Wednesday 19th September 2012 | 13:12

Philip Davies and Baroness Stern discuss whether the the reintroduction of the death penalty be a way to deter potential murderers

The House Dialogue - 13th September 2012

Would the reintroduction of the death penalty be a way to deter potential murderers? Yes, says Philip Davies MP. Absolutely not, replies Baroness Stern.

Philip Davies  < @parliament.uk                                                  

Sent: 18 August 2012 23:33                                                                                                                                                               

Dear Vivien, When the death penalty was abolished for murder in this country in 1965 the public were promised that instead we would have whole life sentences where life would mean life. However that was never the agenda of the liberal establishment and instead we have seen brutal murderers, who have killed in cold blood, and destroyed the lives of the victims’ families, released from prison to enjoy the remainder of their lives and, in too many cases, go on to kill again.

If somebody has callously taken away someone's life then surely the only appropriate punishment is for their life to be taken away too.

Obviously I understand the concerns people have about wrongful convictions, but that is not an opposition to capital punishment in principle. With scientific advances in areas such as DNA the chances of a wrongful conviction for murder are getting lower and lower, and with that the case for the death penalty gets stronger and stronger.

If you are opposed to capital punishment in principle I would be interested to know if you also believe it is unacceptable for somebody to be killed (eg shot dead by the Police) whilst they are literally in the act of committing a murder? Yours ever, Philip


Baroness Stern  < @parliament.uk
Sent: 23 August 2012 10:23                                                                                                                                                               

Dear Philip, Can I start with your proposition that when someone takes a life “the only appropriate punishment is for their life to be taken away too”. Here is the core of the disagreement between us. The state that represents our highest values and moral aspirations should not take life. It should demonstrate society’s profound rejection of unlawful killing of another human being, not by inflicting capital punishment, but through a public trial followed by appropriate punishment. And death can never be an appropriate punishment.  The 1965 Act which abolished the death penalty required that a life sentence be imposed for murder but included provisions for eventual release on life licence. Life sentence prisoners can apply to the Parole Board for release on life licence but they remain subject to recall to prison at any time. In that sense life does indeed mean life. The values of a civilised society require us to leave room in our penal system for a recognition of repentance and reform. And, briefly, when police are dealing with any life-threatening situation they make every effort to arrest a perpetrator rather than shooting because trial and punishment is the way to ensure justice is done and is seen to be done. Best wishes and I hope you are having a good break, Vivien

 

Philip Davies  < @parliament.uk                                                 
Sent: 27 August 2012 15:23                                                                                                                                                              

Dear Vivien, Stephen Ayre was a convicted murderer who, due to the penal policy you support, was released from prison and went out and abducted and raped a 10 year old boy in my constituency. That boy’s life has been ruined by your soft policy of wanting to see murderers back out on the streets. When you talk of the “highest values and moral aspirations” of your policy, is that what you have in mind?  If allowing a convicted murderer out of prison to commit such an appalling act represents the “highest values” then forgive me for not wanting to aspire to them. Even the most liberal anti-death penalty campaigners in Florida that I met recently believed a life sentence for murder should be a life sentence without any chance of parole. If that was the situation in this country I would be more inclined to reject the death penalty. Perhaps you can explain why you want murderers like Stephen Ayre walking the street to enjoy their freedoms when their victims will never be able to enjoy any freedom?

Do you believe that what happened to the 10 year old boy in my constituency and the people who have been killed by convicted murderers who had been released from prison is a price worth paying for your liberal dogma and ideals?

Best wishes

Philip

 

Baroness Stern  < @parliament.uk
Sent: 30 August 2012 12:08                                                                                                                                                               

Dear Philip, I am familiar with the terrible case of Stephen Ayre. But the death penalty would not prevent such tragedies. All developed countries, even those where some murderers are executed, have systems of parole for people convicted of murder and serving life. Those administering these systems must do their utmost to prevent further crimes and remember their duty to the victims of crime. You will remember the case of Naomi Bryant who was killed in 2005 by Anthony Rice, released from a life sentence for murder. Naomi's mother obtained a full court hearing under the Human Rights Act because the State had failed to protect life. So as the spending cuts bite deeper we must preserve the statutory Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) which require the police and others to provide intensive supervision. The death penalty is increasingly marginal to dealing with serious violent crime. Every year more countries get rid of it. In the US in the past year two more states have abolished it. An e-petition on the Government website calling for capital punishment to be restored attracted 26,349 signatures whilst a counter petition received 33,454 signatures. A more important priority is to develop policies that protect victims and reduce violence in the first place. Best wishes, Vivien

 

Philip Davies  < @parliament.uk                                                 
Sent: 3 September 2012 19:05                                                                                                                                                            

Your assertion that the death penalty would not have prevented Stephen Ayre from abducting and raping a 10 year old boy in my constituency is clearly nonsensical. If Stephen Ayre had been sentenced to death for the murder he was originally convicted of, then it is obvious he would not have been able to be released from prison and carry out his horrific crime on my constituent. I have sympathy for opponents of the death penalty who instead wish to see a life sentence mean life and for all murderers to be given a whole life tariff. However, for you to advocate convicted murderers being released back out into the community – at best living a life of freedom that their victims will never enjoy, and at worst going on to kill again – is something which I find sickening. In this country, due to the liberal elite which you represent, we have lost all sense of proper justice and the human rights of the criminal are given much greater importance that the rights of the victim and their family or the law abiding majority.  The system you defend is one which has led to utter contempt amongst the majority of my constituents in the criminal justice system.

 

Baroness Stern < @parliament.uk
Sent: 5 September 2012 12:54                                                                                                                                                          
 

I am sorry I did not make myself clear enough. Of course the death penalty would have prevented Stephen Ayre carrying out another crime – if he had been subject to it. But even in those democratic countries with the death penalty it is used in only a few cases, usually the most heinous, so there is no certainty about its application. Apart from the strong ethical arguments against it the death penalty is a flawed policy as a practical way of reducing violent crime and protecting victims. Because of its finality it leads to lengthy and costly legal processes. There is no convincing evidence from death penalty countries that executions provide consolation to the families of murder victims. It has no deterrent value, and with current policies the number of homicides in England and Wales has been falling steadily, from 904 in 2003/4 to 550 in 2011/12. This may explain why public support for it is waning. But every murder is a huge tragedy and our policies should reflect that. We must have well-resourced, long-term support for victim's families, meticulous assessment before release on licence and professional, high-quality supervision for those eventually released.