my mind...doesn't happen often!
"I would much rather state my case to 15 (12) jurors than to one judge/magistrate/sheriff."
So would I. But I've served on a jury, and some of the jurors gave me cause for concern.
Given the state of the criminal justice system in this country, I think it far more likely that the guilty escape justice rather than the innocent get wrongly convicted.
The problem is that the pissy do-gooders in this country are too quick to let dangerous people run around free whilst their rights are protected instead of the victims.
If a jury convicts them, then I'll hang them. Simple as that. My conscience will be clear and I would sleep soundly.
I realise that there will always be the risks of another Rillington Place miscarriage but at the end of the day, the benefits and the deterrent outweigh the risks.
Would you resally lose any sleep over executing Stuart Sutcliffe, Brady and Hindley, the Wests and many more like them because I wouldn't and the world would be a safer place for it!
I suspect you are missing the point. The petition deliberately picks a law where politicians are strongly at odds with the population, and also where the EU prohibits them taking action even if they wanted to.
Surely the petition submitter (Guido) was targetting the absurdity of the petition site and promise rather than the actual issue itself (because we all know that won't happen) but in publicity terms it has to be bad for the government.
Angry Exile
"If you love liberty the answer is straightforward: you must never, ever entrust the state with any power that you would not also be happy giving to a homicidal dictator."
Too true - never mind the degrading, dehumanising and thoroughly bestial nature of state approved cold blooded murder. If we haven't moved on since the Medes and the Persians we have a bigger problem than we think.
Respec to CR for his mumane views also.
Great post Captain as usual - and as usual, absolutely correct and on the mark! The idea of allowing the Death-Penalty - i.e. State Sponsored Murder, is just laughable in a Libertarian Blog!!
Those people who harp on about kiddie-killers and cop-killers have swallowed the state as protector lie hook, line and sinker.
In this day and age whenever anyone mentions pedophiles - its an argument halting tactic - typical Marxist mentality. Internet censorship: pedophiles, School Surveillance: pedophiles, Police Powers: pedophiles and now state sponsored murder: errr, pedophiles.
Grow a spine and meet out your own vengeance - or are you too timid a sheep???
The state couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery - or devise a basic transport system - how the FUCK would you allow it to have the power of DEATH over you.
Jesus, those pathetic State-sheep who want people murdered don't realise that its the THIN EDGE of a wedge. Before you know it SMOKERS will be in for the noose.
If you want to stop murders and kiddie-killers we need to have guns in this country: we need to be ARMED. Anyone who fucks with your family or children can expect a BULLET.
Don't forget about this important event. READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz
Libertarians and Anarchists believe in taking responsibility for our actions, not giving that responsibility to the state.
The posters on Captains site who advocate the STATE KILLING of human begins should FUCK OFF and join the Labour Party site or something - of course the good Captain is far to nice to say these things to his blog posters - but I feel sick and ashamed that people so FUCKING TWISTED read the same blog as I do!!!
@ I am Stan, you may have something there with the idea about juries. One of the other anti-death penalty arguments - not one I'm especially convinced by, to be honest - is that juries are supposedly more reluctant to return a guilty verdict if they think the defendant is going to be executed, which I guess might be the reason some US states use one jury to determine guilt and a second to determine whether capital punishment is appropriate. The main trouble I have is that the state still has enormous influence over juries simply because of the enormous influence it has over each and every regular citizen. States portray themselves up as these wonderful benefactor types which provide services and free money, healing the sick and teaching the children like some kind of gestalt Jesus while encouraging us to forget how much it takes in terms of taxes and power and liberty. Call me a cynic but I feel most countries have succeeded in buying enough citizens with their own money to be fairly sure of getting a dozen bloodthirsty types happy to rubber stamp the state's desire to kill. Even if that's not so it's easier for the state to tinker with the application of the power and begin to remove juries from the process if they give the wrong answer too often.
