One Reason I Oppose The Death Penalty
There are a few reasons why I think the death penalty (thankfully banned in the UK) is wrong and ridiculous. Other than the obvious ironic nature of “killing a killer”, the fact that it goes against all human rights, and it being the cheap way out for governments, there is the problem of miscarriages of justice.
Let me put you in the picture. You have recently turned 40, you have no qualifications, and an estimated IQ of 75, putting you in the bottom 5% of the country. Additionally, you are suffering from mental and personality problems. You have an interest in guns and because of previous charges of stalking, you are classed as an eccentric.
The police arrest you for the murder of a TV personality, who worked for the BBC, an organization you worked for in the past, but at a low level. You are tried and wrongly convicted of shooting her once in the head, even thought the only piece of physical evidence is a tiny portion of gun residue in your coat pocket. You are sentenced to life imprisonment.
An unlikely verdict, but one that happened 8 years ago to Barry George, now 48, who was accused of murdering popular TV presenter Jill Dando. Instead of looking at the evidence, the prosecutors simply pointed the finger at George and built the case up to suit his character. He never pled guilty, and has always protested his innocence from jail. Even his ex-wife vouched for him, saying she was “certain” he could never kill someone.
Circumstantial evidence and a lousy police investigation robbed this man of 8 years of his life. It could have been more. If the death penalty had still been in place, he might have been executed, and he would have lost everything. People like Barry George need care, not prison. Yes, he was a “messed up” individual, but not one that plans and commits murder. The £1,000,000 compensation he will get from the government won’t make him forget the last 8 years, and Jill Dandos murderer is still out there.
Now, in most cases it takes more than a simple murder to get you the death penalty, but this entire trial proves, if anything, that anyone can get it wrong. There is no need to kill people for their crimes. It doesn’t make things better, and it isn’t a deterrant.
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Follow me on Twitter!
Loading ...
Hi, Adrian. You’ve touched on one of my favorite topics. Capital punishment seems to be one of those things that people will hold onto long past the time when it was generally thought to be necessary or just. Canada abolished it in the late 1970s (early 1980s? can’t remember, I was much younger then) and some people still think that was a bad idea.
Apart from miscarriage of justice — which is bad enough, and quite possibly worse than we know — there’s the question of what effect executions have on the executioners. I would never wish to tell my adoring child that part of my job was to put people to death. I understand that prison personnel in the United States get extra pay for assisting at executions.
Not enough extra, I bet.
weemaryanne
3 Aug 08 at 12:15 pm (GMT)
I believe in the death penalty if the person is 100% proven guilty. Many people are convicted and circumstantial evidence is suppose to be the only proof. Also there is alot of railroading people into prison. My friend Bill was convicted of second degree murder of a Phila. hot dog vender in 1985(His best friend).There was no crime scene and a man who lived with him said that Bill killed Marc and he said he was with Bill to help clean up the blood and dispose of the body. At first Jeff said he did not know who killed Marc and then he came forward an hr later and said he didn’t want to get his family in trouble and then stated my friend Bill killed the victim. Of course there was no DNA in those days, only a chemist and there was a little bit of blood on a paper towel from Bills girlfriends cut fingernail and she said she took the papertowel and put it under the seat instead of throwing it away. The blood type was suppose to match the victims and Bill kept saying they made up evidence. Of course they couldn’t give him 1st degree murder because in reality they didn’t know for sure if he killed Marc or not. My friend was and still is a great worker and great guy. He never had any record of drugs,alcohol, traffic, theft or violent nature, but very harmonious and agreeable to be around and still is. The question is why didn’t Jeff serve time in prison also for helping to dispose of the body. Jeffs whole family has a criminal record and one brother was just murdered in prison a year ago. Jeff definately knew what happened to Marc because he was there to help clean and dispose of Marcs body with his criminal brothers. It was a brutal murder and would take more then one person to do what was done to this man. He was wrapped in green plastic bags and dumped in a secluded area about 15 miles outside of Phila. There was also blood found on Bills kangaroo boots and Jeff was wearing those boots on that day. Jeff lived with my friend Bill. They say there is no injustice in the universe and what you sow you reap. All comes back to the sender, mathmatically exact. Are we all re-incarnated and pay for our previous crimes?
Doris Tracey
3 Aug 08 at 1:30 pm (GMT)
Nobody is ever convicted, even to a life sentence, unless they are “100% proven guilty”. But courts get it wrong. There are many people who would have been executed before later evidence arose subsequently. The moral tone of the times is relevant too, what was “deserving” of death in the wild west may not be so deserving now. Even today, you could be 100% certain of guilt, confession and video pictures and DNA and everything else you want, but after execution the crime could possibly still be mitigated (if not justified) by later discovery of abuse or coercion or other factors. Basically, state murder is used by those states who don’t want certain people to speak up later.
RNB
3 Aug 08 at 8:09 pm (GMT)
You say nobody is ever convicted of a life sentence unless they are 100% proven guilty. Well how about those people on death row who they have checked for DNA and were found innocent. They don’t check lifers for DNA unless they go through a prison procedure.They can be denied. I know my friend is innocent and he wants his DNA checked, but the prison says that lifers cannot always have it done the inmates on death row are checked as a priority.
Doris Tracey
4 Aug 08 at 12:43 am (GMT)
Well I guess this would depend on your country I would say. I can think if you have a better class of society one can look at it as a more moral choice. Unfortunately in a third world country you get criminals who are so destitute that they won’t mind sitting in prison, and with no death penalties you get people who actually do whatever they want just because there is no threat to their own life and it is not as if their standard of living will decline in prison (it actually may even improve). I tell you once you’ve seen a majority of these guys rape, sodomize and kill adults and the worst, children - you will quickly change your mind. There will always be the falsely accused unfortunately, but they are in a minority in country like this.
fabrulana
4 Aug 08 at 9:08 am (GMT)
Doris, I did not mean to mislead you. I was not at all saying that everyone currently convicted/executed is definitely guilty, I was only saying that today “in theory” nobody should be convicted unless the evidence is 100% certain, or as close to that as reasonably possible. But I thought my note was clear that firstly we are never sure despite prosecution assertion of certainty, and secondly even if we are certain that we have the right person, there may be mitigating circumstances that explain the action.
And however miserable are conditions in the third world as a free person, even one who has to steal to eat, I would guess that conditions in third world prisons would be worse.
RNB
4 Aug 08 at 5:11 pm (GMT)