Whether the aboliton of the death penalty was correct, or not is both an emotive, and confused subject.
Since it was abolished the official rate of murders per quota of the population has doubled. I do accept that other factors should be taken into account such as immigration which has led to a large number of people entering, and living here who have no real concept of our Laws, and who often do not really care. Similarly, the advances in television have made the representation of murder ever more realisitc on our screens, and the small step from fantasy to reality is sometimes easy to make. In addition, the plethora of guns that have also entered the UK in recent years, despite numerous attempts to limit them, must also play a part. Neverthless there is no doubt our society is getting more dangerous and something will have to change to stop it.
In any system there are going to be mistakes made, and the recent release of Mr Hodgson is a case in point. No one would like to see the conviction of an innocent person. But one should also take into account the safety of the majority of the population. If a murderer is hanged, then no other person will be a victim. What would be your own feelings if your child was murdered by someone released from prison for a similar offence?
Now some have argued that life should be the ultimate penalty, but even here the new EU directives from our unelected masters ensure that we can no longer give a life sentence. There has to be a finite time limit, and I doubt the American policy of 150 years would be accepted. If some one is in jail for a long time there will always be someone somewhere who feels that justice is not being carried out correctly and argue for release. After all some people wanted Myra Hindley to be released, but fortunately natural death removed the need for a decision. They will always argue that the offender has changed and is no longer a threat. Who can really tell if that is true , or not, and if you are wrong??? Another innocent victim gets it.
There have been a number of well publicised cases of so called miscarriages of justice, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. However, I am always a bit worried that in many cases no other person is convicted of the crime and therefore feel that often political convenience is the spur to the decision. Any case that revolves around the 'Irish Question' is definitely in that category. In the case of Derek Bentley there is no doubt that he did indeed tell his accompolice to 'Let him have it' and as the accompolice was pointing a gun at the time then if I had been at the scene at that time, then I would have been in no doubt what was going to happen next. We should also remmeber a police man was killed in cold blood, and although Bentley did not pull the trigger he was a integral part of the robbery team and therefore has to accept responsibility.
Anyway, as I hear today that Josef Fritzl has been sentenced to life in a hospital for his crimes, I am sure there are many who would feel he got off very lightly. There is even a legal possibility, although slight at this time, that he could be released one day. I also watched the movie 'Changeling' the other day and there the prepetrator received a sentence of 2 years solitary confinement, and was then hanged.
Which was the more appropriate scenario? I do not know but my feelings lean towards the latter.
Facebook
Twitter