George Whitmore Has Died - George Who?

[Guest]

Yes it all happened long ago and far away, but if anyone ever tries to reinstate the death penalty in UK or if some politician or pundit suggests that 'if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to fear' I hope that the tale of George Whitmore will show them how wrong they can be

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/opinion/who-will-mourn-george-whitmore.html?pagewanted=2

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A horrific story, ammie; thanks for bringing it to attention.

[teamsaint]

Yes, thanks for that, a very sad tale.

[mercia]

was it not the wrongful conviction and execution of Timothy Evans, based on false confessions, that hastened the abolition of capital punishment in this country?
[plus other cases of miscarriage of justice]

[scottycelt]

I find this an almost impossible subject to come down convincingly on one side or the other.

No doubt like many others my immediate reaction after hearing about the abduction of the little girl in Wales and the murder of two female police officers in Manchester was 'oh, for God's sake, bring back the death penalty for those ******** responsible!).

Very quickly though I then ponder on the possibility (even likelihood) of wrongful conviction and my mood changes instantly. There is also little evidence (look at the US.) that the death penalty would stop these awful crimes.

On the other hand, if it did turn out to be an effective deterrent in some cases, would more innocent lives then be saved by having the death penalty? If that were true one could easily argue that by not having it that would almost certainly mean indirectly condemning even more innocent folk to death.

Currently, I am against as I find the possibility/likelihood of the State itself executing a person not responsible for the crime just too much to accept or even contemplate.

However, as I also accept the State has a duty to protect its citizens, I can well see the other side of the moral argument, whilst remaining uncomfortable with it.

Not an easy one, amsey!

[Pabmusic]

was it not the wrongful conviction and execution of Timothy Evans, based on false confessions, that hastened the abolition of capital punishment in this country?
[plus other cases of miscarriage of justice]

What you say is largely true, although it was far more complicated. At the time of Evans's conviction, no one knew that the Evans's landlord, John Christie, a former Special Constable who lived in the same house, was one of the most vile serial killers ever. Evans's execution would have passed without comment in 1950. The comment began in 1953. after Christie was arrested. What followed was an unedifying spectacle of successive governments holding unsatisfactory enquiries until, as yet another enquiry found that Evans had probably not killed his child (for which he'd been hanged), but probably had killed his wife (for which he'd not been tried). By this time, Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary (1964) and he immediately recommended a posthumous pardon; the use of capital punishment for murder was suspended the next year and abolished in 1969. (The last vestiges of capital punishment did not disappear until 2003, when capital punishment in times of war, and certain military offences were abolished!)

The Evans case was not the only one to influence abolition. Capital punishment had already been put 'on hold' in 1948, pending a royal commission, but resurrected by the Churchill administration. Abolitionists (of whom my own father was quite vocal, apparently) took up the cases of Derek Bentley (1952) and Ruth Ellis (1956) in particular. The first victory was the 1957 Homicide Act, which abolished capital punishment for murder except in limited circumstances. More than 60 sentences were passed between then and 1964, and 29 carried out.

Today, no country in the 'developed world' has capital punishment, except 33 sates of the USA and Japan, and in two of those American states (New York and Massachusetts) it has been ruled unconstitutional anyway, so neither has carried out executions since the 50s or 60s. Of the remaining 31 states, two have not used it since before 1976, a further five have used it only once since then, and a further ten are still in single figures. The three most enthusiastic states have been Oklahoma (100 since 1976), Virginia (109) and Texas (486). The District of Columbia held a referendum in 1972 on whether to restore the death penalty. It was resoundingly defeated, even though DC is the 'murder capital' of the US.

The national figure for homicides in the USA is 5.6 per 100,000 of population. This varies from about 12 in Louisiana (and 22 in DC!) to about 1 in New Hampshire. The comparable figure for the UK (all jurisdictions) is 1.2.

[amateur51]

Many thanks for that clarification Pabs - a deeply unpleasant business that tipped the balance in favour of abolition, as you say.

As it happens, I'm reading Ludovic Kennedy's memoirs at the moment and your comments lead me to think I need to read his book about the Evans case

[Pabmusic]

Many thanks for that clarification Pabs - a deeply unpleasant business that tipped the balance in favour of abolition, as you say.

As it happens, I'm reading Ludovic Keenedy's memoirs at the moment and your comments lead me to think I need to read his book about the Evans case

It's a very good one - 10 Rillington Place - it was itself influential in the lead up to abolition.

[aeolium]

As it happens, I'm reading Ludovic Keenedy's memoirs at the moment and your comments lead me to think I need to read his book about the Evans case

ams, you could also read his very disturbing account of miscarriages of justice, Thirty Six Murders & Two Immoral Earnings. This does include a chapter on the Evans /Christie case.

