Death penalty is cold-blooded revenge

By James Treadwell on Feb 28, 08 11:34 AM in Crime

The conviction of Steven Wright and Levi Belfield for murder has seemingly re-opened one of the most popular of criminological debates, particularly among the red top newspapers: Should we bring back the death penalty?

It seems to periodically re-surface when the more extreme cases of homicide come to light. In many ways it is a discussion that I feel inclined to avoid writing about, preferring to believe that as a society we have moved beyond narrow retributive in terms of punishment and entered into a more considered and enlightened phase. I have little sympathy for individuals the likes of those mentioned above. I

I have sympathy with the families who have lost their loved ones. But I have little sympathy for the death penalty either, because, ultimately however we dress it up the issue of the death penalty is one of revenge - no more.

I can wholly empathise with the view that they hold that Belfield and Wright should pay the ultimate price, and I would hasten to add that I have never been in their position, never felt their loss and cannot comprehend the sense of pain that must be felt when a family member is taken from you in such horrific circumstances.

I would also state now, that I would concur with those who would point out that it is all well and good for me, removed from the realities of grief, suffering and loss to take against the ills of the death penalty.

I know full well, that should someone have done that to one of my family, I would want to administer the final act of vengeance myself. That is the reason that should I ever be the victim, I would and should be removed from that option. That is about revenge, and not about justice, and it is justice that our criminal justice system should be concerned with delivering.

Of course, it is easier to disguise that fact now. I recently witnessed Michael Portillo on the BBC science programme Horizon searching for a 'humane' way to deliver capital punishment. To me, that is a paradox, an utter contradiction. Surely killing isn't humane.

Yet In the modern world, it seems we often present capital punishment as if it is not an exercise in power, or revenge, but an act of humanity: The killing state kills, yet it strives to legitimate killing by representing it the act as if it is painless, sterile medical procedure. The lethal injection, behind-the-scenes can be procedural; the offender's life is terminated with a minimum of pain and physical suffering (seemingly) just like in America in the case of Timothy McVeigh.

Interestingly the one person who took exception with Portillo's quest was the American academic advocating the death penalty, who suggested revulsion at the idea of execution without pain, making it clear vengeance should rightly be the motive along the lines 'you think the poor victims don't suffer when these monsters slit their throats and beat the life from them'. At least his was an admission that revenge is the motive underscoring the death penalty, and his lack of human concern for those who offended was not shielded away.

Yes, in some cases the perpetrators' are monsters; in some cases they may be evil; but by refusing to sanction the killing act, we make ourselves better than them. We re-enforce our humanity.

Even behind closed doors, delivered in a 'seemingly' humane way, the death penalty is, for me, a sordid, brutal and ugly because it is vengeance. Death fuelled by vengeance, and in the clamour for vengeance the perpetrators get to kill again.

If the death penalty were re-introduced Wright and Belfield would surely have got it, yet they would have got something else. They would have got to kill a piece of our collective humanity and take it with them.

Comments (4)

Older/Newer

« What's the future for Birmingham? | Birmingham Town Hall: a history in pictures »

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Death penalty is cold-blooded revenge. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/388

4 Comments

Steve X said:

Harold Shipman killed himself, as did Fred West. Ian Huntley tried to. They can't face what they did and want to end it.
Bringing back the death penalty would have done them a favour. Much better to put them in a prison with other people who aren't quite as vulnerable as their victims and who might have forthright opinions about their crimes...

Additionally, murder is often an emotionally-driven crime. The death penalty should not be brought back for crimes where the perpetrator is experiencing mental disorder.
And miscarriages of justice can never be reversed.

I would, however, bring back the death penalty for people who throw chewing gum on the floor/bus seats and for happy-slapping juvenile thugs.

And burglars.

These people never have any remorse and society would be so much nicer without them.

February 28, 2008 9:31 PM

Getafix said:

As the original piece states, this is something of a dead issue. However much the masses might claim they want it back, the political classes have made up their minds that the death penalty is not going to make a return to these shores. By and large I believe this is a good thing. As the previous post notes, there is no way of reversing a miscarriage of justice if you've executed the wrong person. This is in itself probably the only reason necessary to maintain the current ban.

However, I think many people share sympathy for those who support the death penalty. There are criminals for whom, surely, mere imprisonment is too good. At the very least then, it would be good to see an increase in prison places and an end to early releases on the grounds of prison over-crouding. It might allow us to keep people locked up who should never be allowed back in to society.

Why not also find some way of making prisoners pay for their wrong doing in prison. Is hard physical labour such an uncivilised punishment?

March 3, 2008 2:46 PM

Dudley Sharp said:

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

Death penalty opponents say that the death penalty has a foundation in hatred and revenge. Such is a false claim.

A death sentence requires pre existing statutes, trial and appeals, considerations of guilt and due process, to name but a few. Revenge requires none of these and, in fact, does not even require guilt or a crime.

The criminal justice system goes out of its way to take hatred and revenge out of the process. That is why we have a system of pre existing laws and legal procedures that offer extreme protections to defendants and those convicted and which limit punishments and prosecutions to specific crimes.

It is also why those directly affected by the murder are not allowed to be fact finders in the case.

Calling executions a product of hatred and revenge is simply a way in which some death penalty opponents attempt to establish a sense of moral superiority. It can also be a transparent insult which results in additional hurt to those victim survivors who have already suffered so much and who believe that execution is the appropriate punishment for those who murdered their loved one(s).

Far from moral superiority, those who call capital punishment an expression of hatred and revenge are often exhibiting their contempt for those who believe differently than they do.

The pro death penalty position is based upon those who find that punishment just and appropriate under specific circumstances.

Those opposed to execution cannot prove a foundation of hatred and revenge for the death penalty any more than they can for any other punishment sought within a system such as that observed within the US - unless such opponents find all punishments a product of hatred and revenge - an unreasonable, unfounded position

Far from hatred and revenge, the death penalty represents our greatest condemnation for a crime of unequaled horror and consequence. Lesser punishments may suffice under some circumstances. A death sentence for certain heinous crimes is given in those special circumstances when a jury finds such is more just than a lesser sentence.

Less justice is not what we need.

A thorough review of the criminal justice system will often beg this question: Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims?

The punishment of death is, in no way, a balancing between harm and punishment, because the victim did not deserve or earn their punishment, whereas the murderer has earned their own, deserved punishment by the free will action of violating societies laws and an individuals life and, thereby, voluntarily subjecting themselves to that jurisdictions judgment.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.

Pro death penalty sites

homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html

Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.

March 11, 2008 11:03 PM

emma said:

yes bring the death penalty back and wales to.

March 4, 2009 7:42 PM