NOTICE: The following
article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to
violate their copyright. I will give some information on them. In memory of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, I will post this article by Simon Heffer.
PAGE TITLE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
ARTICLE TITLE: The case for capital
punishment
DATE: Wednesday 23
November 2005
AUTHOR: Simon Heffer
AUTHOR INFORMATION: Simon James Heffer (born 18 July 1960) is a British journalist,
columnist and writer, noted for his conservative political views. He was
educated at King Edward VI's School, Chelmsford, and Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge, where he read English and subsequently took a PhD in modern history.
He joined The Daily Telegraph as a leader writer in 1986 and had since held the
posts of chief leader writer, political correspondent, parliamentary sketchwriter,
comment editor and deputy editor.
 |
| Simon Heffer |
The case for capital
punishment
By Simon
Heffer
12:01AM
GMT 23 Nov 2005
About 15 years ago I found myself at a
conference of those with an interest in matters of law and order. I am, to this
day, not sure why I was asked, other than inadvertently to provide light
entertainment.
After a few hours in the company of probation
officers, criminologists, a few prototypes of what we now know as the
Politically Correct Senior Policeman and various others from the rehabilitation
industry, I realised I would probably feel less out of place at a Tibetan
religious festival. It may be uncouth, but I always feel pronounced prickles of
discomfort when in the presence of those who devote themselves to making the
lives of the downright wicked as comfortable as possible.
We waltzed into a plenary session about the
need to curb serious crime - murder, rape, armed robbery, drugs trafficking,
all those little things that make life in our inner cities so vibrant today.
When I uttered the fact - not at that stage reinforced by an expression of
opinion, but simply a fact - that the murder rate had quadrupled since the
abolition of capital punishment, an embarrassed silence permeated the room. It
was as if my personal hygiene had suddenly taken a turn very much for the
worse.
Afterwards, however, I was approached by a
meek, mild little gentleman, who turned out to be a Professor of Ethics at one
of America's leading universities, and an adviser retained by the police
departments of several major cities. He wanted to apologise to me for not
having spoken up in my support, but explained that he had felt intimidated by
the weight of liberal opinion engulfing us.
As we shook hands and I urged him not to be
concerned, he told me a story. "Of course capital punishment works. In
China recently they had a drug problem. One day, they took out 6,000 drug
dealers and shot them in the back of the head. The result: they don't now have
a drug problem."
Now before you reach for your pens or your
computer keyboards, I should clarify that I am not advocating the mass
slaughter of criminals in this country, agreeable though that might be to many
people. We are not a repressive or barbaric state, at least not yet. The rule
of law suggests that we do things more moderately here: but many would,
equally, say too moderately.
When Lord Stevens, the former Commissioner of
the Metropolitan Police, argued on Sunday that his opposition to capital
punishment had been overturned by the shooting of a policewoman in Bradford last
week, he was joining that usually silent band of intelligent people who feel
that society affords inadequate protection to the innocent. And, predictably,
he has been vilified for it by a noisy minority who, in the security of their
comfortable existences, feel that anyone even suggesting the restoration of a
death penalty for murder in this country must be certifiably insane or a
complete pervert.
I regret that Lord Stevens did not advocate
this course when he still held his high office, for his opinion then would have
counted for far more. After all, plenty of police officers were murdered on his
watch while trying to do their jobs, like poor WPc Beshenivsky last week. I
also disagree with him on one point: why argue for restoration purely for those
who murder police officers?
Why is that a more heinous crime, or more
deserving of the ultimate penalty, than (for example) the slaying of two little
girls in a school caretaker's house, or the shooting of a woman jeweller by
those who have determined to rob her - to cite just two shocking crimes of the
past two or three years? Is there not a new cheapness of human life, bred by
the easy availability of illegal firearms and a lack of deterrence from using
them, and do not all potential victims deserve an equal protection from the
state against it?
For, be in no doubt, although we forfeited 40
years ago the right of the state to impose the capital sentence after a fair
trial in a court of law, the state still reserves to itself the right to take
life. Ask, for example, the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead by
agents of the state in July this year when he was mistaken for a suicide
bomber.
However awful the consequences of such an
error, the state must continue to have our power, as part of its duty of
protecting us. Yet we have, since 1965, been in the ironic position of having
outlawed execution with trial, but continuing to permit execution without
trial. I suppose there is a logic there, but I can't see it.
The murder of WPc Beshenivsky has brought
renewed calls for the police to be armed: these calls, given the practice
common in other Western societies, are likely to become overwhelming. However,
various consequences would flow from arming the police that might prove harder
for society to deal with than the simple restoration of a death penalty.
It would probably encourage criminals to arm
themselves more routinely, so as to stand a sporting chance against robocop.
Innocents would be killed in the crossfire or, as in the case of the
unfortunate Mr de Menezes, by mistake. There would be justified calls for tough
mandatory sentences for those who carry arms, whether they use them or not: but
with many quite serious murderers being released from jail after 14 or 15
years, even the most stupid criminal would probably reason that he had nothing
to lose by pulling the trigger, since he would stand to be punished just as
severely for not doing so.
No: heavier sentences for those who carry
arms, which are certainly justified, only work if there is an even stronger
sanction - the penalty of death - for those who kill in the course of criminal
activities. And if you have a death penalty, you don't need to make our society
even more dangerous, and our police held in even more suspicion than they are
now, by arming officers on the beat.
This, though, is where politics comes in.
After 1965, restorationists faced the immovable obstacle of liberal opinion,
enthroned as it was in government, Parliament and in the offices of the sages
of the quality press. It little matters to these controlling forces of power
and influence that every opinion poll shows a huge majority in favour of the
return of capital punishment. That majority is, in their view, comprised of the
ignorant, the vicious, the unthinking, and all those other adjectives that make
up that supremely patronising term of abuse, "saloon bar opinion".
As far as the governing class is concerned,
they will continue to favour rehabilitation over punishment. And, as they do,
the governed for their part will obligingly fulfil their part of the deal, and
continue to be murdered.
However, even if the elected representatives
of the British people were to have a moment of revelation, and see just how
their liberal experiment has failed, they would be powerless to reverse the
process of appeasement that they so wilfully initiated. Our position as a
member of the European Union now precludes us from using capital punishment.
Those who mourn WPc Beshenivsky can add to the list of her murderers the high
contracting powers of the EU, who dictate to a supposedly sovereign and
independent nation rules about not just how it can punish its criminals, but
what lengths it may go to protect its people.
That is why Lord Stevens, and those who think
like him, have no chance for the foreseeable future of having their
restorationist wishes granted. Indeed, it is why there isn't really any point
in having a debate about it - which is why the outrage provoked by the death of
one exceptionally brave woman should serve to remind us not just of her
sacrifice, or of the evil of her murderers, but of our own fundamental
impotence in trying to do anything about the forces that slew her.
If, over the next few years, the supply of
cheap and illegal arms from Eastern Europe and the bandit states of the former
Soviet Union continues to grow at the rate it lately has, the practice of
random, casual shooting will become a normal part of our lives. Our police will
be armed, but that will only feed the appetite.
On the advice of their spin-doctors, the rhetoric
of politicians will become more and more tabloid in its vehemence. Home
secretaries, and even perhaps prime ministers, will attend funerals and utter
profound words of condemnation.
Yet, in time, such murder will be so
widespread that it almost ceases to be reported. And only then will some
radical politician reluctantly admit that capital punishment is the alternative
to scrapping the rule of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment