WI the death penalty (in Britain) never abolished?

[alt_historian]

Inspired loosely by this thread:

The death penalty for murder was abolished in Britain in 1965. What I want to know is, is there a plausible way this could not happen, or (maybe more plausibly) not happen until a lot later?

Also, could it have been re-introduced at some point? A private member's bill is presented in Parliament each year calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder - it seems to be something of a Commons tradition now - but it is always voted against. Could something happen for the death penalty to be reintroduced?

PS Yes, I do realise the death penalty still applied a long time after 1965, for specific offences like espionage and treason. I'm not talking about that.

 

[ninebucks]

Practicing Capital Punishment would be against the principles of the EC/EU. And would probably result in Britain's expulsion, (I know that's an unprecedented step, but I doubt Europe would like to include a nation that murders in its club).

 

[Zafuel]

But considering how difficult it was to join the Community in the first place, would Britain even join. We'd be ideologically further from Europe and closer to the States, I'd guess.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Practicing Capital Punishment would be against the principles of the EC/EU. And would probably result in Britain's expulsion, (I know that's an unprecedented step, but I doubt Europe would like to include a nation that murders in its club).

If Britain retained the death penalty, would Europe have its anti-execution principles in the first place? After all, if one of the founding members of the organization continues to practice this, then it wouldn't be a Europe-wide consensus anymore.

And it's only murder if someone is unjustly executed (IIRC it was one such execution that precipitated Britain abolishing the penalty).

 

[ninebucks]

If Britain retained the death penalty, would Europe have its anti-execution principles in the first place? After all, if one of the founding members of the organization continues to practice this, then it wouldn't be a Europe-wide consensus anymore.

And it's only murder if someone is unjustly executed (IIRC it was one such execution that precipitated Britain abolishing the penalty).

European Abolitionism comes from the experience of the Holocaust. Following that atrocity, the idea that the state should ever have the right to kill those it is pledged to protect became entirely unacceptable. Opposition to capital punishment is fundamental to the European set of principles, I don't think any leighway would be given to national governments on this subject.

And on your second point, as far as I'm concerned, murder is murder is murder, even if perpetrated by the government. Furthermore, when a state executes, all of its citizens are accessories to the crime, seeing as they all consent to the state's existance, (albeit if only tacitly). Obliging people to take part in murder seems to me to be the height of inhumanity.

 

[alt_historian]

If Britain retained the death penalty, would Europe have its anti-execution principles in the first place? After all, if one of the founding members of the organization continues to practice this, then it wouldn't be a Europe-wide consensus anymore.

And it's only murder if someone is unjustly executed (IIRC it was one such execution that precipitated Britain abolishing the penalty).

European Abolitionism comes from the experience of the Holocaust. Following that atrocity, the idea that the state should ever have the right to kill those it is pledged to protect became entirely unacceptable. Opposition to capital punishment is fundamental to the European set of principles, I don't think any leighway would be given to national governments on this subject.

And on your second point, as far as I'm concerned, murder is murder is murder, even if perpetrated by the government. Furthermore, when a state executes, all of its citizens are accessories to the crime, seeing as they all consent to the state's existance, (albeit if only tacitly). Obliging people to take part in murder seems to me to be the height of inhumanity.

Ahem.

France - one of the founding members of the ECSC, EEC etc, executed it's last person - by Guillotine - in 1977.

So much for "no leeway being given" to national governments on this issue.

Please do a little research before making such blanket statements. You only look silly when someone calls you on it.

I do agree with your second point, though.

 

[carlton_bach]

Looks like another candidate for Political Chat.

Regarding the POD I'd say what you need is a shift in the social climate. The 50s and 60s were a time of liberalisation and progress on many fronts in the western world, and though the abolition of the death penalty was controversial, it was eventually realised. It is, BTW, not a founding principle of the EC but rather one that was later adopted. With Britain still having it on the books but already being a member, there is a small chance it could not come to pass, but it is much more likely Britain would give it up, giving conservatives even more to howl about.

Now, if Britain had a slightly more conservative climate or if there was media coverage of some particularly gruesome crimes, it is quite possible that the death penalty would not be taken off the books. The idea not universally popular. I can't see how it could not be significantly limited, though (maybe each capital case requires automatic appeal to the Law Lords and Her Majesty's signature or something).

If it makes it into the 80s, it will stay at least until New Labour. The conservative groundswell at the time will mae sure the threat of the gallows will be regarded as a pillar of economic success and the roast beef of old Engfland, and all that, God Save the Queen. Despite being practically never used. You need a really massive change of public opinion to get support for large numbers of executions in today's Britain, even after Thatcher, the IRA and the London tube bombings.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

Like a lot of social legislation that occurred during the 1960s under Wilson, given a less populist PM after the youth vote - Beatles' MBEs and lowering age of majority to 18 etc. - and one less open to liberalising British law (albeit conservatively), I'd imagine they'd come along sometime during the 1970s and early 1980s due to a new Govt recognising it could capitalise on reform.

Of course, the Moors Murderers would've been hanged.

 

[MerryPrankster]

And on your second point, as far as I'm concerned, murder is murder is murder, even if perpetrated by the government. Furthermore, when a state executes, all of its citizens are accessories to the crime, seeing as they all consent to the state's existance, (albeit if only tacitly). Obliging people to take part in murder seems to me to be the height of inhumanity.

