Today we’re publishing two pieces about the Lucy Letby case, one by Frank Haviland arguing that the unspeakable nature of her crimes makes an eloquent case for capital punishment, the other by David Livermore arguing that the uncertainty about her guilt makes an equally eloquent case against.
Lucy Letby: The Case For Capital Punishment
by Frank Haviland
The monstrous case of Lucy Letby reminds us that the devil wears many faces. The particular evil in this instance is that she chose to hijack the compassion afforded by a nurse’s uniform to facilitate her crimes. While abhorrent, this should not surprise us; where else should evil gravitate, if not to those professions which grant immediate access to the vulnerable, the young, and the trusting? The malevolent hide in plain sight within the police force, masquerade as teachers, and perhaps vilest of all, occasionally pose as medical staff too.
Letby was sentenced last week to 14 whole-life jail terms for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others during her time at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016. Although this already makes Letby Britain’s worst infant serial killer, these numbers are conservative. Cheshire Police have confirmed they will be examining the records of 4,000 babies Letby may have come into contact with, alongside fears that she harmed dozens more.
There are an inordinate number of questions raised by the case itself: why is CCTV not mandatory in every ICU in the country, when Britain is the most heavily-surveilled nation in the world, bar China? Why did NHS managers think it acceptable to instruct doctors “not to make a fuss” about babies dying suspiciously? Why were the alarm bells not tolling furiously when insulin was discovered in the bloodstream of victims, at a time when no babies were being prescribed the drug? Notwithstanding the courage of many medical staff in raising concerns, why did they not simply circumvent the chain of command and call the police themselves once it became clear that their managers were unforgivably negligent? And worst of all, what kind of arse-covering sadist delays contacting the police for almost two years, prioritising the hospital’s ‘reputation’ over the lives of new-borns? The nation applauded the NHS during the pandemic; I suspect it won’t do so again in a hurry.
Then, of course, there is the interminable discussion about what ‘drove’ Letby to her crimes – in a desperate bid to exonerate her from their wickedness. I must confess, despite my psychology background, I cannot summon up the requisite curiosity. While others may well stress the importance of preventing future cases of infanticide (a forlorn hope, given the well-documented ability of psychopaths to dodge detection), I find myself supremely indifferent to an exposition of the elements of Letby’s life that might assuage her guilt. Letby is not the victim here.
Instead, I wish to ask an alternate question: does Letby deserve to live? We must recognise, surely, that when it comes to punishment for crimes of this severity the law is wholly inadequate. The ultimate suffering caused by the murder of a child cannot be recompensed, even if the state were so inclined (which of course it is not); a reflection poignantly voiced by the victim impact statement of Baby C’s mother:
There is no sentence that will ever compare to the excruciating agony that we have suffered as a consequence of your actions.
We must also concede that the British justice system is so chronically biased in favour of the perpetrators, as to be morally bankrupt. Early release is the norm, not the exception. British jails now come equipped with gyms, satellite television in cells, and cash bonuses for good behaviour. Life is so cushy in fact, that inmates (sorry, ‘residents’) no longer bother trying to escape.
While knee-jerk reactions are naturally to be avoided, after a suitable interval the debate on capital punishment needs to be reopened. Yes, that would necessitate leaving the ECHR (no bad thing, seeing as the Convention hamstrings Britain in terms of immigration, while remaining an abomination to victims of crime), but I am firmly of the belief that the UK justice system is now lenient to the point of derision, and that such a debate might serve to counter that.
Unlike most controversies, I consider the death penalty genuinely conflicting. The arguments against it are compelling, so let’s examine them. On the morality of state execution, I recognise the point that society ought to conduct itself better than its worst citizens. The trouble is, such an approach leaves us enfeebled to precisely those who seek to take advantage. It is witnessed by wishy-washy laws which have permitted Letby’s refusal to attend her sentencing, when anyone sane would agree she should have been dragged kicking and screaming into the courtroom.
There is also the question of whether capital punishment is genuinely a superior punishment to life imprisonment. Judging from the propensity of serious criminals to take their own lives rather than face perpetual incarceration, a case can clearly be made. This point was also echoed in the victim impact statement made by the mother of babies A and B:
We hope you live a very long life and spend every day suffering for what you’ve done.
Then there’s the issue of mental illness. In the case of Letby herself, I am not persuaded to any considerable degree. She took great pains to vary her means of murder in a bid to avoid detection. She managed to regulate her behaviour to the extent that she did not attack willy-nilly, and was never caught in flagrante. If we are to afford her the defence of diminished responsibility on the grounds of psychopathy, why not excuse bank robbers on the grounds of kleptomania? But even if mental illness were to absolve her of responsibility for her crimes, so what? Why should her predilection for infanticide trump the right of the innocent to live, or deny the victims’ parents the right to cherish them? Letby had a choice; her victims didn’t.
By far the most persuasive argument to my mind is the undeniable reality that mistakes are made. This has certainly been the case historically, and is likely to remain so until human error and interference is taken out of the equation entirely. I would therefore propose the following caveats to any future implementation of capital punishment:
- That it could be used only in extremis, for the absolute worst crimes.
- That it could only be used in cases of certainty – where a confession had been given, or where the video evidence was irrefutable.
- That it could only be used at a judge’s discretion, and would require sufficient justification and authorisation.
The morality of such an argument was expressed poignantly by Margaret Thatcher back in 1987:
Exactly such an approach is also favoured by the majority of the British public, for whom the most serious crimes are enough to tip a minority position into a reliable majority. And therein lies the moral case for capital punishment: some crimes are so unforgivable that the majority of decent people will condone it, despite their natural revulsion. The crimes sufficiently odious to achieve this are terrorism, mass murder and the murder of a child. On a personal note, I would add treason to that very short list (by which I mean betrayal of one’s country, thereby incorporating elements of all three).
