At the end of a long comment thread to a post below, Larry stated reasonably that "I am not persuaded that the death penalty reduces the murder rate. OK then, it is because I have never seen any convincing statistical evidence to that effect." This is intended to help him, and others. You will need to link to this site which is a copy of a Parliamentary research paper produced under the aegis of the Home Office and is dated 1999. It will probably be helpful for any reader to have that site opened in tandem with this post so that you may click from here to there as you read. (Alas, I haven't a clue how to copy and paste Adobe graphs, so that is all I can suggest.)
It is obviously difficult to compare murder stats country to country because of the 'noise' of cultural differences. There are I think two nations in which useful statistics might be found applicable to this debate. Naturally, we should start with our own country which began running down the number of executions in the late 1950s until the last hangings in 1964. It was officially abolished in 1965.
Please scroll down to p.10 on the other site and look at the graph which shows the number of homicides in
If you then scroll down to the next page 11, you will see the number of homicides per million of population, which in:
1965 was 325 equating to 6.8 per million
had risen in 1997 to 738 or 14.1 per million
in 2004/5 the number had risen to 839 or 15 per million (1)
And remember, the population had increased by millions from what it had been in 1965, so the number of individual victims was growing enormously.
That is the case for our country but now I switch to the
Please scroll down to the bottom of p.34, then scroll down through the next three pages below which contain Table 13, a state by state analysis of the murder rate from 1977 to 1997. The areas shaded blue indicate that the state concerned had sanctioned capital punishment in principle, if not necessarily in practice. The years surrounded by a box indicate that they were years in which people were actually executed. I did a little exercise and looked at the 37 states who for the vast majority of the years 1977 to 1997 put capital punishment back on the statute book whether or not they used it. The change in murder rates per 100,000 of population over 20 years from 1977 to 1997, were:
Down: 28 states Unchanged: 7 states Increased: 2 States
Then I looked at those states which, for most of the time, refused to put capital punishment on their books:
Down: 6 states Unchanged: 4 states Increased: 4 states.
Before Larry and others become too excited at the 6 states whose murder rate fell without capital punishment, I should point out that in four of those cases, the fall was a single digit, for example, Kansas fell from a rate of 7 murders per 1oo,ooo of population, to 6 murders. The two exceptions were Hawaii (7 down to 4) and Alaska (11 down to 9).
Perhaps the most startling of the 'risers' was the District of Columbia, in effect, Washington, which refused to sanction the death penalty and which saw the rate begin at 28 murders per 100,000 and hurtle up to 57 murders - in 20 years!
Turning to those states who had the death penalty on their books, although not all of them used it, 14 of the 28 states who saw a drop in their figures, began in 1977 with murder rates in double figures, so one can imagine the imperative to accept a reversal of the law. Only 2 of these states saw a rise in their murder rates, Arkansas (9 up to 10) and Maryland (8 up to 10). Interestingly, if you look at the columns that refer to them you will notice that both states had the death penalty but refused to use it until they saw a rise in the rates in the early '90s when they then began to execute people. In both states the rates then started to fall back!
As I warned Larry in an earlier thread, there can be no 'Eureka!' moment of scientific proof in this matter which is all too human and therefor all too muddled and confusing. Reasonable men and women needs must use their best judgement. Mine is that here in the UK we should bring back hanging for all homicides in which there is any element of previous intent - which includes carrying weapons - and also any assault resulting in death which was continued over a period of time.
(1) This stat from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf
PLEASE NOTE: I HAVE COPIED AND PASTED THE FOLLOWING TWO COMMENTS BY SIMON METZ OVER TO HERE WHERE THEY ARE MORE APPROPRIATE AND WHICH WILL ALLOW A CONTINUATION OF THE CONVERSATION BEGUN IN MY PREVIOUS POST "PERSONAL, PROFOUND AND HIDEOUSLY DIFFICULT":
"if legal punishment is negligible in curbing criminal behaviour, why do we bother with it?
To punish. To rehabilitate. To deter. Deterrence is one aim and yes, it often fails. Unfortunately the death penalty is one such case, despite the severity of the punishment and the finality for the person involved.
Capital punishment for drug offences in over 30 countries worldwide, for example, mainly in East Asia, has done nothing to stem the traffick of illegal drugs in those regions - on the contrary it has risen enormously. And we're not talking about death sentences with no execution to follow. We are talking about China where in 2005 over 25 people were publicly shot for drug offences to celebrate the UN's day against drugs. this achieved nothing.
In Vietnam, around 100 people are executed every year for drug offences - Vietnam remains a primary drug route. These deaths achieve nothing.
Do you honestly beieve, David, that the prospect of life in prison has no bearing on people's actions?
The point is that no-one who kills anyone intentionally plans to get caught. Oh yeah, I'll kill this kid and, you know, 20 years ain't so bad. Come on.
This brings us right back to the Captain's point. It is you who must justify death as a punishment and you scientific evidence must be strong enough to outweigh the moral repugnance of state sanctioned killing.
Unfortunately for that responsibility the wealth of death penalty related eveidence (by full time researchers and professionals on both sides of the debate rather than part time bloggers) shows no correlation between executions and reduced murder rates. Or, indeed, any other crime for which death is the penalty.
Those who are honest enough focus on punishment - you killed therefore be killed, they do not hide this with fictitious claims to deterrent effect. They simply want the person dead.
Do we see a reduction of adultery in Iran? Apostasy, drug trafficking? Not at all. All and more carry the death penalty there.
