 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Previous
article
| Next
article
The latest Criminal Justice Act to pass through Parliament is further indication of new measures aimed at tackling the ever increasing problem of crime. Strategies ranging from a ‘welfare’ to a ‘get tough on offenders’ approach have been played, with the intention that justice is achieved for all parties involved.
During the initial readings of the bill, the issue of capital punishment was debated, and the reintroduction of the death penalty for certain crimes proposed. As in every such debate since the suspension of the death penalty in 1965, the proposal was rejected. The death penalty has now been abolished in Great Britain for all crimes apart from high treason and piracy with violence. However, recent public opinion polls reveal that around three quarters of those questioned are in favour of the death penalty for certain crimes.
The issue of capital punishment invokes controversy and raises the question of whether such a punishment can ever be justified and, if so, on what grounds. The history of capital punishment in Britain has included imposing the death sentence for crimes such as the theft of an item valued more than a shilling. However, it is mainly as a response to murder or severe violence or sexual attacks that the death penalty is sought by certain individuals. The theory behind this appears to be that those who place little value on human life should have their own life taken away. When adopting such a stance, care must be taken that it is not driven simply by a desire for revenge. The idea of “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth” (Deuteronomy 19:21) together with “Whoever kills a man must be put to death” (Leviticus 24:21) is often brought in to support this argument but this is not as straightforward as it may at first appear. Evidence of the death penalty is found in the Bible but at the same time there are clearly cases where lives of murderers have been spared, namely Cain and David.
An alternative angle adopted by those who support the death penalty is found in Romans (13) with the call to submit to the will of the authorities. This would mean accepting the imposition of the death penalty if the authorities choose to do so. However there is no obligation on the part of the authorities to retain the death penalty and their reasons need to be established.
Countries where capital punishment is retained and practiced justify this on the grounds that it serves as a deterrent. Available evidence seems to demonstrate that this is not the case. “Those involved with administering the death penalty in Great Britain did not feel that it served to act as a deterrent against future murder and achieved nothing except revenge.” [The case against Capital Punishment, The Howard League for Penal Reform, 1991.] Very rarely do offenders stop and think of the consequences which the crime will have on their victim, let alone themselves. This may be particularly so where there are ‘crimes of passion’, and the case of Ruth Ellis caused particular uproar when she was hanged following the murder of her lover who had been instrumental in her recent miscarriage.
Retribution is another aspect of the Criminal Justice system and represents society’s response to the act committed and the punishment which is deemed appropriate. In countries where the death penalty is administered, this is the ultimate punishment, as a decision has been made that this person no longer deserves to live. Such a decision is supposed to be reached when the evidence against the accused is undisputed and the conviction has been made following a fair trail, with adequate legal representation and a full awareness of the accused’s circumstances and background. This is clearly not the case. The majority of inmates on Death Row in the United States tend to be young, poor and black or mentally ill and are unable to afford to pay for their defence. Perhaps one of the notable cases is that of Edward Earl Johnson, featured in the documentary Fourteen Days in May. Edward, who was black and from a poor background, was executed for a crime for which the evidence was later seen to be inadequate and where the initial trial was conducted unfairly.
It is not only the act of execution itself which is condemned. Once an inmate arrives on death row it can be years before the sentence is carried out as the appeals procedure gets underway. This is quite a traumatic process and the inmate can literally arrive at the execution hour, ‘prepared’ to be executed and receive a last minute reprieve. Such a process amounts to a psychological torture of the inmate. Juvenile Offenders are not excluded from such a sentence. In certain countries, including the United States, children as young as 12 can receive the death penalty [The Death Penalty and Juvenile Offenders, United States of America, Amnesty International].
No method of execution is humane and there have been many incidents where the prisoner has suffered considerably. For this to be accompanied by the approval of the state which is seen to be representing justice is barbaric. Organisations such as Amnesty International campaign against capital punishment on the grounds that it is “the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading and treatment and a violation of the right to life” [The Death Penalty and Juvenile Offenders, United States of America, Amnesty International].
Perhaps one of the leading arguments against capital punishment is the risk that innocent people may be executed. Recent miscarriages of justice in Britain, notably the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, highlight how mistakes can be made. Financial recompense barely makes up for the lost time spent in a prison cell but it is a lot easier to compensate for imprisonment than for someone who has been executed. To dismiss execution of the innocent as an unfortunate mistake which may happen once in a while, is not only ignoring the extent of the occurrence but admitting that the Criminal Justice System may not be able to prevent such a risk. For a mistake to happen once is once too often, and a posthumous pardon offers little compensation. Those who still justify this risk should not complain if they were to end up in this situation by mistake.
The major principle which the imposition of the death penalty prevents is that of rehabilitation and it is perhaps on this line that Christians should be largely concerned. It is God’s desire for everyone to mend their ways and to repent of all their ‘crimes’. “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live” (Ezekiel 33:11). The taking of a life by execution can not be seen as a payment for the life taken by murder. Instead it just means that there are two families affected rather than one. The possibility of watching the murderer die may bring satisfaction to the victims family but it will not bring the victim back.
In countries where the death penalty exists, the crime rate still continues to rise and a general underlying feeling of death penalty abolitionists is that cruel punishments have an inevitable tendency to produce cruelty in people [Death Penalty Information Pack, Amnesty International]. Such a penalty may thus contribute to the increase of violence in society rather than curtail it. Whilst there is no death penalty in Great Britain, it not only gives the ‘criminal’ a chance to make amends for the mistakes made, but also gives the criminal justice system a chance to make amends for any possible mistakes which it makes. It also represents a society that is not soft on crime but is not prepared to resort to uncivilized methods of punishment.
Previous
article
| Next
article
|
|
|
|
|
Last modified: 25th November 2005