So, for Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who decided to decapitate Lee Rigby in broad daylight, I would advocate the death penalty. In the case of Dahbia Benkired, who confessed to the tortuous and sadistic murder and dismemberment of 12-year-old Lola Daviet, I would not hesitate. And for Lucy Letby, where the weight of circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and whose revulsion at her own crimes was exposed by her handwritten confession “I am evil and I did this”, I believe the threshold has been met.
Let me be clear – I am not making the case for capital punishment on mere financial grounds, on the matter of deterrence, nor to free up valuable prison real estate (although such arguments are not inconsiderable, and need to be heard). No, my opinion is based purely on moral grounds. In denying the most innocent of victims their fundamental right to life, you have forfeited your own. You have stolen the birthdays, the rites of passage, the future generations and the memories – not just from those you killed, but from their families; those who will never escape the prisons you have condemned them to. In so doing, you have destroyed not one, but multiple lives. Society much demand a heavy price for that.
There is a concern here never voiced, which is the danger of the absence of justice. Allowing so vile an act to go largely unpunished speaks to a perverse and morally vacuous society – the consequences of which cannot be desirable. The taxpayer-funded relative comfort and isolation which awaits Letby would be quite welcome to some members of the public, let alone criminals. And while the festering slums employed as prisons by some of our European cousins would be more appropriate for the likes of Letby, she will not be housed there. Letby’s jail apparently features a fashion boutique and the possibility of animal visits – one wonders if the RSPCA will be quicker to object than the NHS were?
By all means make the case against capital punishment (it’s a strong one). But ask yourself this: how are you going to feel when Letby decides to gender transition in order to move to a prison with a bit more of a nightlife? What will your reaction be when the BBC offers her her own podcast, or she lands a 12-part Netflix series and book deal? It hardly bears thinking about, because you can guarantee that someone, somewhere is weighing up precisely that financial opportunity.
The paralysis of uncertainty only afflicts the good, while ideological certitude justifies many acts of wickedness. Britain is currently drowning in a sea of its own misguided compassion. A constant trickle of rapists and criminals posing as asylum seekers are waived through by the Border Force because our leaders aren’t confident enough to simply say ‘No’. Children are routinely mutilated under the guise of inclusivity, because society is no longer willing to protect them. And extradition flights are grounded, as though it were tacitly understood that the human rights of murderers outrank the lives of those they may well go on to kill.
Even though we cannot bring them back, morality demands that the tiny tots murdered in this case be given some semblance of justice. As for the fate of Miss Letby, let us give her the last word:
I am a horrible evil person.
The world is better off without me.
I don’t deserve to live.
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
This piece was first published in the New Conservative.
Lucy Letby: The Case Against Capital Punishment
by David Livermore
I occasionally appal academic colleagues by supporting the death penalty.
I can see no good reason why the taxpayer should bankroll the lifelong imprisonment of Emma Tustin and Thomas Hughes, who tortured and murdered 6-year old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes during the privacy of the first lockdown. Nor Wayne Couzens, who raped and murdered Sarah Everard during the third lockdown. Given the steady dribble of Met scandals I’m open to drawing up the Force in hollow square and hanging Couzens in the centre, as with Kipling’s Danny Deever. Pour encourager les autres. But I am shocked and dismayed by Frank Haviland’s article advocating the death penalty for Lucy Letby, the Chester nurse convicted of murdering seven infants between mid-2015 and mid-2016 and the attempted murder of six more.
Let us briefly review matters.
Letby was convicted substantially on the basis that she was on-shift when each of the deaths and near-fatal emergencies occurred. No other nurse was so consistently present. When her home was searched the police found handover sheets relating to the dead (and other) infants, interpreting these as ‘souvenirs’. They also found Letby’s handwritten jottings, which included the sentences “I am evil”; “I did this”; “I am a horrible evil person”. She had the unprofessional habit of searching details of her patients’ families on social media.
Letby was under the suspicion of some consultants from mid-2015, but internal reviews plodded slowly and inconclusively. She continued to work. Deaths continued. Despite the suspicions of some paediatricians, she maintained a ‘close friendship’ with one of their number.
Mid-2016 saw three developments. Letby was shifted to a desk job; the unit was downgraded, with the sickest babies treated elsewhere, and a review of the cluster of deaths was commissioned from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). Deaths declined, with only four between mid-2016 and mid-2018 compared with 15 from mid-2015 to mid-2016.
The RCPCH, reporting early in 2017, highlighted significant gaps in staffing, judging it inadequate for the intensive and high dependency care previously provided. However, they found no obvious common factors among the 13 deaths considered and made no suggestion of foul play. This agreed with earlier post-mortems, performed on all except one of the infants for whose deaths Letby was ultimately charged. The RCPCH makes no mention of allegations against a member of staff. Either its authors heard none or, more likely, there is a second confidential memorandum. If so, it must have exonerated Letby who, around this time, also had a grievance procedure upheld.
Management forced several accusers to apologise to her. They also made it clear that she would be returning to the neonatal ward, but allowed consultants to raise their concerns with the police, who launched their investigation in May 2017. Letby was arrested a year later, in July 2018. Her house was searched, finding the documents later used against her. She was rearrested in 2019 and charged late in 2020. The case came to court two years later and lasted 9 months. All except one of the seven murders and six attempted murder convictions were on 10:1 majority verdicts (one juror had been discharged). Letby was acquitted on two further charges of attempted murder, with the jury unable to reach verdicts on six more.
There are a lot of problems here:
First, there’s the long timeline: the deaths – and first allegations – occurred in the year up to the Brexit Referendum, which seems a lifetime ago, yet no case came to trial until October 2022, seven years later and four years after Letby’s initial arrest.
Second, and linked, the belief that the babies died through murder and not poor care (as Countess of Chester management originally believed) does not arise from contemporaneous post-mortems, nor from the internal and RCPCH reviews of 2015-17. Rather, it comes from much later review by retired paediatrician and ‘professional expert witness’, Dr Dewi Evans, who has been criticised elsewhere. Alleged methods of murder vary among the infants. The prosecution assert that this illustrated Letby’s great cunning, but it might also be because we are not looking at murders. Ms Letby lacked the cunning to destroy potentially incriminating literary ramblings in her own home, despite a year to do so.
Third, the total number of deaths from mid-2015 to mid-2016 is 15, yet Letby was charged with eight, and the judge threw one case out, leaving the seven for which she was convicted. What about the other seven, which the police also initially considered? Even taken alone, they form a statistical excess. A widely published list of deaths and ‘events’, showing Letby present at all, is censored to include only those with which she was charged. How does that notorious chart of names and ‘X’s’ look if all 15 deaths are included?
Fourth, there is no smoking gun. All the evidence is circumstantial. No colleague stood up to say “I saw Lucy injecting air or insulin” or give an excessive volume of milk, which are alleged murder methods. Some nursing colleagues are standing by Ms Letby, despite the opprobrium that comes from defending any pariah.
Fifth, those ‘confessional’ notes. Photographs have been published repeatedly, often with words or phrases highlighted. What doesn’t appear are full transcriptions. Perhaps because the notes are incoherent. One moment she writes “I am evil; I did this” the next that “I did nothing wrong”. She overwrites text and squeezes words into the margins. The notes indubitably reveal a troubled woman beating herself up. But for what? Murder? Negligence? Failing to save an infant having a crisis? When did she write them? Contemporaneously with the deaths? After transfer to the desk job? After suspension? Before her first arrest? After? If they are confessions, why plead ‘Not Guilty’? If she planned to lie about her guilt, why keep them? Heaven knows, she had long enough to destroy them. It’s easy to over-read when you’re full of suspicion. Here’s an example: following the publication of fragments of Letby’s diary, along with assertions from the police that she used the sinister code ‘LO’ for days when she killed, nurse upon nurse has lined up in the Daily Mail comments to point out that it’s LD, not LO, and that it’s nurses’ widely-used shorthand for ‘Long Day’, meaning a 12-hour shift.
Sixth, although deaths declined after Letby ceased to work clinically this might be because – at the same time – the unit ceased to take the sickest and most premature babies.
Last, although the prosecution said that this was not a statistical prosecution, it smells like one, stemming from an unexpected cluster of deaths and Letby’s association with them. Such clusters demand investigation. But it’s easy to be fooled into finding significance when there is none. The trap is to calculate the unlikelihood of a cluster at one time in one hospital, rather across all hospitals over a period. Think of it like this: if I take a well-shuffled pack of cards and deal off the top four, my chance of four aces is 1 in 270,725 (4/52 x 3/51 x 2/50 x 1/49). If, however, a thousand people do it daily for a year, then there’s a 75% chance someone pulls the four-ace hand (1 – [1 – reciprocal 270275]365000). Given enough opportunities someone is lucky. Or very unlucky.
The Royal Statistical Society has been sufficiently exercised on these points to write cautionary guidance on statistically-based prosecution of healthcare professionals. One lead author, Professor Richard Gill of Leiden, has been a stern critic of the Letby convictions, and is joined in this by Prof Norman Fenton of Queen Mary, London, another distinguished statistician familiar to readers of this website for his analyses of Covid vaccine efficacy.
Gill’s interest was prompted by the case of Lucia de Berk, a Dutch nurse convicted of murdering five infants in 2001. She was a hard worker, taking extra duties and although no one saw her do harm the deaths all occurred on her shifts. The odds against this were calculated as 1 in 342 million. Her diary mentioned “giving in to her impulse” which she said meant reading tarot cards, but the prosecution interpreted it as a compunction to kill. Once convicted, the papers dubbed her the “angel of death”. Her sentence – life imprisonment – was increased to life imprisonment without parole when she was convicted of further murders, again ‘Because she was there’. After a failed appeal in 2008, de Berk suffered a serious stroke. But in 2010, partly on Gill’s evidence that the odds of such a series of deaths occurring by chance for one nurse among the many employed in the Netherlands were around 1 in 25, she was exonerated and paid substantial damages.
It is fortunate that she wasn’t hanged. No?
Admittedly, de Berk’s innocence does not prove Letby’s, however much the cases rhyme. Ms Letby may have committed terrible crimes. I cannot prove her innocent and a jury found her guilty, though one juror dissented. If she is guilty, I have no problem with the death penalty. But these convictions look shaky. We may not even be looking at crimes at all, just tragic happenstance within the bounds of statistical chance, or a poorly-performing NHS unit together with a mediocre nurse given to self-flagellatory literary ramblings. NHS neonatal units with high mortality and no suggestion of foul play are not unknown, as in Nottingham.
The state’s propensity to hang the wrong people – as with Timothy Evans, convicted of Christie’s murders – brought the death penalty into disrepute in the 1950s, leading to its suspension.
Arguing for its return based on Letby’s case is deeply unwise.
David M. Livermore is a former Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia.
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.
No. The case example was the Rona plandemic, scamdemic.
Drs Baffled with money, and Nurses Tik and Tok who murdered with midazolam and the stabs. Death sentences.
The Fake News.
Most of Pharma-ment.
Most of Pharma.
Followed by Climate Bollocks. and their enablers.
Trans and Gay Fascism and their enablers.
Musulman rape gangs.
And then Lucy et al.
We should be diligent in our reasoning.
And moral hazard. None of sh1te that works in or for ‘government’ at any level, in any capacity, National, devolved or local suffers any cost and consequences for their policies or activities, so (quite frankly) they don’t give a damn.
Capital punishment should not be reintroduced, if only because of any doubts that exist or may emerge over the case for conviction. Also, the spectacle of capital punishment only serves the basest desire for revenge, and we do not have a media capable of handling the issue with maturity.
Wasn’t what she did out of ,basest desire’? Revenge is the reason to do it. It lets people know, there are the most severe consequences.
Death penalty need not be mandatory, but an option in carefully defined cases.
It could, as in the USA, be left to the Jury to decide.
Rather than looking at the extreme end of the justice spectrum, reform should be considered at the other end. When miscreants enter the justice system, (assuming plod can be arsed to apprehend them) they should be dealt with most severely, with deterrence in mind. The birch would stop recidivism dead in its tracks.