[amateur51]

Aeolium & Pabs both - many thanks for these steers it's Deuchars IPA, hope that's ok

[Pabmusic]

...it's Deuchars IPA, hope that's ok

One of the very best.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Scotty's honest ambivalence in #5 is one that I have heard many people express. Certainly my gut reaction when I hear about a particularly sadistic, violent murder is a brief membership of the "cut off their goolies" camp; but it is precisely because of this knee jerk "instinct" that makes me believe that such reactions should be ignored: justice shouldn't be a matter of revenge, but of reparation. Scotty correctly says that "the state has a duty to protect its citizens" and these include the victims of miscarriages of justice - where there is the possibility of human error then a society cannot in good conscience tolerate the thought of a death penalty; and there is always the possibilty of human error. Nor is it genuinely effective as a deterrent: those socio-psychopaths who perpetrate the very worst types of crime believe themselves undetectable and above the law - they are deterred neither by by prison nor by a death penalty. And I don't think that anyone guilty of manslaughter (by its very definition a spur-of-the-moment "instinctive" act of violence) could have been put off by the existence of capital punishment.

And it's not inconceivable for the existence of a death penalty to lead to further murders; for example, when someone who shoots a shopkeeper in an armed robbery that "goes wrong" he might then go on to shoot any bystanding witnesses in order to protect their identifying him at a trial - if he's going to be executed, he has nothing to lose; if it's a prison sentence, he is more likely (if the first murder was unpremeditated) to leg it.

And, if society does sanction Capital Punishment, who is to be given the responsibilty of carrying out the execution? I don't think we can give somebody else the job of State Hangman with a clear conscience. It's not a "duty" anyone would willingly volunteer to do - and those nutters who gleefully claim that they'd do it "no worries" are the very people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the job interview - and not a responsibility we should delegate to anyone else.

So far, so uncontroversial (these are opinions held by the late Ian Gow, Tory MP for Eastbourne - murdered by the IRA - who made many public declarations to his constituents that if they wanted a return of Capital Punishment, they shouldn't vote for him). But I would go even further and say that taking life is an affront to civilization and that any society that condones and uses Capital Punishment is itself reneging on its duties and commitments to civilized values. Death Rows in US states are abhorrent: condemning murderers to years awaiting "justice" is the product of a sick, sadistic society. And where, with such a system, is the possibilty for remorse, penitence and (and I hope scotty isn't offended by an atheist's appropriation of the word - I can't think of an alternative) redemption? Faint possibilty, perhaps, in many cases; but civilization rests on many such faint hopes - I believe that we need to be better than those who commit atrocities, not join them.

[amateur51]

One of the very best.

Currently available at Wetherspoons Baker St at a fair £3 i think - very citrussy intially then spectacularly bitter & thirst-quenching & moreish

Does the reach of Wetherspoons' empire extend to Capiz? (he asks remembering just in time )

[amateur51]

Scotty's honest ambivalence in #5 is one that I have heard many people express. Certainly my gut reaction when I hear about a particularly sadistic, violent murder is a brief membership of the "cut off their goolies" camp; but it is precisely because of this knee jerk "instinct" that makes me believe that such reactions should be ignored: justice shouldn't be a matter of revenge, but of reparation. Scotty correctly says that "the state has a duty to protect its citizens" and these include the victims of miscarriages of justice - where there is the possibility of human error then a society cannot in good conscience tolerate the thought of a death penalty; and there is always the possibilty of human error. Nor is it genuinely effective as a deterrent: those socio-psychopaths who perpetrate the very worst types of crime believe themselves undetectable and above the law - they are deterred neither by by prison nor by a death penalty. And I don't think that anyone guilty of manslaughter (by its very definition a spur-of-the-moment "instinctive" act of violence) could have been put off by the existence of capital punishment.

And it's not inconceivable for the existence of a death penalty to lead to further murders; for example, when someone who shoots a shopkeeper in an armed robbery that "goes wrong" he might then go on to shoot any bystanding witnesses in order to protect their identifying him at a trial - if he's going to be executed, he has nothing to lose; if it's a prison sentence, he is more likely (if the first murder was unpremeditated) to leg it.

And, if society does sanction Capital Punishment, who is to be given the responsibilty of carrying out the execution? I don't think we can give somebody else the job of State Hangman with a clear conscience. It's not a "duty" anyone would willingly volunteer to do - and those nutters who gleefully claim that they'd do it "no worries" are the very people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the job interview - and not a responsibility we should delegate to anyone else.

So far, so uncontroversial (these are opinions held by the late Ian Gow, Tory MP for Eastbourne - murdered by the IRA - who made many public declarations to his constituents that if they wanted a return of Capital Punishment, they shouldn't vote for him). But I would go even further and say that taking life is an affront to civilization and that any society that condones and uses Capital Punishment is itself reneging on its duties and commitments to civilized values. Death Rows in US states are abhorrent: condemning murderers to years awaiting "justice" is the product of a sick, sadistic society. And where, with such a system, is the possibilty for remorse, penitence and (and I hope scotty isn't offended by an atheist's appropriation of the word - I can't think of an alternative) redemption? Faint possibilty, perhaps, in many cases; but civilization rests on many such faint hopes - I believe that we need to be better than those who commit atrocities, not join them.

I completely agree ferney. And we should remember than imprisonment for child or police murder, for example, is rarely a cushy number, despite what certain newspapers would have us believe.

[aeolium]

fhg msg 12

I think a reading of the Ludovic Kennedy book I mentioned earlier might make even committed supporters of capital punishment think twice about it. Not only does the book report on cases where some of those accused were almost certainly wrongly convicted and executed, but it covers more recent cases like those of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four where innocent men were wrongly imprisoned for a long time but of course would have been executed had capital punishment still been an available punishment.