Recently appointed Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party Lee Anderson has been attacked for doing the worst thing you can do in today’s politics: he has said what most people think.
Anderson’s pro death penalty comments, namely that “Nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed” will be welcomed by over half of the country, who, according to polls, believe in capital punishment for certain heinous crimes such a multiple murders, terrorist murders and child murders.
Beyond the media hysteria, it is a reasonable position. Consider the case of Arthur Hughes, the six year-old child who, at the time of death, was covered in 130 bruises, and had been poisoned with salt. Much of the abuse was captured on camera. Why should his killers get to live?
In a world where things like CCTV can give us incontrovertible evidence, there is a stronger case for the death penalty than ever. Modern technology, where available, deals with the legitimate fear of wrongful execution. If we could agree to employ capital punishment only in such cases where the evidence was undeniable, this common objection is removed.
Readers of this site may also be concerned with handing the state that kind of power, and yet we already have a military entrusted with dealing out death, and far less sparingly (at least, assuming our military ever functions again).
Many also seem to forget that the abolition of the death penalty in this country was pushed through by the radical socialist Sydney Silverman, to the point where opposing capital punishment is now taken for granted as the only acceptable position by allegedly conservative commentators like Isabel Oakeshott.
But whatever your views on the death penalty itself, the attacks on Lee Anderson for daring to give his opinion on the subject are yet another example of the radical divide between the people and the political and media elite.
Rishi Sunak has already distanced himself from Anderson’s comments, stating: “That’s not my view, that’s not the Government’s view.”
So it seems that once again the long-standing views of ordinary British people are simply not allowed. More than that, they are despised.
Self-described “progressive liberal” and former editor of the Sun David Yelland called Anderson a “neanderthal northerner”, though he misspelt “neanderthal”, and apparently didn’t realise Anderson is from the Midlands. Thus Yelland managed to use a two word phrase in which both words were wrong. Almost impressive.
Geographical error aside, the intention was clear, and as a proud Cumbrian Homo sapiens I take it extremely personally. The north remembers.
And the people will remember. Lee Anderson will be hounded by the media and political class, while voters silently register their disgust, and vote accordingly.
Only to get a Labour Government even more in thrall to the metropolitan elites than the Tories, but that is for another day.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
As you say, when the death penalty was law, the solving of crime and following trial was more down to people’s opinions than actual evidence!
Nowadays dna and modern forensics make a far more viable case for its return
If only the tech was used by benevolent people for benevolent ends all the time…
Once more, it is the bigotry and distain of the elitists for their fellow citizens that comes to the fore, rather than any form of constructive discussion. They are right and we are wrong, and thats that.
(I say this as an agnostic on the death penalty. I doubt that it is really a deterrent, which would be the only reason for me to support it, imo.)
It is juries of ordinary citizens that decide… not elitists.
How long are jury trials intended to be the practice?
Probably up to the point where juries realise the power lies with them and refuses to convict people for crimes against the oligarchy – then they will be abandoned
I don’t have much of an opinion one way or the other on capital punishment. More fundamental seems to me to be the lack of interest from successive governments in enforcing the laws we have properly, preventing crime, locking up violent criminals for a substantial length of time. Never mind the death penalty, I would settle for non politicised law and order, putting victims first and a much more public police presence at times and places where you actually might welcome seeing one.
The penalty for any crime is of little importance if there is little likelihood of being caught, tried and the sentence imposed.
I was reading some essay from Theodore Dalrymple in which he said that in Spain for example by the time you have committed 7 crimes, you are in jail. In the UK I think it was 104. Burglary and theft, offences against property aren’t even investigated any more.
On Wednesday morning I took me dog out and discovered 3 untethered shaggy horses on the grass opposite my house. By the time I’d reached the end of the road a police car had arrived.
So: if you’re burgled, report stray horses, enjoy a speedy response, tell the cop the horses have gone but, while he’s here, could he investigate the burglary!
(I wonder if it helped that the PA to the Chief Constable – a lovely woman – lives in the village?)
If you want a burglary investigated, you’d be better off reporting an offensive Tweet. “Oh, and while you’re here…”
“me dog”
How didn’t I spot that?
Not a chance, her living in the village is just a happy coincidence
Death by hanging is swift… if done properly. Death terrifies all animals, and in Humans knowing the how and when is particularly frightening.
However, that misery is short-lived and after death is oblivion.
I wonder which really is the worst punishment, a swift death or a lifetime of imprisonment in an institution, in very unpleasant circumstances, and for some offence living in solitary confinement for safety?
it’s a consideration which works both ways. Are those arguing against death penalties really being kind and those for are they really being harsh?
There is the minor issue of cost to also consider. It will cost far less to execute someone who is without doubt guilty of murder (ie the piece of scum who beheaded Lee Rigby) than keep the incarcerated, possibly in solitary confinement for their own protection, for 30 years+ or in rare cases, the rest of their natural life.