Yes this article subject is all rather a moot point as we know that capital punishment will never be reintroduced in the UK, although this case does make me wonder had it happened in one of the US states which have the death penalty how Lucy would have fared. I didn’t get past the first sentence of the first article, I’m 100% on ‘Team Livermore’. I just feel that, based on my own readings of others who are sceptical, Lucy did not receive a fair trial and she’s been condemned based on a combo of circumstantial evidence and emotion ( which the first author above illustrates very well ), as there cannot be any more heinous a crime then killing babies and somebody was required to take the fall for this. She absolutely deserves to get an appeal though.
And I totally agree with your point about having a deterrent. Too many examples nowadays of scumbags who have proven to be a danger to society getting off Scott free or with puny sentences, thereby sending the message that actual justice is non-existent in the UK and many European countries. Then you have the likes of Julian Assange, who never actually harmed a hair on anyone’s head…it’s all just laughable, in a very non-humorous way.
Well done Mogs. Thoughtful, insightful and moral.
TY
In principle, I totally agree with that. In practice, assuming there was a wave of screwdriver crime (and amply sufficient tool to murder or grievously injure someone), the police wouldn’t put more efforts into catching the criminals -this might even be dangerous to themselves – but someone would outlaw carrying screwdrivers so that the police can in future report that it’s doing something against screwdriver crimes by searching and arresting perfectly law-abiding people carrying one in their pockets because they believe it’s a handy tool to have around.
The system is f***ed and handing more powers to the police to employ as they see fit is only going to make matters worse.
We simply can’t trust the police, the CPS or the Courts, all institutionally anti-white.
The argument is still the same. ——A murderer like Letby no doubt deserves to die and most people would be happy to pull the trigger or kick away the stool under the rope, but the only thing that still stops that happening is “What if we kill the wrong person”? A guy was just released from prison last week after serving 20 odd years and it turns out he was not guilty.—–So I am in favour of the death penalty for certain types of crime. I just don’t think I can trust the system to get it right 100% of the time.
Assuming you mean the guy convicted of rape they KNEW for years he didn’t do it but didn’t want to admit that they’d got it wrong.
In light of that is it so unreasonable to believe that a poorly performing hospital wouldn’t look to blame someone, anyone to cover themselves?
I can fully believe that she was far from the best nurse in the NHS, however that doesn’t make her a murderer
Well you seem to be suggesting that Letby might not be a murderer despite being convicted. I happen to think she is likely to be one. ——-But that is why the death penalty won’t ever return. Because just as I said, we cannot trust the system to get it right 100% of the time, and that is important , because 98% of the time isn’t good enough.
First of all this dual article is presented on a false premise:
“Today we’re publishing two pieces about the Lucy Letby case, one by Frank Haviland arguing that the unspeakable nature of her crimes makes an eloquent case for capital punishment, the other by David Livermore arguing that the uncertainty about her guilt makes an equally eloquent case against”
In fact both authors fully support state enforced murder / capital punishment, re Mr Livermore’s
“I occasionally appal academic colleagues by supporting the death penalty. I can see no good reason why the taxpayer should bankroll the lifelong imprisonment of Emma Tustin and Thomas Hughes, who tortured and murdered 6-year old Arthur Labinjo-Hughes during the privacy of the first lockdown. Nor Wayne Couzens, who raped and murdered Sarah Everard during the third lockdown. Given the steady dribble of Met scandals I’m open to drawing up the Force in hollow square and hanging Couzens in the centre, as with Kipling’s Danny Deever. Pour encourager les autres. But I am shocked and dismayed by Frank Haviland’s article advocating the death penalty for Lucy Letby.”
So here’s the genuine case against the death penalty.
The moral code which underpins the eternal spiritual universe we are all part of can be expressed as ‘Cause no deliberate harm to any other living being’.
Much as we might try and suppress this inviolable rule it is hard-wired into our consciences and the extent we live up to or fall down on it determines our ultimate sense of ease, spiritual progress etc.
After death these aspects play a central role in the ‘life review’ our souls engage in in order to determine areas of success and failure, need or otherwise to reincarnate to learn greater self-control and compassion etc
Revenge is the oldest excuse in the book for attempts to override this ‘Golden Rule’, but a moment’s reflection will reveal that this is a both a moral and logical nonsense – if it is wrong for x to cause harm to y then the same in reverse (including carried out by agents acting on behalf of y) cannot possibly become right.
This is fully accepted in normal civil life where assault, murder etc by way of retaliation is fully prosecuted by the state’s criminal justice system with prior harm to the perpetrator by victim at best treated as mitigatory re sentencing (genuine self-defence is a separate issue)
And this is where we come to the same state’s completely illusory claims to its own full exemption from the universal moral code – for example it grants itself the right to theft or extortion by way of compulsory purchase and taxation backed up by the threat of imprisonment, enforce mass house arrest, business and school closures etc in the name of a flu-like virus, engage in mass murder, destruction, enslavement etc via warfare and any concomitant conscription;
And most relevantly here to monopolistically prosecute and judge allegedly harmful actions (certainty in criminal proceedings is always unavailable, even seemingly incontrovertible video evidence can be doctored etc) and when the defendant is found guilty inflict punishments – harm by way of revenge, ie the inversion of the Golden Rule – such as kidnapping and involuntary detention for periods ranging from months to entire lifetimes.
There is no moral problem whatsoever in intervening to protect individuals being attacked or threatened and where necessary detaining perpetrators until they show genuine remorse and determination not to repeat the harmful actions (of course an imprecise assessment), requirements for them to pay compensation etc.
But the whole concept of state vengeful punishment and general justified violence (again via warfare etc) is the greatest and most harmful ethical delusion that humanity labours under.
The idea of restoring one of the most pernicious strands of this historically anomalous position thankfully now removed in eg the UK – that of the fully pre-meditated form of murder know as ‘capital punishment’ – is horrifically regressive.
The inevitability of executions based on false convictions is a relatively tangential argument against the practice in comparison to the fundamental moral one.