@ Sue, I missed the bit earlier where you said that in the absence of a death penalty people should be allowed weapons to defend themselves. Yes, absolutely they should, though I'd say it shouldn't even depend on whether there's capital punishment. In my book one of the greatest wrongs states perpetrate against their citizens is restricting their liberty to defend themselves and their property and removing the freedom to own the means to do so effectively, and that states also lie and perpetuate the myth that they can protect you on your behalf just adds insult to injury. I see it as yet more evidence that states are fundamentally useless and untrustworthy, and the day I willingly give the power to end my existence to something fundamentally useless and untrustworthy will be the day I give in and launch an ounce of lead shot at high speed through my own head... always assuming the state hasn't taken that from me too by then.
Given the state of the criminal justice system in this country, I think it far more likely that the guilty escape justice rather than the innocent get wrongly convicted.
Dioclese, that's not a bug, it's a feature of a system that presumes we are innocent until proven guilty. "Better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent suffers" and all that. That innocents are still wrongly convicted at all means it's already working less well than it should in that regard.
Surely we all know that this will not lead to the return of the death penalty, whatever our views on the subject.
What good can come from this debate (by which I mean the debate in general, not here)? Is it going to give an example for us - the ignored peasants - to assert ourselves in other areas? I doubt it. The next one will probably be 100,000 people campaigning for Jedi to be considered a religion.
Turkeys voting for Christmas? No, because the death penalty is already here.
"Professor Schachtschneider, explained that the undisclosed paragraph means that on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the DEATH PENALTY will be reintroduced to Europe. The death penalty will be applicable for the crimes of RIOTING, CIVIL UPHEAVAL and DURING WAR."
and...
"The EU not-a-Constitution reintroduces the death penalty and not only in times of war, but for riots or upheaval. That gives governments a pretty free hand to use the death penalty - strikes, protests, vote of no confidence in the ruling party."
and...
(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’
We need a special category for 'crimes beyond the pale'. A select club for those that commit only the most outrageous crimes.
By keeping the criteria tight, we can avoid hanging everyone.
Having death on the books is a bad idea, unless it is very tightly laid out in law.
Once convicted, they would have five years to either prove their innocence, or that they deserved to be in a lesser category. Plenty of time to overturn a wrongful conviction.
"the death penalty is already here"
I think it important to note that in a judicial sense it isn't, as far as I understand it; and the judicial sentence is what the petition is concerned with. See my above comment on Protocol 13, which takes precedence and outlaws the death penalty completely in all signatory states. Protocol 13 has been active in the UK since 2004. It bans the death penalty even during wartime, and supersedes Protocol 6 (referred to the world over in a search for "Lisbon treaty death penalty") which did seem to allow it.
Others have written about this, for example:
http://secretperson.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/eu-death-penalty-update/
(The comments are very useful as well.)
What they did do, as various posters have stated, is make it "acceptable" for police and abominations like EUROGENDFOR to shoot dead civilians if they are engaged in a "riot" or an "insurrection", and not have this classed as an execution; naturally, the EU gets to define what an "insurrection" is on a case by case basis...
That's what we really need to worry about.
Regards
TSL
I wouldn't trust the government to run a bath. It is for that reason I'm not pro the ultimate penalty. That said, what is the point of keeping Ian Huntley and his ilk, alive?
Urban11
Anonymous.
Just put them in with the general population and they will take care of it for us, then as bonus thats another scumbag off the streets for life! No to the death penalty, Yes to letting the less desireables sort it out and deal with them after!
Job done!
Aldo
Anon
That said, what is the point of keeping Ian Huntley and his ilk, alive?
check this out.
http://www.justjustice.org/
It matters not whether it is debated - the debate will not have anything to do with actually reintroducing it !
From which point of view it will be interesting to see who says what on the subject - and how well researched their subject is - or whether they just have a idiological stance !
I support the idea of the ultimate punishment - though only in conjunction with a total augean stable type clean up of the whole law and judicial process. There are some people who are best put out of their misery on behalf of those who wish to do no harm to others.
The strawman of 'innocents being released' may well have not have happened if - a) the system was clean and robust - and b) they may not have had the evidence good enough to convict if swinging had been the preferred option thus they might have even walked free ! Concentrates the mind a bit when it realy is someones life a jury holds in its hands !
Usually CR I agree with most of your postings - but not on this one !
Post a Comment