I’ve always thought it interesting that here in the Netherlands, for instance, we do not have the death penalty but euthanasia and assisted suicide are both totally legal. I find it quite the juxtaposition for what would be deemed a ”civilized society”. I realise it’s the ending of life for different reasons but how can one legitimately be in favour of one but find the other abhorrent? I think it all comes down to the lies people tell themselves in order to justify one thing whilst opposing another but it does smack of hypocrisy, some might say. Can a person really be a little bit immoral?
FWIW, I’m in favour of euthanasia and capital punishment under strict guidelines and criteria. I think the fact you can get assistance to die over here, just because you’re depressed, for example, whereby the doctor hands you the lethal dose as opposed to you doing it yourself, definitely a step too far though.
Of course, none of “our Masters” in Parliament, including Lee Anderson, will admit that whilst we remain under the control of the ECHR we would not be permitted to reintroduce the death penalty.
I’m afraid Mr Anderson is just being used by the LibCONs to pretend that the Not-a-Conservative-Party really IS a broad church and represents the views of the great unwashed working class in the hope that at least some of the betrayed Red Wall voters will voted to be CONNED again.
It doesn’t: not a single thing he supports will EVER find its way into LibCON Policy.
Surely the main point regarding Lee Anderson’s comment is to argue that we should allow open debate on the death penalty, and not vilify people for their views on the subject.
I do think that ascribing too much power to the state is in general dangerous, as it could be abused by a more authoritarian government, which seems to be the direction in which we are headed.
Yes. I have no problem with the the death penalty as Nick puts it “…for certain heinous crimes such a multiple murders, terrorist murders and child murders.”
My problem is that in a world where the State seems happy to change the meaning of words such as “terrorist,“ “vaccine,” “pandemic,” “violence” etc., it would not be long before “murder” was changed to fit some politically motivated agenda and innocent people would get executed.
“In a world where the State seems happy to change the meaning of words…innocent people would get executed.”
My position also. This so-called government and whatever comes next most certainly cannot be trusted.
If a government spokes person told me today was Saturday I’d think, “aye, aye, what are they up to now?’
Well exactly. The irony being that the government are basically responsible for killing citizens as we speak ( jabs and midazolam/morphine death protocol ) these last 2 years, are they not? And yet people who are chronically sick/terminally ill and suffering cannot end their lives in a dignified manner if they so wish? Jesus wept! The double standards at play is breathtaking! If Matt Hancockwomble publicly states he is opposed to euthanasia then he is the mother of all hypocrites.
Yes. When will be “terrorists” for spreading “dangerous misinformation”?
Right about now, I think.
I actually align with Isabel Oakeshot in my stance on the death penalty. I have several arguments against capital punishment:
First, if the objective is to dole out a punishment that is equal to or greater than the crime, who’s to say a death sentence is worse than multiple back-to-back life sentences (ensuring the convict remains behind bars for life)? Imagine being in a prison filled with inmates, whose crimes almost certainly were nowhere near as bad as yours, and vehemently despise you for what you’ve done, while you have the rest of your miserable guilt-ridden existence to contemplate your evil deeds… That, I’m sure, is a fate worse than death!
Second, if the death penalty is to become a legally-issued sentence for anything, then it always leaves the potential for the law to evolve and for it to become applicable to a broader range of crimes. Once the state machinery is being used to dole out death, who knows where that could lead? How about death for all those climate deniers!
And as for widening the scope of applicability for capital punishment, that also widens the scope for wrongful conviction – you can’t undo death for someone who is posthumously acquitted!
As RTSC mentions above, I think the most cost effective and efficient thing to do is dispatch the psychopathic scum, where there can be no doubt of their guilt. The problem with the prison system in the West is that, as soon as offenders enter prison, they are ironically entitled to have their human rights respected. For instance, they get 3 square meals/day, a roof over their heads and don’t freeze to death in winter, which is a damnedsite more than innocent homeless people experience. Plus, how much money do you think the likes of Myra Hindley, Ian Brady or Rose West cost the British tax payer over the course of their imprisonment? It’s a no-brainer to kill them, but apparently Clown World logic dictates that it’s the innocent elderly folk who are denied treatment for their pneumonia or the inhabitants of nursing homes/disabled residences who have DNR orders placed on their notes who have their lives cut short. TPTB are killing off the wrong people. ”Useless eaters”? Start with the prisons/max security mental institutions.
British politicians on the whole may find capital punishment abhorrent yet have demonstrated few qualms in taking innocent peoples lives in illegal wars such as Iraq.
Personally, I’m OK with the idea that some people have committed such heinous crimes that they do not deserve to live. I believe this principle extends beyond the “common killer” and should include anybody who causes or instigates the unlawful death of another person through whatever means, including knowingly administering harmful medical procedures without informed consent.