You say and thus accept that “genuine self defence is a separate issue”. Babies in hospital and incubators (amongst many other examples of people being defenceless) have no ability to defend themselves. That is why they are often targets. There is sufficient doubt about the conviction of Letby, but if there was none, e.g. footage from multiple high definition CCTV cameras of babies in incubators being shot multiple times, then I do not understand anyone who defends the right of the perpetrator.
Deliberately harming someone by way of retaliation doesn’t achieve anything (as opposed to intervening in a protective manner, requiring compensation etc) and certainly doesn’t bring any victims back to life.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, and the prevention of crime through the mass adoption of codes of universal respect and non-violence (including rejecting revenge as an excuse) the only genuine way forward.
“detaining perpetrators until they show genuine remorse and determination not to repeat the harmful actions”
What if they never do that? As far as I am aware, most crimes are committed by a small number of people, not evenly distributed among the population.
‘What if they never do that?’
As I said detention (or at least supervision) until a commitment made not to repeat the relevant harm causing, the adoption of positive education or work practices (including to raise funds for compensation etc) etc. Why on earth would anyone refuse such a route forward?
‘As far as I am aware, most crimes are committed by a small number of people, not evenly distributed among the population.’
Formal crimes are in fact committed every day by just about everyone if only through driving offences etc (eg 34 mph). As well as immoral the vengefully punitive aspects of the criminal justice system are wildly arbitrary.
In terms of more serious offences such as mugging, rape, serious assault and murder etc the fact is that in certain circumstances everyone is capable of such behaviour (though the acceptance of firm spiritual-moral codes can make this less likely).
The idea that these sorts of offences are confined to specific individuals labelled ‘sociopathic’, ‘psychopathic’ etc is just one of the many harmful illusions spread by the pseudo-science of psychology.
To illustrate the point look at the number of times postings on this site seriously call for the imprisonment / assault / killing of those deemed to be ‘enemies of the people’, ‘the evil global elite’ etc.
Political, religious and ideological theories in general are some of the many techniques that humans use to (necessarily temporarily) suppress their consciences.
Thanks. Downtick not from me btw, even though I disagree with you.
“As I said detention (or at least supervision) until a commitment made not to repeat the relevant harm causing, the adoption of positive education or work practices (including to raise funds for compensation etc) etc. Why on earth would anyone refuse such a route forward?”
Why? Well, because people sometimes act in self destructive ways – and of course they would simply lie and pretend and get released and commit more crimes.
“Formal crimes are in fact committed every day by just about everyone if only through driving offences etc (eg 34 mph). As well as immoral the vengefully punitive aspects of the criminal justice system are wildly arbitrary.”
I think we both know we’re talking about serious crimes for which imprisonment is the usual penalty. No-one I know has ever been in prison nor have they committed any imprisonable offence. Appreciate some of them might be hiding dirty secrets, but to imagine that there are not huge differences in criminal tendencies and the propensity to give in to those tendencies between one person and another flies in the face of all the evidence that I am aware of. Life is arbitrary, and everything is a best endeavour.
We already have capital punishment in all but name for armed terrorists, as does most of Europe.
Most are content with that state of affairs.
‘Concern about prisons turning into “hotbeds of extremism” has been repeatedly mentioned by academics and practitioners as one of the most pressing security issues that requires an immediate response.
While both prison and probation are supposed to be strong partners in de-radicalisation and resettlement, instead of promoting disengagement from violence, these systems frequently facilitate extremism.’
‘Unlike traditional criminals whose illicit activities are often disrupted in prisons, violent extremists might be comfortable with their convictions because of opportunities to preach in correctional institutions.’
Written evidence from Dr Julia Rushchenko, Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism, The Henry Jackson Society.
UK Parliament, Evidence on Prison population 2022: planning for the future
Wnen I heard of this tragedy I knew what joe public/the MSM would make of it and pondered Stalin’s famous saying – The death of one man is a tragedy whereas the death of millions is a statistic.
And thus the Letby case is cannon fodder for the MSM who are doing a magnificent job of investigating all aspects of it.
Meanwhile the Excess Deaths of countless babies/children/adults has been, is being and will continue to be, ignored. I wonder why.
Those who believe in Capital Punishment for child murder should perhaps turn their attention instead to those responsible for Clown World and in particulat the jab zealots.
Never mind though, the death of so many by jab is just a statistic.
They should also consider the tragic case of Sally Clark, wrongly convicted of the murder of her two baby boys- in no small measure due to the evidence of Prof. (I can’t bring myself to use “Sir”) Roy Meadow. Thats experts for you eh….
The defence in part relied on SIDS, but the fact that her youngest baby had been vaccinated just eleven hours before his death was not heard by the jury – the Judge relying on expert evidence that SIDS could not be possibly be caused by vaccination. Another triumph for bigpharma – Shaken Baby Syndrome rules.
And so poor Sally Clark was convicted. She spent over three years in prison before being released. She died, no doubt of a broken heart, three years later.
Had Capital Punishment been available she would probably have been hanged….
The obvious question now is whether there is a similar statistical correlation between (a) which Health Secretaries and Chief Medical Officers have been “on duty” during the last two and (b) the number of excessive deaths in the general public. If the answer is in the positive, what conclusions might be drawn? Obviously this is a rhetorical question here, but I can’t see the media, the Government or any official inquiries even daring to ask it for real, lest some unpleasant beasties crawl out from under the stones.
I don’t deal with the criminal justice system so I have little data to go on. The only contribution I have is knowledge of one case of a “false confession” of attempted murder. The police quickly rejected the attempted murder allegation on the grounds of lack of evidence together with the observation that the “confession” came from a serial delusional fantasist diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder who had become an attention-seeker with particular focus on creating an image of being a “rescuer” of people with health problems or who were the victims of abuse. The gist of the fantasist’s subsequent suicide notes were that they were a “bad person” and that the world would be a better place if they were not in it any more.
In the past the police and prosecuting officials were aware of, and irritated, by false confessions and false allegations from fantasists (and the merely incompetent) and had techniques for separating reality from fiction; nowadays they routinely muddy the waters by trawling for evidence (falling victim to confirmatory bias), exploiting delusional fantasists, and suppressing defence evidence. The court system also tends to be a problem in that it has rules about of whether or not certain types of defence evidence, or certain types of defence argument (especially statistical, vide Sally Clark, or psychiatric), may be used in court, and, if so, whether the jury is allowed to be aware of it.
Supporting the death penalty? Did Boris Johnson write the article? “Let the felons swing high, let their bodies pile high”. It would be his answer to crowded prisons. Does he have a hand in this? Is this how he will make his massive comeback, as Lord High Executioner?
Do we want to make it even easier for the state to carry out genocide? A line in the film the Runaway Jury is “a judge had the power to hang someone he simply did not like”. Do we want some unelected despot to have that power?
Also, though not in this article, the whole “forcing criminals to be there for sentencing” screams of an easy vote grab to appease the baying mob, with echoes of the stocks, public executions, shaming of those who failed to clap/stay at home/wear a face nappy. The way that the video of LL’s arrest is shown again and again is a minor example of this.
No it most definitely isn’t. What most definitely is a case for the death penalty is anyone working on/funding/driving Gain of Function testing on viruses.
(1) I am not a fan of state-sanctioned killing; whatever the crime. Usual arguments have been covered by others in the comments.
(2) I am not convinced her conviction is safe.
(3) If we are going to advocate draconian measures for serial killers, then I would be focusing my attention on Big Pharma execs and corrupt public health officials.
Seconded
There are two burdens of proof: in civil actions it is on the balance of probability in criminal it is beyond reasonable doubt. Why not a third burden: where there is no doubt?, such as in the cases of the Yorkshire Ripper, Fred West, Shipman and others. In the case of this woman, there may be doubt.
If a life is deliberately taken by murder the death penalty must apply.
Life for life.
Delighted to find myself agreeing with most of the comments for once. None of us were in the courtroom but what we have seen of the evidence does not totally rule out the possibility she was innocent. I don’t think we should bring back the death penalty, but if we did, then the standard of proof of guilt would need to be something higher than “beyond reasonable doubt”. There have just too many mistakes when a jury is asked to make the decision based on that criterion. It has to be on the lines of “inconceivable that they did not do it”. (This in itself may be an argument against the death penalty.)
Haviland’s article seems to quite confused in at last two respects.
He seems to think that we should bring back the death penalty because ” Britain is currently drowning in a sea of its own misguided compassion” – prisons are too comfortable, asylum seekers are let in too easily etc. This may, or may not, be true but executing the odd murderer is hardly the solution!
He also supports Thatcher’s argument that some murderers have forfeited their own right to life. But even if this is true that doesn’t mean we have a moral imperative to kill them. There is a difference between having a right to do something and having a duty to do it.
Yes but it is likely that Letby is the murderer. The only reason she and others get no death penalty is because there is always that chance that the court gets it wrong. But assuming the court gets it right I would have no hesitation of disposing of this type of human garbage.
But assuming the court gets it right I would have no hesitation of disposing of this type of human garbage
But why? To discourage others? Revenge on behalf of the mothers? Or simply you can’t bear to see such people alive?
There is no argument against the State’s licence to kill.
Without it, Britain could have no defence, no Armed Forces.
Government agencies have been happily, yes, happily (as the SAS Captain stated in his report in France in 1944: ‘We are happy in our work’) killing enemies of this country for many, many, centuries. Long may they continue so to do.
Were the Armed Forces, Police, to request volunteers for a firing squad for, say, the killer of Lee Rigby, the queue would stretch round the block.
Where the evidence is incontrovertible, there is no reason why examples of those guilty of murder should not be executed by firing squad, with the added bonuses of ‘pour encourager les autres’ and excellent, very real, target practice.
There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence in the general case. What really seems to be incontrovertible today might well become controvertible tomorrow. Even in absence of malice – and malice is never really absent – humans are bound to make really stupid mistakes when trying to do anything. War is different because it’s already a matter of life and death and hence, possibly unrectifiable mistakes are acceptable in war times because the stakes for society are a lot higher.
Police already shoot to kill armed terrorists who incontrovertibly pose a threat to others.
CCTV, body cameras, drone, heli thermal cameras, police dogs. DNA…..
Plenty of sources of corroborating evidence.
You are entitled to your view. It is not one that I share.
Police were entitled to shoot the killers of Lee Rigby at the crime scene. You are entitled to use all reasonable force against an intruder in your house. Society delegates similar powers to those engaged in the defence of the realm. If it so chose, it could delegate those powers to the courts and I see no reason why it should not.
I guess the difference is whether the threat is imminent. If you’ve convicted someone, and they are behind bars, then the threat is neutralised, at least while they are locked up.
Let’s not pretend that there is not a clear ‘shoot to kill’ policy for terrorists at home and abroad.
One of the reasons for that is the risk that they radicalise others once imprisoned.
There is, effectively, already a form of capital punishment in place (and the vast majority are content with that state of affairs) in this country and in many other European countries.
I’m somewhat ignorant when it comes to this. I remember the IRA men in Gibraltar – that seemed questionable to say the least. De Menezes you could argue they thought he had a bomb or something, again possibly a bit shady. Bin Laden, Zarqawi and lots of others were assassinated by the US, on foreign soil – arguably enemy combatants, hard to capture. How hard should you try to “arrest” someone if you have good reason to think they might kill you?
Usman Khan, ‘rehabilitated’ and released, killed two brilliant youngsters trying to help him. The footage shows Police gesturing to others struggling with him to get out of the way so that they could get a clear shot.
The IRA in Gibraltar were shot before they could kill anyone.
Which sequence of events was preferable?
“Which sequence of events was preferable?”