How nice and collectivist. I suppose it's all right for Al Qaeda to attack the citizens of states that offend their sensibilities, either by occupying Iraq (US, Britain) or existing (Spain, Israel), since their citizens are all accessories.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If I recall correctly, the death penalty was abolished in Britain in part due to an innocent man being executed (I think he was a mentally-retarded guy some murderers pinned the crime on).

Avoid this situation and Britain might retain the death penalty, at least for awhile longer.

 

[carlton_bach]

How nice and collectivist. I suppose it's all right for Al Qaeda to attack the citizens of states that offend their sensibilities, either by occupying Iraq (US, Britain) or existing (Spain, Israel), since their citizens are all accessories.

I rather suspect that opposition to the death penalty because it is murder would entail, you know, opposing the killing of people even if they are guilty of murder?

 

[Goldstein]

I suppose it's all right for Al Qaeda to attack the citizens of states that offend their sensibilities, either by occupying Iraq (US, Britain) or existing (Spain, Israel), since their citizens are all accessories.

No, that's not right. That's precisely why the terrorists who did the Madrid bombings were sentenced to 40.000 years of prison. There is no such thing as a just execution.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I rather suspect that opposition to the death penalty because it is murder would entail, you know, opposing the killing of people even if they are guilty of murder?

But the mindset is still the same--somehow everyone is responsible for the government's decision.

That also reeks of Fred Phelps-ism--because the US government doesn't outlaw homosexuality, it is just for God to punish *all Americans.*

 

[Admiral Canaris]

No, that's not right. That's precisely why the terrorists who did the Madrid bombings were sentenced to 40.000 years of prison. There is no such thing as a just execution.

If a prison is a real prison (e.g. Spandau for the Nuremberg-sentenced), as opposed to the vacation-homes they are in Sweden and some other locales, I believe it's worse to spend the rest of your life in there than to be killed quickly and mercifully.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

And on your second point, as far as I'm concerned, murder is murder is murder, even if perpetrated by the government. Furthermore, when a state executes, all of its citizens are accessories to the crime, seeing as they all consent to the state's existance, (albeit if only tacitly). Obliging people to take part in murder seems to me to be the height of inhumanity.

Eh, what the crap? Assuming you're even right in the first place, that capital punishment=murder, which I don't agree with BTW, how can you be responsible for it as an individual? What if you're a Bleeding-Heart Socialist(TM) or Laissez-Faire Libertarian(TM) regular, have been so for your entire life, and have consistently voted for candidates opposed to CP? That kind of blanket statement doesn't ring quite right.

 

[ninebucks]

Eh, what the crap? Assuming you're even right in the first place, that capital punishment=murder, which I don't agree with BTW, how can you be responsible for it as an individual? What if you're a Bleeding-Heart Socialist(TM) or Laissez-Faire Libertarian(TM) regular, have been so for your entire life, and have consistently voted for candidates opposed to CP? That kind of blanket statement doesn't ring quite right.

I'm denying the idea that governments somehow enjoy a degree of exceptionalism when it comes to blame for their actions.

If you were to regularly donate money to, and enjoy in return the services of, a murderer, that would make you complicit in murder*, no?

*EDIT: Knowing well in advance that your patronage will be used to fund his murderous rampages.

 

[Earling]

The problem with such logic is by what right does the state have to inflict any punishment upon an individual.

Depriving someone of his life rather than his liberty for so long as he lives is worse in a practical sense because should it be a mistake life cannot be restored.

Yet if you don't condone the state commiting murder since any form of murder is wrong, on what grounds do you condone the states removal of liberty or property, since such acts would be considered crimes if commited by individuals in just the same vein.

 

[ninebucks]

The problem with such logic is by what right does the state have to inflict any punishment upon an individual.

Depriving someone of his life rather than his liberty for so long as he lives is worse in a practical sense because should it be a mistake life cannot be restored.

Yet if you don't condone the state commiting murder since any form of murder is wrong, on what grounds do you condone the states removal of liberty or property, since such acts would be considered crimes if commited by individuals in just the same vein.

Ah, the Anarchist's dilemma! While it may not be logically consistant, I concede the state must exercise some kind of corporal authority, in order to secure the public good. However, according to common morality, murder is something in an entirely different league - and, importantly, execution has no practical purpose whatsoever, it doesn't deter, it doesn't save money and it definately doesnt rehabilitate! IMHO, association with an executing state amounts to a association with a murderous gang of thugs.

 

[MerryPrankster]

But taxes are mandatory--they're NOT donations.

 

[Landshark]

If I recall correctly, the death penalty was abolished in Britain in part due to an innocent man being executed (I think he was a mentally-retarded guy some murderers pinned the crime on).

Avoid this situation and Britain might retain the death penalty, at least for awhile longer.

That would be the case of Bentley and Craig, and while it was a cause celeb at the time hangings in the UK continued for another eleven years, (the last was in 1964).

As with most social changes of this type there was no one single incident that caused the death penalty to be abolished but rather a steady shift over to that side of the arguement caused by various things like the Bentley case, the Evans case and the Hanratty case, all of which for one reason or another eroded public support for hanging.

There was a groundswell of public opinion in favour of reintroducing the death penalty in the wake of the Braybrook Street Massacre in 1966 and had abolishion not already occured it might well have been delayed by a decade or more.

However it is perhaps best that the death penalty was abolished when it was, otherwise we would have the spectre of IRA terrorists facing the hangman's noose and all the problems that would bring.

We would also have the possibility of several dozen people released from gaol in the late 80's and 90's when their convictions were overturned being granted postumous pardons instead.