The Student Room Group

Capital Punishment – Why it is wrong and immoral

It is hard to believe that it is less than 50 years ago that capital punishment was used widely across the UK. With the prospect of a rightwing coalition government looking more likely with the rise of UKIP in the UK. I have absolutely no doubt that the issue of the death penalty will be back on the political agenda to some extent in the next few years particularly if UKIP are to have any say in government policy. There are many reasons as to why I am fundamentally against the restoration of capital punishment in the UK. It is also important to distinguish between whether a person deserves to die for the crimes that they committed and whether that individual should receive the death penalty for what they did as they are two entirely different things.

One of the reasons on why I am against it is because miscarriages of justice have happened before and will happen again in the future. There is of course the famous case of Timothy Evans who was executed in 1950 for a crime he did not commit. Evans was convicted of murdering his daughter when in actual fact he was living in the same house as a man named John Christie. Three years after the execution of Evans, Christie was found to be a serial killer who had killed his own wife and many other women. It was concluded that Christie was in fact the murderer in the case and that an innocent man had been sent to an early grave due to the incompetence of the British state in investigating the case.

Another case where a miscarriage of justice occurred was the case of the Guildford 4. A very good film is based on this case called “In the Name of the Father” featuring Daniel Day Lewis as the late Gerry Conlon, one of the so called Guildford 4. The Guildford 4 was a case where three young Irish men and a young Irish woman were convicted of planting a bomb in a pub which killed 5 people including 4 soldiers in the British army in 1974. These people were all innocent of the crime which was committed by the provisional IRA. These people had all been tortured by the police force which was the reason why they had confessed and was the only evidence in the trial where they were convicted. These people would have most likely received the death penalty had the death penalty not been abolished in the 1960's for the crime of murder. Another case is the case of the Scotsman Kenny Richey who was released in 2009 after spending 21 years on death row in the state of Ohio in the USA. This case highlights the problem of the plea bargaining system in the USA as Richey accepted a plea bargain pleading no contest to the charge where he would be sentenced to time served just to get off death row despite the possibility that he was completely innocent of the crime. Had Richey been sentenced to life imprisonment he may have appealed and went for a full retrial rather than have accepted the plea bargain where he may have been cleared of all charges against him and won compensation.

Another reason I have for being against the restoration of capital punishment in the UK is that I believe it is utterly hypocritical for the state to put someone to death for killing someone else. I believe it goes against basic human rights (Funnily enough UKIP and the Conservative party are both in favour of scrapping the Human Rights Act) and that it would demean our society if we ever reinstated the death penalty. Even in cases where the perpetrators are monsters such as serial killers and child killers I still oppose the idea of putting these people to death. In punishing monsters I believe we must never become monsters ourselves. We need to show that it is the basic human decency which separates us from the monsters.

I can now think of another case where I think that there is another benefit of not having capital punishment. It is the case the of the infamous Moors murders where Ian Brady and Myra Hyndlay murdered 5 innocent children in the mid 1960's. The death penalty had been abolished just months before the trial while both of the killers were being held in detention. Had they been put to death in 1966 or around this time the secrets about the fate of the victims Pauline Reade and Keith Bennett would have gone with them. Pauline was found in 1987 giving her family a form of closure and whilst Keith never was, at least his mum, Winnie Johnson found out what happened to her son instead of having to live in the forlorn hope that he'd one day turn up. This is a case where it was beneficial for the family of the victims that their killer/s were alive and could give information which gave a form of closure.

Another reason I have against the death penalty is that I believe that it is a myth that the prospect of receiving a death sentence would act as a deterrent in whether someone thought of killing another person. I can't say with absolute certainty (as I have never killed anyone) but I highly doubt that the thought of the ramifications of their actions would deter someone from committing a crime. Many homicides are committed by people in the heat of the moment where they have absolutely no time to think about the possible consequences if they are caught (I am not defending these crimes but just debunking the theory that capital punishment deters people from committing criminal offences, specifically killing another person). On a personal note, I would much rather be sentenced to death than live the rest of my life in a jail cell where my basic freedoms and liberty was taken away by the state. Many people also believe that it is a waste of peoples taxes to keep people who have committed horrible crimes alive. Research, in the USA however shows that it is much more expensive to be on death row than to receive a life sentence.