Probably the latter, but I might argue that the better alternative would have simply been to keep the Khan fellow in prison for much much longer. See my response to sontol above, which he never responded to. I see you’re arguing elsewhere about incitement while they are in prison. For terrorists I grant you this is a valid argument – one reason perhaps why they keep the most dangerous terrorists in the US in more or less permanent solitary confinement – the ones they don’t execute. The shoe bomber is in prison for life in their supermax prison along with a delightful assortment of other scum.
We all know that courts are never going to get much tougher, for many different reasons.
We also know that solitary confinement does not mean isolation from all forms of communication. The scum are unfortunately well capable of incitement through electronic means.
No question but that the occasional use of capital punishment would deter some completely and reduce the carrying of weapons by others.
Shoot to kill regarding weapon wielding terrorists, criminals, is capital punishment in all but name and most are strongly in favour of it, as am I
“We all know that courts are never going to get much tougher, for many different reasons.”
I fear you are right
‘See my response to sontol above, which he never responded to:
Apologies and see above, sorted!
Police already shoot to kill armed terrorists who incontrovertibly pose a threat to others.
[…]
Police were entitled to shoot the killers of Lee Rigby at the crime scene.
They could shoot people driving cars on the exact same principle. Or actually, pretty much anyone. In the Lee Rigby case, two armed people who had just committed a public murder charged the police and both ended up wounded by gunshots in hospital. That’s because even armed policemen are not generally authorized to shoot to kill, just to stop people from committing a crime they’re immediately about to commit.
That’s besides the point, however. Laws are supposed to apply to all cases, not just those someone believes to be incontrovertible for more or less good reasons. That’s why we have courts with prosecution and defence attorneys supposted to enable someone (a judge or a jury) to make a judgement call after a elaborate process of deliberation. Incontrovertible is easily said but if things were that easy in practice, nobody would need a court system, just some entity responsible for determining the incontrovertible truth and then send executioners where they need to be sent to.
We (as humans) also ought to be more humble in such cases. It’s perfectly possible that we’re absolutely convinced that something must be true which turns out to be false in the end. Only idiots make no mistakes. That’s because they’re too stupid to realize that they made a mistake.
As I remark above, there is already a form of capital punishment operated in this country by our internal security agencies and most are very happy with that state of affairs.
This statement is wrong. And it’s still completely besides the point.
Sticking your fingers in your ears is not an argument.
We shoot enemies of the state if they threaten us.
There is no reason why we should not execute those who represent a threat to society, particularly if, should we imprison them, they are likely to incite others to do the same.
Surely if someone is in handcuffs the self-defence justification falls away.
If the individual in handcuffs has them around your throat, probably not!
The Letby case is not certain and it is carried along on a vicious witch-hunt which in time-honoured fashion is taking on a life of its own. I remember this with Sally Clark and Angela Cannings. Haviland is also accusing Lucy Letby of acts she might commit in future, which is reprehensible. Being falsely accused is a truly horrible thing and Livermore makes his points well. Executing someone because they might have committed a crime is an atrocious proposition. I believe the Letby case will become yet another miscarriage of justice in due course. Living with a guilty conscience is a real death sentence and we should stick with that.
And also the Angela and Ian Gay miscarriage of justice. The idea that they had force fed the child salt as a punishment and that has caused the child’s death was so obviously nonsense.
https://evidencebasedjustice.exeter.ac.uk/case/angela-gay/
Indeed I think the case for wrong conviction is even stronger than those Livermore makes. He links to it indirectly, but watch this video with Prof Norman Fenton because I think the argument is more stark and better put than in Livermore’s piece above (and it’s interesting viewing in its own right).
https://youtu.be/k12f_VFCbtI?si=PQJjutqw6B8AHyYP
My goodness the conviction is unsafe. I definitely vote for an appeal:
I know I wasn’t in court to hear all the evidence against Lucy Letby during the lengthy trial, but the evidence we have heard about her is incredibly weak. If there was any strong evidence against her, we would have heard about it by now. And yet people are arguing that the Lucy Letby case is an argument for capital punishment!
I’m sorry but I just think that Frank Haviland is insane, and too many people in our society today are suffering from this type of insanity. I don’t know what the cause of it is, and I don’t know what the cure is.
Rex v Lucy Letby – Science on Trial
@RexvsLucyLetby
This page is dedicated to establishing whether evidence on the case provided Lucy Letby a fair trial
https://twitter.com/RexvsLucyLetby
Lucy Letby
@Justice4Lucy
#Justice4LucyLetby. A loving and committed Medical Professional. Used as a scapegoat.
https://twitter.com/Justice4Lucy
A lot of the insanity, which I referred to, is linked to the medical establishment: the Lucy Letby case, Covid, Covid vaccines, trans ideology.
People easily believe whatever authoritatively comes from this equivalent of a modern religion.
If anyone wants the UK to join the EU, this country cannot have the death penalty.
As for the right to life, what sort of life will Ms Letby have for the very, very long time she will be in jail?
Just think of all the benefits. Free accommodation. Genial company. The haute cuisine. Permanent retirement. Release from all care: no mortgage, taxes, energy or shopping bills. No housework. No pets to waste resources on. No prospect of being ‘debanked’. All the substances even the most dedicated user could want. The camaraderie of social clubs often mistakenly called gangs. Close personal attention in the showers.
Is Ms Letby the sort of person who will be unaffected by her exposure to the prison environment? Though Ms Letby is now the UK’s most reviled Nightingale, adding all these benefits to her arrest with extreme politeness, being driven away in an unmarked car, and being apologised to by humbled clinical superiors, some of them BAME, it must be a surprise that no one has accused her of benefiting from ‘white privilege’ as well.
Wouldn’t it break any mother’s heart to see her dear child – that beloved little girl in the photograph, dressed prettily, smiling happily, and riding her bicycle – grow up to be convicted of the crimes Ms Letby has? It would be the final woe if her child was executed.
If you were charged with a capital crime. would you want to trust your life to a majority verdict?
And as for any moral imperative for capital punishment, as J R R Tolkien wrote in The Lord of the Rings, do not be too hasty to deal out death and judgment.
As a libertarian of a sceptical bent, I view error correction as of crucial importance and the finality of the death penalty frightens me.