Finally, and I apologise for the rambling comment, people smoke less in public places because it has become illegal and they will not be allowed into the public place if they smoke. It is not deterrence in the same way as the severity of a punishment for something that is already illegal. Again, I have to look at drugs. Ecstasy was reclassified as a class A drug in the UK in the nineties and use skyrocketed, despite a possible 14 year sentence.
Posted by: Simon Metz | November 21, 2007 at 13:03
One other point - this is all academic. The UK will never bring back hanging - it is against the death penalty in all circumstances and advocates on this internaitonally - Tory and Labour.
They recently voted for a moratorium on executions at the third Committee of the UN General Assembly and will most likely also vite for it again at the General Assembly in December.
So what's your realistic suggestion for curbing murder rates given the reality that your preference for executions is not possible? What else have you got?
Posted by: Simon Metz | November 21, 2007 at 13:12"
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 13:38
Simon, first a general point. There is a logical fallacy in that part of your argument which states that CP used against drug traffickers has had no effect. How can you know that? You cannot know what the traffic would have been without it. However, there is one country where a 'before and after' scenario has occurred - Afghanistan - where (irony of ironies) the Taliban were ruthless in punishing drug traders where-as the new regime is very lax. I am no expert but every report I read insists that the amount of heroin coming out of Afghanistan now is immense.
Again the only nation with which I have some slight personal knowledge is Singapore where the government is particularly severe and in which drug-taking (and other criminality) is minimal - certainly nothing like our own dear land!
You write: "The point is that no-one who kills anyone intentionally plans to get caught." Possibly, but knowing that the penalty would be death would, common-sense alone, tell me that it would make a considerable number of them think again. However, in compiling my daily statistics on murders in the UK it seems to me that *most* murderers do not think of any particular murder. Most of them seem to be young men (and women) in gangs, which encourages them on, fueled on drink and drugs who set about other young men and kill them. Again, were you to start hanging some of them on a regular basis, you would see a more temperate attitude develop. Also, many murders occur in the commission of robbery in which knives, usually, but sometimes guns, are used; so again I suggest that street robbers would think hard before 'tooling up' for a 'hard night's work'! No, hanging would not stop it altogether but even if it reduced it by 15% that would save the lives of over *100 innocent people a year*. You have not used this argument but others have, so I say to those who deplore (as I do) the probability that some innocents might hang, then what about those hundred plus a year who will definitely be slaughtered?
As to your point concerning the retribution effect, that is, the satisfaction of vengeance, then I can tell you that I have raised this in a previous exchange with others. It is, of itself, not a clinching justification for the re-use of the rope but it is definitely an argument in its favour. Vengeance is not dishonourable, it is as old as Mankind, and the aggrieved are entitled to wish for it. Society as a whole (by which I do not mean everyone) feels a sense of 'rightness' that a person who takes another's life, forfeits his or her own. I probably put it badly, but there is a sense of cleansing, of an imbalance being put righted. For example, there is, I would suggest, a festering discontent that the murderer of the Soham girls still lives. So I do not duck the issue but I say again, it is not a clinching argument.
As to proof, well, I warned Dr. 'Teabag' that there is no 'Eureka' moment. Just study the figures I have put before you in the post and then answer honestly, can you be so sure that the ultimate deterrent fails to deter.
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 14:23
That capital punishment is the "ultimate deterrent" is by no means established, anyway. It's not hard to imagine that a significant number of people would rather die than go to jail. Jail really, really sucks.
But back to the question I asked you, way back when: why do you not kill people, David?
Or, let's try it this way: if there was no punishment for murder at all, would you kill?
Posted by: Captain Vinegar | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 12:36
Welcome back, 'Capt.', and I am tempted to answer 'NIB'!
Your question is both serious and profound. I will do my best to answer it accurately. I would kill in war, or in defence of me and mine, or even, just possibly, in defence of some one else. But these are, of course, within the bounds of normally acceptable conduct.
I would not kill a stranger in furtherence of a crime because I am not a criminal, nor would I kill for the pleasure of killing because I simply do not have the desire to do so. Nor would I kill anyone I knew because I lack sufficient hatred, or any other motive, to do it.
In other words, the deterrent of either prison or hanging would not effect me because I am never likely to be in a position to weigh the odds. There is one exception to this. If I found an intruder in my house who was not making every effort to leave it fast, I would, given the means, kill him, or at least, use such violence on him that death would be likely. I would do that, partly out of fear, and partly out of my knowledge, passed to me by men who really understood violence, that in a fight you must first put your man down, and then make sure he never gets up for some time - and that might mean permanently!
However, all of that is far removed from the reality of your everyday murder. I would urge you to scroll down to my post "Murder Inc. #22" below, and just look at the types of murder that take place day in, day out in our country. The overwhelming majority of them are carried out by criminally-minded youths and men who are usually armed (just in case!), are usually drunk or drugged, or are in the commission of a crime such as burglary or in dispute over drug territories. Unlike me they are already premeditated towards violence. As they go out for a night, they have the possibility of violence in their minds and the knowledge that the result might be some one's death. They have no fear of jail which will simply add lustre to their 'hard man' image. They know that if the worst comes to the worst, they can plead guilty to manslaughter, save the court's time, save the CPS having to do any work, and in return they'll draw 8 years, out in 5 ready to get their revenge on anyone who acted as a witness against them.
I believe that the death penalty will have an effect on their behaviour. As I said I cannot produce scientific proof, of the type beloved of Dr. 'Teabag', but the figures above seem to support my hypothesis.
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 14:19
"Welcome back, 'Capt.', and I am tempted to answer 'NIB'!"
Care to explain that?
Posted by: N.I.B. | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 14:24
Care to explain that?
I think it means he wants to kill you.
Posted by: Shirty Flypants | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 14:39
You have listed a number of cases where you might be compelled to murder someone. (Some of these you find “acceptable conduct”, but I’m sure you are aware that the opinion of the courts may differ, and that under your proposed system you would very possibly face execution for these acts.) The scenarios you have listed do not seem to be the types of activities that allow for a sober weighing up of the potential consequences, so the existence of capital punishment would have no bearing for you. Okay.
It’s interesting that you haven’t mentioned morals. You say that you would not kill because you are not a criminal, or do not desire to do so, or lack the hatred (although you are more than happy for the state to kill on your behalf). What about “because it is morally wrong”?
You also haven't once mentioned the potential punishment as a reason not to kill, which would tend to support the hypothesis that there are a ton of reasons why people don't kill people, and punishment is not necessarily one of them. Why are the overwhelming majority of the population of the UK not murderers? Is it just because they do not want to go to jail, or is it something else?
You then introduce us to some sort of sub-species of human, the “criminal”, or criminally-minded, as if they do not share your genetic ancestry. If only there was some way of identifying these degenerates, perhaps from the slope of their brow or the evil twinkle in their eyes, we could solve the whole problem of crime in an instant! By imagining that you are somehow made out of different stuff – that it is a predisposition towards violence that produces murderers – you are able to continue with your fantasy that, although it would have no effect on the likelihood that you would commit murder, the death penalty would teach the great unwashed a thing or two. Well, this is balls.
Your murderous roll call of tabloid villains sound remarkably rational for a bunch of pissed up and loaded nutcases, as if they pause in the middle of their foaming knife-rampages to muse upon the potential response of the UK’s criminal legal system. You can’t have it both ways, Dave.
Your argument is bankrupt. As Simon says, you would be better off sticking to lobbying for the death penalty on retributive grounds, instead of this fallacy of prevention. You certainly cannot produce scientific proof, only your “judgement”. This is not even close to enough of a justification for murder by the state, and that is the end of the story.
Anyway. Speaking as a world-renowned criminologist, what percentage of the population of the UK would you say are murderers?
Posted by: Captain Vinegar | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 15:23
I don't think any of the instances that I indicated in my second paragraph would be outside the law, although there might have to be an enquiry. The question of killing an intruder who showed no signs of leaving is more open, I grant you, but not without a defence. Indeed, with my newly aquired knowledge of the murderous re-actions of burgalrs when disturbed, I think I could plead fear of my life. Certainly my fear of the intruder would far outweigh my fear of a judicial hanging in such circumstances.
I deliberately left out any mention of morals. It seems to me that, in social relationships, most humans have an innate reluctance to kill other humans unless in self-defence. Even in war this reluctance re-asserts itself, I remember reading somewhere of a research project that asked American infantry veterans of WWII how many men they had shot. I cannot remember the figure but a huge number admitted that so long as the enemy were a distance away, they tended to shoot wide. This reluctance to kill is mirrored in the animal world where, by and large, con-specifics tend to leave each other alone unless there is good reason to kill. Even mating fights tend to be ritualised. What I am driving at is, that whether it be an innate sense developed through Darwinian selection, or a moral sense handed down from on High, most people, most of the time, resist the urge to murder.
But some do not!
Now you really must resist the temptation to be naughty by putting words in my mouth. I did not refer, or even hint at, any particular group being a "sub-species". Human beings can be classified by group titles, such as, Millwall fans, members of the WI, people with incomes over £50k per year, Tory voters, and so on. As I have said elsewhere on this blog, such groups can sometimes demonstrate group characteristics *which may not apply to each and every individual* but which do occur often enough to be recognised as such. Thus, if late one night you turned the corner to see a bunch of hooded young men approaching, you (and I) would do the sensible thing and take another direction. We might be wrong, they could be members of the local rugby club jogging home from a late night training session - but you wouldn't bet on it, would you?
Similarly, there exists a criminal class who have no compunction about breaking the laws of the land. We need not waste time here discussing why, just accept the obvious fact that they do. Not all of them are capable of murder, but a significant minority are, and it is that "significant minority" to whom the threat of execution would act as a means of concentrating what passes for their minds. Or are you suggesting that they are *all* so irredeemably thick that they would fail to pick up the message after a few of them had swung? Also, how do you account for the drop in murder rates in the USA where CP was re-instated?
Incidentally, your argument that CP is "murder by the state" is an example of your carelessness with words. "Murder" is *unlawful* killing; an execution following a trial under judicial control is not unlawful. Carelessness with words usually indicates equal carelessness with thoughts!
Now I have tried to answer your questions, now answer mine: what do you propose to do about the huge climb in the murder rate since the 1960s?
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 19:44
Unfortunately, the question of whether capital punishment has a deterrent effect is not the same question as whether hanging should be brought back. (For the record, my position is that capital punishment does have a deterrent effect, but the significance of that effect is arguable.)
For example, we could certainly reduce drug-related crime (which includes murders) by executing drug dealers, and we would also reduce drink-driving deaths by executing drink drivers. The real question is whether that is the sort of society that we want to live in, and also whether we want to extend the power of life and death to the state.
Speaking for myself, the answer is no on both counts.
Posted by: merkur | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 11:02
Thanks, 'Merkur', for a very honest comment.
You write: "[...] my position is that capital punishment does have a deterrent effect, but the significance of that effect is arguable." No one could disagree with that but I would point you to one piece of evidence in suggesting quite a considerable effect, the before and after statistics from the USA which I have linked to in the post.
