כּנור דוד

Kinnor David - "a most attractive blog".

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Heffer: Bring Back the Noose, or Lose Rule of Law

Thus opines Simon Heffer in Britain's Daily Telegraph. Unlike some who have graced these pages, he doesn't want to hang drug traffickers or apostates from Islam, just murderers. He writes of his attendance at a criminal justice conference:

After a few hours in the company of probation officers, criminologists, a few prototypes of what we now know as the Politically Correct Senior Policeman and various others from the rehabilitation industry, I realised I would probably feel less out of place at a Tibetan religious festival. It may be uncouth, but I always feel pronounced prickles of discomfort when in the presence of those who devote themselves to making the lives of the downright wicked as comfortable as possible.

We waltzed into a plenary session about the need to curb serious crime - murder, rape, armed robbery, drugs trafficking, all those little things that make life in our inner cities so vibrant today. When I uttered the fact - not at that stage reinforced by an expression of opinion, but simply a fact - that the murder rate had quadrupled since the abolition of capital punishment, an embarrassed silence permeated the room. It was as if my personal hygiene had suddenly taken a turn very much for the worse.

Of course, there are other factors bearing upon the massive increase in the murder rate, but all the same, the absence of capital punishment cannot simply be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant. However, the expression support for the death penalty in educated company often results in much spluttering and spilling of drinks.

When Lord Stevens, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, argued on Sunday that his opposition to capital punishment had been overturned by the shooting of a policewoman in Bradford last week, he was joining that usually silent band of intelligent people who feel that society affords inadequate protection to the innocent. And, predictably, he has been vilified for it by a noisy minority who, in the security of their comfortable existences, feel that anyone even suggesting the restoration of a death penalty for murder in this country must be certifiably insane or a complete pervert.

I regret that Lord Stevens did not advocate this course when he still held his high office, for his opinion then would have counted for far more. After all, plenty of police officers were murdered on his watch while trying to do their jobs, like poor WPc Beshenivsky last week. I also disagree with him on one point: why argue for restoration purely for those who murder police officers?

Heffer points out that the State has not abandoned the right to kill. On the contrary:

For, be in no doubt, although we forfeited 40 years ago the right of the state to impose the capital sentence after a fair trial in a court of law, the state still reserves to itself the right to take life. Ask, for example, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead by agents of the state in July this year when he was mistaken for a suicide bomber.

However awful the consequences of such an error, the state must continue to have our power, as part of its duty of protecting us. Yet we have, since 1965, been in the ironic position of having outlawed execution with trial, but continuing to permit execution without trial. I suppose there is a logic there, but I can't see it.

He makes this prediction:

If, over the next few years, the supply of cheap and illegal arms from Eastern Europe and the bandit states of the former Soviet Union continues to grow at the rate it lately has, the practice of random, casual shooting will become a normal part of our lives. Our police will be armed, but that will only feed the appetite.

On the advice of their spin-doctors, the rhetoric of politicians will become more and more tabloid in its vehemence. Home secretaries, and even perhaps prime ministers, will attend funerals and utter profound words of condemnation.

Yet, in time, such murder will be so widespread that it almost ceases to be reported. And only then will some radical politician reluctantly admit that capital punishment is the alternative to scrapping the rule of law.

Although Heffer was talking about random acts of gangster-esque violence, Australians have recently come face to face with evil on this scale. Faced with such apparrently irremediable savagery, one could be forgiven for agreeing with Heffer.

1 Comments:

Blogger Chip said...

Our death penalty works like this.
(by state, 39 have it or thereabouts)
1. Only murder (USC opinion)
2. No minors (USC opinion)
3. After conviction for 1st D murder with intent there must be a special penalty phase. The jury must weigh aggravating factors against mitigating circumstances to make it's decision.
4. Judge can accept the jury's opinion or not.
5. Automatic appeal to highest court in state, usually.
6. Heightened review of the case.
7. Usually enters federal system for review also.

The one exception to this is Tim McVeigh who went from trial to execution very quickly in the new federal death penalty regime. This, despite the prosecution dropping a ton of potentially exculpatory or mitigating evidence on the defense just before execution.

Jayna Davis, Clinton ignoring ME terror against US targets, makes ya wonder.

2:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home