Another point is that executing someone who has killed someone will not bring any of the deceased back to life. The hanging of Saddam Hussein in late 2006 did not bring any of his victims back (many of whom were slaughtered by the weapons given to him when he was the closest ally of the Western powers) and that it is also fair to say that he received a much nicer and dignified death than many of his victims. A death sentence for George W Bush and Tony Blair also would not bring any of the victims of the illegal and immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan back to life. I believe that these two men are evil and responsible for millions of avoidable deaths in the name of Western imperialism and deserve everything that happens to them but I don't believe any society should sanction their deaths as this would put us on the same level as these people.

Another point I have is that there is a bias in who receives the death penalty based on things such as social class, race and gender and not based solely on the crime itself. People who are from working class backgrounds are far more likely to receive a death sentence from the state than people from more privileged backgrounds. Black people in the US are also heavily discriminated against in the USA compared to people from a white ethnic background. This is because of things such as poor people not being able to afford lawyers who are as good and issues like racism. There is also the chance that a jury may also be more reluctant to convict someone where the death penalty is on the table for a possible sentence in the event that the accused is found guilty of the crime than a case where the death penalty is not on the table.

The criminal justice system should try to rehabilitate people back into society and not be based purely on punishing people for the rest of their lives which does no one any good. Many people who have committed violent and vicious acts have genuinely expressed remorse for what they did and in my opinion some of them deserve a second chance as some people do change and are rehabilitated back into society. This may be controversial but I recall back in 2010 where John Venables, one of the killers of the infant Jamie Bulger back in 1993 was arrested for an offence committed after he was released from prison as an adult with a new identity. The crime he committed has never been revealed but I remember the hysteria among much of the public that these two boys (both 11 years old at the time) who were responsible in the Bulger tragedy should have received the death penalty. We all heard in the mass media about Venables who had allegedly committed an offence (which could have been something as trivial as a non payment of a fine or smoking marijuana) but we heard nothing about the fact that the other perpetrator in the Bulger case, Robert Thomson had not and has still not been in trouble as far as I am aware since his release back in 2001.

In conclusion it is my opinion that there is justice and there is vengeance. I believe that capital punishment certainly comes under the latter category. It is not worth risking the possibility of putting someone to death who may have been completely innocent of the crime and I believe that it would act as a slippery slope where the establishment had more opportunity to frame people who they seen as obstacles to the system to get them out of the way. I believe that the abolition of the death penalty in the UK was one of the best decisions a society could make and I hope that we never ever live in a society that uses such a primitive form of justice which in the end does no one any good.

Scroll to see replies

Did you mean to post all that here or did you intend to save it in a folder marked 'A-Level Law Homework' and pressed the wrong button?

Anyway I agree, if there is the slightest chance that the state could murder an innocent person then capital punishment is unacceptable.
Didn't read, doubt most people will. But yes, to take a life to show that killing is wrong? Nah. I'd rather have them locked up for life (And by life I actually mean life)
Reply 3
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
Did you mean to post all that here or did you intend to save it in a folder marked 'A-Level Law Homework' and pressed the wrong button?

Anyway I agree, if there is the slightest chance that the state could murder an innocent person then capital punishment is unacceptable.


Meant it, I do take it as a compliment too :smile:
I do believe that there are some crimes that you should pay for with your life. If you have committed a crime that has ended or ruined someone's life, you deserve everything you get.
However, in practice I am opposed to the death penalty because of the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Also you cannot give terrorists the death penalty as they will be seen as heroes, encouraging further terrorism. We cannot let terrorists live whilst killing other criminals.
Reply 5
Ian Hislop sums it up.

[video="youtube;_DrsVhzbLzU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU[/video]
Original post by izpenguin
I do believe that there are some crimes that you should pay for with your life. If you have committed a crime that has ended or ruined someone's life, you deserve everything you get.
However, in practice I am opposed to the death penalty because of the possibility of miscarriages of justice. Also you cannot give terrorists the death penalty as they will be seen as heroes, encouraging further terrorism. We cannot let terrorists live whilst killing other criminals.


I agree with the second half.

However, if we are going to have the death penalty (thinking purely theoretically now - assume they are guilty), we should know exactly why. I'm not an expert on moral philosophy, but, naively, I can think of three reasons for punishment:

1. Rehabilitation.
2. Retribution.
3. Removal for others' safety / lower costs / improve society.
(added: 4. Deterrent.)

1 and 3: The death penalty clearly doesn't fit 1., and if we get into 3. things become rather chilling. In fact, 3. only really works in less developed societies where it's easy to kill people - the prolonged and expensive death row situation in America suggests 3. isn't really the reason in modern society.

2: That leaves retribution. I have problems with this too. It's not that they 'don't deserve' it - it's more the purpose it actually serves. The main point of retribution is to match pain with pain. This causes satisfaction to the avenger, either through a feeling of 'fairness' or through inducing genuine regret from the prisoner. If the prisoner is capable of regret, the probably don't deserve to die (this is debatable, but I'm happy to debate it when I have more time). If they're pure psychopath, it's like kicking a lawnmower - you might feel better, but it's an illusion that you've actually made anything better.

Further to this, the death penalty is final, so even as retribution it's not particularly useful. The prisoner has no time to reflect. There have been accounts from victims' families in America who say they just feel a great sense of loss when the murderer is executed, because there's nothing left to blame, or understand, or try to make realise what they've done.

Also, it's the anticipation of death that's the punishment, not death itself, so if we want retribution not removal we would be better off bringing back torture.

4: That leaves deterrent. For this, it's arguably effective. However, statistics show there is no less crime in places with the death penalty, so perhaps not.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Octohedral

4: That leaves deterrent. For this, it's arguably effective. However, statistics show there is no less crime in places with the death penalty, so perhaps not.


I'm ignoring/deleting the rest of your post as I generally agree.

Studies have shown that the death penalty (as compared to life imprisonment) has a negligible (if any at all) effect as a deterrent. In fact after a certain point...more sever punishments lose their deterring effects.
What is the purpose of the justice system? Well there's a simple answer, it's purpose is justice. Let's not forget here that justice isn't a mean to an end, it's an end in and of itself. Part of justice involves an element of punishment for wrongdoing. We need to stop looking at justice in terms of it being a tool that leads to practical benefits but in terms of it being a right and good thing in and of itself.

In this way we can actually justify (at least in theory) the idea of capital punishment as being permissible within this framework. That isn't to say that other things like rehabilitation and it working as a deterrent aren't good things (they are) but they're not the heart of justice they are things auxiliary to it.
Original post by BefuddledPenguin
Did you mean to post all that here or did you intend to save it in a folder marked 'A-Level Law Homework' and pressed the wrong button?

Anyway I agree, if there is the slightest chance that the state could murder an innocent person then capital punishment is unacceptable.


Then you shouldn't have supported our conduct in the Second World War, or the bombing of Serbia and invasion in Iraq if you supported that too. Because that would be hypocritical. Murder levels were far far lower when we had capital punishment, not because we want to kill people but to deter them from doing so in the first place.

Only a pacifist can say they are against the death penalty for the problem of innocent life.


Posted from TSR Mobile
This: Why do we kill people who have killed people to show that killing is wrong?
Original post by turn-to-page394
This: Why do we kill people who have killed people to show that killing is wrong?


To deter them from killing in the first place.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TornadoGR4
Didn't read, doubt most people will. But yes, to take a life to show that killing is wrong? Nah. I'd rather have them locked up for life (And by life I actually mean life)


Suppose I kidnapped a random innocent person against their will, took them into a secure building and locked them in a small room for months, giving them food etc. in order to keep them alive, but denying them their usual freedom to go outside wherever they please. By force, I keep them as my prisoner.

Obviously I have committed a crime, and ought to be punished. What do you suppose my punishment should be? A prison sentence?
Original post by tazarooni89
Suppose I kidnapped a random innocent person against their will, took them into a secure building and locked them in a small room for months, giving them food etc. in order to keep them alive, but denying them their usual freedom to go outside wherever they please. By force, I keep them as my prisoner.

Obviously I have committed a crime, and ought to be punished. What do you suppose my punishment should be? A prison sentence?


Different situation. Murder is on another level to that. That's almost like saying if you steal then the person you stole from should get to take stuff from your house.

Besides, prison isn't just being locked in a room & fed. Very bad things happen in there. I've heard of people convicted of murder hoping for the death sentence rather than spend the rest of their life in prison.
Original post by TornadoGR4
Different situation. Murder is on another level to that. That's almost like saying if you steal then the person you stole from should get to take stuff from your house.

I would say that, if you steal from someone, the person you stole from is fully entitled to take back the thing that you stole. Wouldn't you?

Can you explain your argument a bit more thoroughly? What do you mean by "murder is on another level"? What exactly are these distinct "levels" you're talking about?

Your argument so far has been simply to point out the "hypocrisy" of punishing a killer by killing them. I would say that it's not hypocritical at all. The criminal killed an innocent person, while the legal system is killing a guilty person, and therein lies the difference.