You do your argument a dis-service in suggesting the absurd notion of executing drink-drivers. However, your main point, expressed as a question as to whether or not the state should have power of life and death over murderers, and whether one would wish to live in such a society is worth asking. Not that long ago I would have been very sympathetic to its inference that the answer is 'no'. However, today, I would urge you to scroll down to my post "Murder Inc. #22" and others in the series and just ponder the number of lives snuffed out for nothing very much. I repeat an earlier point, if the deterrent effect is, say 15%, that would save the lives of 112 innocent people *every year*. Are you content to live in a society that resolutely turns its face from any attempt to save them?
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 14:25
"No one could disagree with that but I would point you to one piece of evidence in suggesting quite a considerable effect, the before and after statistics from the USA which I have linked to in the post."
Quite, but perhaps I should point out that - from Table 1 of the same source that you gave - homicide rates bottomed out in 1959-1960 and then began to rise. Yet capital punishment was only abolished in 1965, so this upward trend preceded that abolition. So while I might agree that the removal of the death penalty accelerated that trend, it was not responsible for it.
In 1960, of course, National Service was brought to an end. I'm no fan of National Service, but I think we can agree that it provided both some measure of discipline and a socially acceptable outlet for violent impulses. NOTE: this is not an argument for bringing National Service back. I am merely showing that a) there are a variety of factors at work here, and b) that the increase in homicide in the UK began before the abolition of the death penalty.
Returning to the before and after statistics that you cite, I would urge caution on you - the devil is in the details. You say that "as the executions tailed off in the early '60s, so the murder rate climbed, but as the executions began again and increased in numbers from the mid '80s, so the number of murders fell". This is true - but unfortunately for your argument, the homicide rate peaked in 1980 and began to fall before the executions began again. In addition, the homicide rate climbed again in the 90s, peaking at 9.8 in 1991 - yet the death penalty was in force and executions were being carried out.
Simply put, cause and effect are not as simple as the tables that you link to. As I said previously, I believe that there is a deterrent effect, but that's not really the question. This is the question:
"I repeat an earlier point, if the deterrent effect is, say 15%, that would save the lives of 112 innocent people *every year*. Are you content to live in a society that resolutely turns its face from any attempt to save them?"
I do not believe that it is a choice between re-installing the death penalty and doing nothing, since there are a range of other measures that could begin to address high homicide rates. So I will simply smile sweetly and step away from the fallacy of the excluded middle which you appear to have placed in my path. As I said, I don't want to live in the sort of society that has the death penalty, and I don't want to extend the power of life and death to the state.
Posted by: merkur | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 16:43
Merkur, you write, correctly: "from Table 1 of the same source that you gave - homicide rates bottomed out in 1959-1960 and then began to rise. Yet capital punishment was only abolished in 1965, so this upward trend preceded that abolition." However, there-in lies the sort of problem that both pro and antis must cope with in deciphering statistics. Somewhere in that document (I think it was that one) is a table giving the number of actual *executions* which dropped away rapidly in the late '50s/early '60s as the abolitionist campaign mounted in influence. In fact, the cases in which the DP could be used was severely restricted in, I think, 1962. The judges knew what was coming and acted accordingly before the actual legislation. So actually, your analysis proves my point, that as the *execution* rate dropped, the murder rate began to climb.
Also, it's worth scrolling down to the graph on p.16 which in the dotted line shows the number of "offences of violence against the person" in England & Wales. There-in lies another of my points, that advances in A&E medical techniques from the '70s onwards has saved the lives of an enormous number of people (mostly young men at a weekend, I guess) who would have died in previous, less medically sophisticated times.
Far from denying your point that there appear to be anomalies in the graphs and stats, I made a special effort to point up the 'noise' contained within them, especially in a huge and diverse nation like the USA. I repeat, there is no "Eureka" moment to be found. One simply has to look at the stats and graphs, and then look very hard at the pile of bodies accumulating, and then make a judgement. I respect your fine feelings (I do not use that expression in a snide way) but each time you read or see, as we do today, of a father stabbed to death by a gang of youths who, when he was dying on the ground, returned to assault him with kicks and lumps of concrete, you will need to stiffen your sinnews to maintain your hold on those feelings.
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 23 November 2007 at 17:39
"I respect your fine feelings (I do not use that expression in a snide way) but each time you read or see, as we do today, of a father stabbed to death by a gang of youths who, when he was dying on the ground, returned to assault him with kicks and lumps of concrete, you will need to stiffen your sinnews to maintain your hold on those feelings."
I don't follow your logic. I don't wish for anybody's death; not the father lying on the ground, or the youths who killed him. What I wish for is justice, which I don't think is served through capital punishment, and a polity which deals with these problems more effectively before they blossom into murder.
Posted by: merkur | Saturday, 24 November 2007 at 12:51
But, 'Merkur', you may not "wish for anybody's death" but if your policy leads, as I suggest it does, inexorably towards such an outcome, then you cannot avoid the responsibility, just as I must accept it when I know that the return of CP will inevitably result in some innocent people being executed.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 24 November 2007 at 13:05
I think you're making a logical error. I am also opposed to castrating rapists, but to claim that my position makes me responsible for all the rapes committed in the UK simply does not follow.
Posted by: merkur | Saturday, 24 November 2007 at 15:05
No, that isn't what I'm saying. You support a policy which I maintain leads to an *increase* in the murder rate. *If*, and it's a big 'if', I am right then you bear your share of the responsibility along with everyone else who opposes my policy which I believe will *reduce* the murder rate. You might find that responsibility bearable because of your strong aversion to the state having the power to execute, which is fair enough, but you still can't avoid the responsibility. In my opinion!
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 24 November 2007 at 15:18
David, I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what you believe I bear a share of responsibility for? It appears that you're accusing me of responsibility for the increase in the murder rate since 1965, but I'm sure that's not what you mean. Can you clarify?
Posted by: merkur | Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 16:43
Sorry, I thought I had been clear. Let me give you an analogy. I supported the policy of attacking Iraq. (If I had known then what I know now, I would not have done it, but that's another story ...) Because I supported it, I bear a tiny bit of the responsibility for the cock-up that has ensued.
I assume that for as long as you have been an adult, you have supported the status quo in which CP has been abolished. More-over, you would (I gather) actively oppose any change to that situation. Thus, *if* I am right, and the absence of CP has led to a rise in the murder rate, then you bear a tiny responsibility for the number of deaths over and beyond those that would have occurred even with CP in action.
Or, let me put it another way, the next time you see on the TV, or read about in your paper, the details of a particularly atrocious murder, you need to ask yourself honestly, would that perp have gone that far if he knew that the rope was waiting?
I should add, that a similar dread thought would loom large in my mind were CP ever to come back and the 8.00 am news announced that yet another convicted killer had been executed. I would have to ask myself what if that person was actually innocent?
So whichever side you take on this issue, there are responsibilities.
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 25 November 2007 at 17:20
Thanks for clarifying - it appears I was right and that you believe I am partly responsible for the increase in the murder rate since 1965. I reject this, for the following reasons:
1. I campaigned against attacking Iraq, but to the extent that you bear responsibility for the cock-up that has ensued, I also bear a similar level of responsibility. If we accept that there is such a thing as collective responsibility, and the UK government went to war on behalf of the "British people" - not on behalf of "the British people who supported the war" - then both you and I are part of the "British people" and so do not escape responsibility for the acts carried out in our name. The same applies to our respective positions on the death penalty.
2. Since the death penalty was removed before I was born, I cannot be considered responsible for its removal in any way. Since your argument is that the removal of the death penalty may have increased the murder rate *over the last 40 years*, and not that its continued absence cause an increase in the murder rate *in the future*, I cannot be considered "responsible". If this argument were valid, then you are also "responsible" for the fluctuations of the Pound sterling since the gold standard was abolished - unless of course you're a secret campaigner for the return of the gold standard, but I think you get my point.
3. Finally, you betray your assumptions when you say that I bear responsibility "for the number of deaths over and beyond those that would have occurred even with CP in action." If you can tell me how what number of deaths are "over and beyond" what would have occurred even with the death penalty, then you might have a point - but I don't believe that it is possible to do so with any degree of accuracy.
Let me ask you a question in return, David. When you read about a rape case in the paper, do you ask yourself whether it might have been prevented if a castration policy was in place for rapists? And when you read about a theft, do you ask yourself whether it might have been prevented if thieves had their hands chopped off?
Of course you don't; because you don't believe such policies have any place in the society that you want to live in, despite the fact that they would clearly deter such acts. It is therefore quite mysterious to me why you are not prepared to accept this argument when other people put it forward in regard to the death penalty for murder.
Posted by: merkur | Monday, 26 November 2007 at 10:26
Let me try and take your points one at a time and if I miss any let me know.
1: I think you are stretching a simple point out of all recognition. It is a commonplace that not all members of a political party support every single policy it adopts, and if that is true, then obviously those who are in opposition to the ruling party can have no responsibility for anything it does - unless they expressly support it as the Tories did over Iraq. I was in the position of not voting (again!) for any party, but I did support the Iraq action, and thus, I must shoulder a very tiny part of the responsibility.
2: I sensed that you were younger than the abolition of CP and thus cannot be held responsible for that action, however, you do support its *continuing* abolition, and in that respect, I suggest, you *do* bear a responsibility. What I have claimed is that the original abolition began a rise in the murder rate, and its continuing abolition has continued the rise. If you are complicit in that policy, then, again, you bear part of the responsibility for its results. (And following this discussion you cannot plead ignorance!)
As for the pound sterling, its fluctuations have nothing to do with coming off the gold standard, but very much more to do with coming out of the post-war, Bretton Woods agreement that fixed exchange rates. 'That woman' was the one who insisted on floating exhange rates, I supported her policy, and I am delighted at the outcome, and more than happy (in this case) to take my share of responsibility for it. But that's another argument!
3: I would be exceedingly foolish were I to give you an *exact* number by which the murder rate would fall after the return of CP which is why I have not attempted to do so. If I had the time, however, I could take an average of the falls recorded in American states as indicated by the murders per 100,000 of population and apply it here. But what would be the point? Either the rate would fall or it would not. If it only falls by 10 a year that is 10 innocent people alive who would otherwise be dead. I have *suggested* 15% which would be 112 victims per year which I think is a fairly modest claim.
As to your final questions, yes, I do support castration for stranger rape with violence; and yes, I do support the amputation of one finger for burglars/thieves, followed by further fingers for subsequent offences. So, alas, I *do* think these policies should have a place in our society.
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 26 November 2007 at 11:32
"I have *suggested* 15%..."
I guess the problem here is that you have arrived at this suggestion simply by pulling it out of your arse.
"As to your final questions, yes, I do support castration for stranger rape with violence; and yes, I do support the amputation of one finger for burglars/thieves, followed by further fingers for subsequent offences. So, alas, I *do* think these policies should have a place in our society."