The problem I have with capital punishment is not the idea itself but the criminal justice system which would apply it. The police and courts are now so highly politicised and morally bankrupt I’m not sure they could be trusted, in their present form, to use the death sentence appropriately. We’ve seen how it is abused in other corrupt states – that is not justice. There is a proverb in the Bible which says “Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent. God hates both these things”. We need our criminal justice system to be impartial and free from political influence and corruption. Then we can talk about capital punishment.
It’s confusing the Elite wet their pants withe excitement at the prospect of sending weapons to Ukraine to kill Conscript Russians and Civilians (by accident)
But it’s inappropriate to kill home grown cold blooded murderers
Excellent point
The problem with the death penalty is as soon as you decide the right of life belongs to the highest power in the land you then have to factor in those who think the highest power lies elsewhere – God, Allah, The Greater Good etc. Its simpler and more ethical to say no one, including government, has the right to take life. Instead there should be full life terms and they should be given to every single person who knowingly and deliberately takes a life, without exception and without parole.
Until we arrive at a position where we are able to trust our government and associated leeches I think we must avoid the push for capital punishment lest it be used against us.
It is rather horrific to admit that many members of the executive have decided that for whatever reasons large numbers of people in this country will not be allowed to live out full and natural lives although they have no interest in the ‘who’s’ just the ‘how manys.’ I believe it is our responsibility, if we can turn the tide, to at least be specific as to the ‘who’s.’
Gosh, I could write a whole essay on this!
First though, LA must be allowed to say what he believes if this is still a free country. However, why/how on earth wouid we ever trust the police? Has justice been done to Assange? Haven’t there been many instances of people wrongfully arrested and imprisoned (even through and connected with Covid times)? How can we trust a broken legal/police system full of Freemasons? (Peter Hitchens in today’s Mail on Sunday is very relevant,)
But the question I would really like to deal with (because, for various reasons, it is close to my heart) is why more is not done to deal with the huge level of crime (probably mostly drug related) amongst mainly young boys/men. Why is it that those at the lower levels of the hierarchy are the ones who get caught while the big dealers appear to go from strength to strength? Why are these mainly low-level-in-the-hierarchy boys/young men never given a chance to go straight but picked up on the slightest infringement of nitpicking rules imposed upon them? Why aren’t they helped to get out of the vicious cycle of enslavement to their overlords?
So, no, although I think that capital punishment is sometimes merited, I would never trust the powers that be in this country to administer true justice. Only God does that – and one day he will, to every single one of us. If we are in Christ, this should be reassuring: people may get away with hideous crime(s) on earth, but ultimately they will receive justice from an absolutely just God.
Yelland, editor of a risible publication famous for the headline “Freddie Starr ate my hamster”
Lee is great. People will agree or not agree with stuff people say and that is what we want in a free society. When you censor free speech it is tyranny and you are no longer living in a free society, and everyone who passes comment on this site knows that. So Lee needs to watch his step, because one wrong sentence will see him go the way of Mark Steyn, who could have still been on GB News had he played the regulators game a bit more cannily. The liberal progressive, wokery pincer movement are tracking your every sentence Lee. ——-Watch how you go mate.
I think cold blooded mass killers, child rapists/killers, terrorists (the kind that kill people, not the Left’s version of a “terrorist” which is anyone that disagrees with their woke groupthink) should be able to choose between life without parole OR the death penalty.
The convicted offender would get to choose at sentencing. If they opt for Life without Parole they would have the opportunity to change their mind annually. That way The State cannot accidentally (or deliberately) choose to kill people, only the killers/child rapists themselves would be able to do that once convicted.
If a person knows they were wrongly convicted of a horrific crime they would opt for Life without Parole and go through the usual appeals process. That way The Left and the anti-death penalty do-gooders won’t be able to argue that innocent people would be wrongly executed by order of the courts.
There is a GE in less than two years!!
Again it’s time for the Tories to play to the centre Right gallery for their votes. “Talking tough” is the Conservative Party equivalent of the pantomime seasonal favourite Mother Goose . It’s rolled out at every GE. This time around it will be starring Lee Andersen, John Redwood, Steve Baker, Suella Braverman, Pritti Patel, Kemi Badenoch and Jacob Rees Mogg.
Reportedly, tickets to the centre Right gallery seats are not selling well. Perhaps people have grown tired of the plot and decided to give it a miss this time around.
More hypocrisy from the political class. After what they mandated during covid refusing to even look at the deaths and injury from their policies continuing to this very day. And these policies were refused a fair court of discussion.
What Sunak or the government thinks is not important. It is the People who are Sovereign and its the People’s voices who should be heard!
People Power Now!
Anything to distract us from their own criminal pushing of untested medical and non-medical interventions that have caused massive harm – Oh yes, that old chestnut capital punishment should do the trick …