Just as, if I build a prison and lock an innocent person in it, I'll probably be sent to prison myself. Is this hypocritical? Once again, no. Locking up an innocent person is different from locking up a guilty one.
Original post by tazarooni89
I would say that, if you steal from someone, the person you stole from is fully entitled to take back the thing that you stole. Wouldn't you?

Can you explain your argument a bit more thoroughly? What do you mean by "murder is on another level"? What exactly are these distinct "levels" you're talking about?

Your argument so far has been simply to point out the "hypocrisy" of punishing a killer by killing them. I would say that it's not hypocritical at all. The criminal killed an innocent person, while the legal system is killing a guilty person, and therein lies the difference.

Just as, if I build a prison and lock an innocent person in it, I'll probably be sent to prison myself. Is this hypocritical? Once again, no. Locking up an innocent person is different from locking up a guilty one.


Well said.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tazarooni89
I would say that, if you steal from someone, the person you stole from is fully entitled to take back the thing that you stole. Wouldn't you?

Can you explain your argument a bit more thoroughly? What do you mean by "murder is on another level"? What exactly are these distinct "levels" you're talking about?

Your argument so far has been simply to point out the "hypocrisy" of punishing a killer by killing them. I would say that it's not hypocritical at all. The criminal killed an innocent person, while the legal system is killing a guilty person, and therein lies the difference.

Just as, if I build a prison and lock an innocent person in it, I'll probably be sent to prison myself. Is this hypocritical? Once again, no. Locking up an innocent person is different from locking up a guilty one.


So...if guilt is a justifying factor...what entitles the state to be the one to kill a murderer, or to imprison a kidnapper, and not someone else? Is it justifiable (and therefore should not be criminal) for someone to punish a killer by killing them?
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
So...if guilt is a justifying factor...what entitles the state to be the one to kill a murderer, or to imprison a kidnapper, and not someone else? Is it justifiable (and therefore should not be criminal) for someone to punish a killer by killing them?


I would not say it is justifiable for an average civilian to just punish a killer by killing them (or doing anything to them for that matter), because the alleged criminal needs to receive a fair trial from qualified judges, in order to be sure that they are being rightfully punished. The state is entitled to be the ones to administer the trial and the punishment by virtue of the fact that they are elected and appointed to do so by society as a whole, on whose behalf they are acting.
Original post by tazarooni89
I would not say it is justifiable for an average civilian to just punish a killer by killing them (or doing anything to them for that matter), because the alleged criminal needs to receive a fair trial from qualified judges, in order to be sure that they are being rightfully punished. The state is entitled to be the ones to administer the trial and the punishment by virtue of the fact that they are elected and appointed to do so by society as a whole, on whose behalf they are acting.


So do you believe that whatever the elected officials and qualified judges decide as punishment from a trial is then end all? It is merely up to their whims or is there some kind of justification needed for their decisions? For example, if say there is a case where someone has murdered and they are found guilty but their punishment is set for 3 months of house arrest, do you believe that is the end of it? What I'm asking is, is it merely up to the whim of judges and elected officials then what is the 'right' punishment?

I would also ask for you to clarify what this moral importance is of the judges and elected officials is in the determination of punishment...They are elected by society 'as a whole' but does this give them moral superiority to other citizens?
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
So do you believe that whatever the elected officials and qualified judges decide as punishment from a trial is then end all? It is merely up to their whims or is there some kind of justification needed for their decisions? For example, if say there is a case where someone has murdered and they are found guilty but their punishment is set for 3 months of house arrest, do you believe that is the end of it? What I'm asking is, is it merely up to the whim of judges and elected officials then what is the 'right' punishment?


It's not up to the mere whim of one or two judges and elected officials. They are required to prescribe punishments according to a certain legal framework in order to reach a high degree of objectivity; one which is again devised by people (different people) appointed to do so by wider society. Verdicts are reached by independent juries, rather than one or two people by themselves. If someone is found to have committed a crime which society's appointed experts deem to be far more severe than to just receive 3 months of house arrest, it is then very unlikely that this is the only punishment they will end up receiving.

I would also ask for you to clarify what this moral importance is of the judges and elected officials is in the determination of punishment...They are elected by society 'as a whole' but does this give them moral superiority to other citizens?


It gives them the authority to act on behalf of the citizens of "society as a whole".
Someone has to determine and administer punishments; I can't personally think of anyone better.

Quick Reply

Latest