So, I see you http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dhimmification+site%3Aduffandnonsense.typepad.com&btnG=Search&meta=>crossed that final millimetre after all, eh?
Posted by: beep beep | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 10:15
No, 'BB', I *suggested* it based on the drop in murder rates seen in the USA. However, you appear to have missed the point (why am I not surprised?) that *any* drop would be "A Good Thing" - or perhaps you disagree with that?
Call it what you will, I do think that very severe retribution should be meted out to those who break and enter people's homes and/or use violence in sexual, or any other, attacks. Presumably you disagree and feel light, not to say, non-existent punishment is sufficient. You might care to explain your reasoning to the relatives of two seperate 80-year old ladies who died this month of shock following the entry of burglars into their homes.
On the other hand, as you seem not to have anything intelligent to say about anything, you might care to return to your hobby of writing on lavatory walls!
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 10:31
Ah, it's that "if you disagree with me, there is blood on your hands" argument again. Presumably you believe hanging people who harbour 'liberal ideas' would make society safer?
Posted by: N.I.B. | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:13
"1: I think you are stretching a simple point out of all recognition."
I don't believe that the point has been stretched in the least. In the case of the death penalty - as in the case of Iraq - it is not a political party that will carry out the executions, but the state. I pay taxes to this state, so unless I disagree strongly enough to withhold my taxes, I am paying for executions to be carried out.
So in this sense we are responsible for it, but not because we support or do not support the specific policy. However we are not responsible for murders that *might* have been prevented by the imposition of the death penalty, any more than we are responsible for traffic deaths that *might* have been prevented by lowering the speed limit.
"2: I sensed that you were younger than the abolition of CP and thus cannot be held responsible for that action, however, you do support its *continuing* abolition, and in that respect, I suggest, you *do* bear a responsibility."
In my political lifetime, the issue has never entered the public arena, so it is hard to see how on earth I have any responsibility whatsoever for its continuation, any more than I am responsible for the continued abolition of the gold standard.
"3: I would be exceedingly foolish were I to give you an *exact* number by which the murder rate would fall after the return of CP which is why I have not attempted to do so."
Why would it be foolish? You claim to be able to say with some authority how much the murder rate has risen in the absence of the death penalty, and surely this is the basis for any prediction about how far it would fall. The only way we could measure the success of your policy is by measuring it against a metric of some sort, and the only metric I can think of is the number of murders over a certain period of time.
"As to your final questions, yes, I do support castration for stranger rape with violence; and yes, I do support the amputation of one finger for burglars/thieves, followed by further fingers for subsequent offences. So, alas, I *do* think these policies should have a place in our society."
I thought that you might, but didn't want to put words into your mouth. This being the case, I am absolutely opposed to you on these issues.
Posted by: merkur | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 11:34
I'd like to ask Mr Duff why he thinks that the notion of executing drink-drivers is "absurd" when it could prevent several hundred needless deaths a year? Thank you.
Posted by: The Artisan | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:40
Yes, Artisan, good question. Does David not realise that by refusing to advocate the execution of drink drivers he is responsible for the deaths of around 3,000 people every year?
Posted by: beep beep | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 14:45
I'll take you in reverse order, if that's alright.
'BB', you do not improve your reputation as an il-informed contributor to this discussion by quoting "3,000" deaths a year due to drink/driving. According to the latest Home Office stats there were a total of 462 deaths in 2006/7 but they were from a *combination* of dangerous driving *and* driving under the influence of drink and/or drugs - no break down of the figure was given.
Even so, I do not wish to avoid the point. I made it clear that execution should be reserved for those whose acts were either premeditated (for example by going out 'tooled up'), or by continuing an assault beyond the first blow or two. Thus, the young man, drunk or otherwise, who kills a man in a pub scuffle by knocking him down and causing him to hit his head, would stand charged with Murder 2 which would not include the death penalty. If he continued kicking the man several times after he was down, that would be Murder 1. In the case of killing some one whilst driving a car under the influence of drink or drugs, there would be no element of premeditation, or if there was in a very extreme case, it would be nigh on impossible to prove it, so they would stand trial under Murder 2. (I should add that if some one with several prior convictions goes out drunk in a car and kills some one, in my view that would be premeditated murder 1 and he would swing.)
Turning to 'Merkur', I will take your points in order:
You write: "I don't believe that the point has been stretched in the least." I do, but I will try one more time. If you fail, at the very least, to speak out against a policy then I am entitled to deem you responsible for a tiny part of it, for example, look at the overwhelming mass of the German population who condoned, by not opposing, Hitler's treatment of the Jews. There is a policy in force in the UK now which you make no effort to oppose, indeed, just the opposite, you support it - therefor you are complicit in it and partly responsible for its results.
As to your complaint that I am failing to be accurate in my estimate of the amount by which the number of murders would fall, I can only say that 'there's none so blind as them wot don't want to see'! Just look at the American states that brought in the death penalty *and used it*. Look at the drops in the murder rate per 100,000 of population and apply it here for a rough and ready guide.
Again I repeat my point that *any* drop has to be "A Good Thing", and if you are as humanitarian as you appear to be, then you would have to agree.
I don't expect you to agree with my other ideas on 'crime and punishment' - you have merely joined an enormous and therefor not very exclusice club!
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 22:10
You have avoided my point.
"execution should be reserved for those whose acts were either premeditated (for example by going out 'tooled up'), or by continuing an assault beyond the first blow or two"
Why so? Your insistence on this high-minded and yet arbitrary principle over and above the cold reality of dead bodies on the road is every bit as stubborn and naively idealistic as that you decry in your wishy-washy friends here.
And the effect is the same too. Or worse, even.
Put it this way, Mr Duff. You suggest that reintroducing the death-penalty for murder would cut the murder rate by 15%. What would happen if it were introduced for drunken/drugged driving? I suggest that the incidence of this crime would plummet by in excess of 99%, and therefore far more lives would be saved than in the case of murder.
The utilitarian case I put to you is unanswerable, which perhaps is why you haven't answered it.
Posted by: The Artisan | Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 23:06
Artisan writes: "Why so? Your insistence on this high-minded and yet arbitrary principle over and above the cold reality of dead bodies on the road is every bit as stubborn and naively idealistic as that you decry in your wishy-washy friends here."
It's dificult to know where to start on this sort of silly hyperbole. There is nothing "high-minded" about my suggestion to cut the murder rate nor is it "naively idealistic". Anyone with the tiniest degree of concern over the wanton deaths of their fellow subjects should be concerned, unless of course, you take the current, post-modernist stance of cynical indifference and hypocricy that shrugs their deaths away along with, say, the death of 200,000 babies a year but makes a huge fuss if one Brazilian immigrant is mistakenly shot dead by the police. I fail to see anything naive in the death penalty which is an extremely hard-headed suggestion for putting right something that is manifestly wrong.
You then ask why I don't consider death on the roads. What a silly question. The two are not at all the same thing and you know it and it serves merely to expose your *own* avoidance of my very much more pointed question to you: what would you suggest as a rememdy to the murder rate? Or is it that you just don't care?
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 08:57
"The two are not at all the same thing"
Tell that to the families.
Posted by: N.I.B. | Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 09:37
This time you have not only avoided my point, but misunderstood it to boot.
I do not require your persuasion that the death penalty be reintroduced for murder - I am in full agreement with you on that point.
Where we disagree is that I would go further and introduce it for drunken/drugged driving as well (among other things), and in doing so I would save many, many more lives.
So it was not your enthusiasm for the death penalty that I meant to describe as "high-minded" and "naively idealistic". Far from it - it is your stubborn refusal to entertain the possibility of extending that very pragmatic and effective sanction to other crimes, where it would equally well save lives.
In a nutshell sir, I see no difference in principle between the position of your leftist friends who refuse to hang murderers (even though to do so would be to save lives), and that of yourself who refuse to hang drunken drivers (even though to so would be to save lives). It is by no means enough just to say that the two are not the same thing, as another commenter NIB succinctly demonstrates.
Unless you face my argument about your own apparent indifference to the piling up of bodies, and your own unexplained refusal to countenance the only measure which would curtail the bloodshed, it seems to me that you are in no position to harangue your other commenters for their precisely analogous failing.
Posted by: The Artisan | Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 11:05
I don't know why, 'Artisan', but a very tiny bit of me rather doubts that you *do* agree with me on hanging. Just call me cynical, if you like!
Anyway, I am happy to take your point head on concerning drink/drive. Just as there is a difference between, say, (1) going out and getting drunk and killing some one in a pub fight where only fists are used but your opponent goes down and breaks his head, as opposed to (2) carefully hiding a knife about your person before going out and using it; then there is an equal difference between that and (3) going out, drinking too much, and killing some one in a car accident. (1) and (3) are unpremeditated. They deserve heavy punishment but not hanging. (NB: If the driver has previous convictions for drunk driving, that might alter the matter.) The difference is that in an attack with a weapon, or a sustained attack on some one who is obviously injured and no longer a threat, then the *aim* of the perpetrater is to kill that particular person. The aim of a drunk driver is simply to get from A to B.
In a previous discussion on this topic I pointed out that whilst there is a utilitarian element in my suggested policy, that is not the sole imperative. There is a moral and, without wishing to sound too high falutin', a philosophical side to it as well. I do not regard the desire for vengeance as being wrong. It is as old as Mankind and is deeply entrenched in our human psyche. As societies formed and became more sophisticated(!), so the right of private revenge was surrendered to the state which was, and still is, expected to exact it for and on behalf of the wronged. The problem today is that the state, unsurprisingly, has reneged on the deal and even in the greatest crime of all, the deliberate taking of another's life, the state now refuses to exact the age-old penalty. Of course, the ruling, liberal elite, who are rarely touched by anything so common as murder, enjoy the sanctimony of their finer feelings. Meanwhile, an increasing rage is swelling amongst poorer people from whom most of the victims emanate.
Abolition of the death penalty is not, of course, the only reason that politicians today are treated with unbridled contempt, and why at each election more and more people refuse to vote, but it is just one more thing that adds to the perception amongst millions of people that their rulers refuse to reflect their wants and needs.
Our society would breathe a little easier if murderers were seen to receive the proper, age-old sanction.
Posted by: David Duff | Thursday, 29 November 2007 at 22:41
Mr Duff, I shall not tell you what you may or may not doubt. But as it happens I approach all these question from a strictly utilitarian (some would say extreme) perspective. This puts my opinion in agreement with yours when it comes to hanging murderers, though it seems for rather different reasons. So I am slightly at a loss to know how to respond to your post, since it is endorsing a conclusion which I already accept, using arguments which I do not by any means.
It is refreshing at least that you have finally attempted to address my argument in the earlier part of your post. You say that drunken drivers do not "deserve" to hang, because unlike murderers their crime is not premeditated.
The problem is that you are basing your entire argument on what punishments certain crimes "deserve". This is entirely a subjective concept, and moreover a high-minded luxury which we can ill afford.
Ask the families of the slain victims of drunken driving whether these criminals "deserve" to hang. I suspect you will find no shortage of people who believe that they do.
Or ask your liberal commenters whether the premeditated murderer "deserves" to hang. Being as wet as a school of haddock, they will reply that no, no-one "deserves" that, not even a murderer.
So why should we accept your view of who "deserves" what, over and above either the vengeful families of human road-kill, or the liberal bourgeois?
There is no reason at all. None whatsoever.
The only basis on which to decide these matters is not a useless philosophical apparatus of "desert", but hard-headed utilitarian calculation in the real world: the ultimate aim after all, is not punishing criminals for its own sake, but saving the lives of potential victims. And this is what has irritated me about the current debate, which is why I find myself arguing against you despite being ideologically rather closer to yourself than to your other commenters.
You are very quick to appeal to utilitarian principles when it suits you '*any* drop has to be "A Good Thing"' you say for instance, and you even go so far as to blame your interlocutors, personally and by name, for the deaths of murder victims. In failing to adopt a policy which would have saved lives, you argue, they have made themselves culpable for the deaths which have resulted.
But this argument is a gross absurdity, and you well know it. It is a clear violation of the principle of individual responsibility: the people responsible for murders, Mr Duff, are murderers. Not liberals (whatever you may think of them), not blog-commenters (however much you may wish to bait them): murderers, alone.
But then (and this is what I find infuriating) having demanded in such extravagant tones that your readers accept your utilitarian calculations, you yourself are all too happy ditch any such considerations the moment you find them inconvenient: yes, hanging drunken drivers would save innumerable lives, but they do not "deserve" it. That, all of a sudden, becomes the all important thing, not saving lives at all.
What if I were to apply to you the same intellectual terror-tactics which you use against your commenters here? I could endlessly list the slain victims of drunken driving, and insist that you David Duff are personally responsible for each of them, for failing to countenance - or even to consider - any measure to stop the killing.
What would you say? You have already waved this away as "absurd". It is "silly hyperbole" you say. Indeed you are right, but these are your arguments Mr Duff, not mine.
So I ask you again: why will you not accept in relation to drink-driving, the hard-headed utilitarian calculations which you expect to convince your readers in relation to murder?
The cost-benefit analysis could not be clearer: by executing a few criminals, you will save innumerable innocent lives.
Could it possibly be that you just don't care?
Posted by: The Artisan | Friday, 30 November 2007 at 15:06
'Art', if I may use the familiar, I apologise for the delay in replying, I was out all day yesterday. Also, before reaching for my trusty (or should that be 'rusty'?) rhetoric, allow me to thank you for giving me one of the best debates I have ever enjoyed on this blog. Now, back to the war ...
You accuse me of 'subjectivity' in my notion of 'desert' in deciding the exact punishment for differing types of homicide. Well, of course, we are *all* subjective to a certain degree whilst often attempting, or pretending, to claim the high ground of detached objectivity. In this case, I make no such claim, I have thought hard on the subject and come to my conclusion which I have supported with the arguments laid out above. I might add that the idea of 'the punishment fitting the crime' is hardly new!
You ask "why should we accept your view of who "deserves" what" and I'm afraid I cannot answer you. I lay before you my arguments and you either find them compelling - or not. After a lifetime of finding myself in a minority of one on several subjects, I now lack the energy to evince surprise that so many otherwise intelligent people fail to see the obvious!
Your clever attempt to meld the desire for revenge on the part of relatives of those killed by drunk drivers and those killed by premeditated murderers succeeds at that level, obviously, but fails at the level of deciding on the punishment. It is, or ought to be, the duty of the state to assuage the entirely honourable desire for revenge but it does not have to be led by the nose! Even a moment's thought will tell you that there is a difference in degree between deliberately plunging a knife into some one, and hitting them accidentally with a car whilst being over the legal limit. However, as I was at pains to point out, if the driver has a history of driving under the influence, that would, in my opinion, change the matter entirely. There is one other objection to your plan of executing drunk drivers who cause death, and that is the difficulty of apportioning blame. If, say, an equally drunk pedestrian steps out into the road and is hit by a driver under the influence it does not necessarilly follow that it is the driver's fault. Indeed, in very many traffic accidents the blame is almost always shared around. This is not the case when an armed burglar or street robber uses violence that results in death.
In my view, the utilitarian argument is *supportive* but not totally *sufficent* to clinch the argument on favour of the death penalty. Yes, in my view it would reduce the number of innocent victims but my argument does *not depend on that alone*. (And incidentally, don't spoil your own argument by accusing me of 'blaming' my opponents for for the deaths of these people, I merely pointed out that their policy had a cost in human life for which they shared a responsibility. I also made clear, that I, too, would have to take a share of the responsibility for the inevitable deaths of innocent men and women executed wrongly if my policy ever succeeded in returning.) Returning to utilitarianism, a philosophy which is weakened, in my opinion, by its tendency to move towards extremism in which all sorts of evils are excused, I have added a further argument which is not based on utilitarianism but on human nature. There is a peculiar horror amongst most people at the thought of deliberately taking another person's life, and a deep imperative to make that person suffer a similar fate. It is the very awe-fulness (literally) of the punishment that expresses this fundamental human feeling. The fact that we have now been forced to give it up sends a message that human life is no longer as precious as before. Indeed, this is re-enforced by trivial jail sentences which are practically an insult to the victim. That might account for a little of the growing indifference to violent death we see in our increasingly brutalised society, an indifference which expresses itself also in the 200,000 abortions a year, and the growing calls for euthanasia. It is all of a part.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 01 December 2007 at 13:46