Remember those people wishing death upon the unvaccinated? No doubt many of them have sat on jury panels.
No more tools of oppression for the members of Clown World. Don’t think it might not get abused one day.
That said, I have no major moral problem with the death penalty, and think it could be applied to repeat offenders of serious bodily harm too.
If a man beat another so badly they had to use a wheelchair for the rest of their life, two years later beat up and raped a girl, then a year later (or when they got out) maimed somebody in a DUI incident, are they so much less deserving of death than a person convicted of a single murder?
With repeat offenders you can also be more confident about applying the judgement, as it is unlikely that they were wrongfully convicted on three separate occasions (in example above).
Lastly, in the case of Letby, if she was guilty then I think the insanity defence should be employed as nobody of sound mind would have committed such a crime.
I think this is a very simple case: In civil situations, we must strive to avoid making mistakes which cannot be rectified. It’s possible to release and compensate someone who has been unjustly imprisonend although that’s poor compensation as he cannot get the life lost back. It’s not possible to unkill someone who has been wrongly killed. And that should be the end of the story.
I also like to borrow a legal argument from Kurt Tucholsky, a German author of the first third of the 20th century: The purpose of imprisonement is not punishing someone. Even punishing a murderer, as much as that satisfies the natural human desire for revenge, doesn’t really accomplish anything. None of his victims will become alive again because of this. The purpose is really protection of society by removing those who have been found guilty of crimes from it. That’s still a poor man’s attempt at protection, but it’s the best we can do.
As written in another comment: In principle, I also consider corporal punishment for minor offences a really good idea. In practice, I certainly don’t want the present police to gain the power to be even more violent towards random people police officers happen to dislike.
These two videos are definitely worth watching
Norman Fenton interviews Dr Scott McLachan on concerns about the evidence in the Lucy Letby case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12f_VFCbtI
Norman Fenton
Lucy Letby: Is she innocent?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57KpGQ0Nf8c
“Lucy Letby was convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence. Questions are being asked about whether this case is a huge miscarriage of justice. At the very least, there should be a retrial with all the scientific evidence presented.
David Kurten
Perhaps there is a 3rd option. For the most serious crimes (murder, child rape, manufacturing vaccines that don’t work but do kill etc. etc.) that are properly proven perhaps we could give the guilty party the choice of the death penalty by painless means or life in jail without possibility of release. Those who are truly guilty and remorseful will tend to choose the former and save the taxpayer money.
In the Letby case there’s enough doubt to say she would not be “eligible” for the death penalty. It’s possible she might appeal or that courts in the future might look at her mental competence.
Strange that this case, whose guilty verdict is doubted by many including legal and health professionals, should become the focus of a discussion about the death penalty. Meanwhile, thousands of excess deaths and injuries, including those from a certain medical intervention, are studiously ignored by those who were responsible for duping us into becoming a nation of lab rats for no good reason. If we are going to discuss capital punishment then we should include them too. For that reason, I find the media pile-on over Lucy Letby very hypocritical, regardless of whether or not she’s genuinely guilty.
I could never support capital punishment, no matter what. I completely understand why others do, but it will never ever seem “right” to me to take someone’s life, even if they have taken lives themselves. Taking life is wrong, full stop, assuming the power to do it in the name of justice doesn’t somehow make it right.
And executing the wrong person would be unthinkable.
Again, I completely understand the alternative argument, but I can only go with my gut feeling.
The answer to the opening questions is: the NHS.
Rather than bring back hanging*, get rid of the NHS and let medical insurance and provision be part of the competitive, free market like most other things.
*Hanging: restored for politicians.
Gosh, I am wondering how all those in gov’t and sage and MHRA, ONS UKHSA got away with the criminal negligence and deaths of thousands of Brits over the past three years? Fascinating Lucy is the target and yet your own elected and non elected officials approved and administered dangerous and deadly covid jabs (with minimal safety data and no effective data) and continue to push them, despite what we now know. Not a word from the public Lucy haters.
Anyone know a friend with a fib, stroke, heart attack, blood clot, turbo cancer, POTS, sudden death post vaxx? the list of adverse reactions to the covid injections is a page long, still not a word from the public. Not a word from all the GPs and Nurses seeing the injured everyday in their clinics. No, it is Lucy who is the danger.
100% behind capital punishment for the most heinous of crimes and when the evidence is overwhelming which in this case it’s not. Indeed I believe she’s the “fall guy” for the incompetences of the NHS. I’ll be interested to see what Debbie Evans of U.K. Column News has to say.
Letby’s conviction smelled dodgy at the time, but as the weeks go by it becomes more and more clear she was stitched up by the establishment and defended by amateurs. Bring on the appeal asap and this time get her a proper barrister.
Worth looking at the judge, Justice Goss who once dismissed an entire jury so he could convict on his lonesome and also gave Carl Beech 18 years for ‘fabricating’ details about a pedo ring in Westminster, even though several victim charities knew he wasn’t lying. Now Goss has tidied up the shadowy events at Chester. Only 33% of the deaths investigated, there was another suspect, sewage in the water supply – hardly beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof has not been met. Why add death sentences when we know The System is rigged.
Perhaps the Americans have inadvertently provided a potential solution to executing the wrong person in that although someone is convicted in the US and sentenced to death they invariably seem to be put on death row for a number of years during which time it should be possible to re-examine the crime to see if the sentence is actually correct.
In the Letby case one indication of guilt or innocence would surely be if the infant deaths continue after her incarceration.
Let us not fool ourselves.
The case for capital punishment (which is effectively already in place throughout Europe in the form of a ‘shoot to kill’ policy for armed terrorists) is simple.
If an imprisoned terrorist incontrovertibly guilty of murder (multiple corroborating forms of evidence) is likely to incite others inside and outside prison to terrorise and kill, then capital punishment is society’s answer. This ‘fait accomplit’ generally occurs at the crime scene but it is capital punishment nevertheless.
And most throughout Europe today are content for that to be the case.