JUSTICE? THE DEATH PENALTY CONUNDRUM.

It's very strange that terms like "barbaric" and phrases tumescent with high morality are used to condemn the very concept of the death penalty.  It's strange because the balance of the moral concern expressed seems dedicated to undermining the idea that some crimes deserve the offender to pay the ultimate price.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that every murderer should face the death penalty.  Indeed, circumstances of some murders suggest to me that no more than a moderate -- or even a suspended -- sentence would be an appropriate punishment.
On the other hand, some murders are so calculated, brutal or casual that nothing other than the death penalty could ever be considered justice.  My purpose here isn't to try and suggest a sort of hierarchy of appropriate punishments however.  What is under discussion is the sentence itself. It seems to me there are two fundamental issues which need addressing: the deterrent effect and the risks and costs of mistakes.

DETERRENCE
We need an effective system with a penal code that makes the consequences of conviction too frightening for the crime to be worthwhile.  There needs to be a quid-pro-quo understanding in the minds of, say, somebody planning an armed robbery which goes something like this:-if you are prepared to go out with a shotgun, ready to take life in order to get what you want, you must accept that if you do kill somebody with calculation or deliberation or particular callousness, your own life will be forfeit.  No question.  That same equation should apply to all who murder and kill for a variety of reasons – terrorism, religious or political fanaticism, sexual gratification, financial reward, personal motives of revenge etc.
As it is, life-imprisonment, even without parole, means the killers would have a full lifespan and health support at a cost of around £60,000 a year at the expense of the taxpayers – including relatives of the victims.

RISKS OF MISTAKES
 Yes, mistakes have happened.  The grief caused to the family of the person wrongly executed cannot and must not be underestimated.  "It's better" so the saying goes "that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted."
Well, maybe -- but nothing is without consequence.  Consider this: lack of that ultimate sanction means that there is no ultimate deterrent to what some regard as the ultimate crime.  Statistics, history – and common sense – suggest that as punishments lose their deterrent value, the incidence of the crimes increases. You have only to see the number of times murderers who are released go on to murder again. Well, what have they got to lose? Not their lives, obviously.
The result – more murders means more  anguish and torment for more family members, all because people were in circulation who shouldn't have been around  anyway. Doesn't that also constitute miscarriage of justice?
Moralists and moralisers remain unapologetic. Yes, things went wrong – but it's not their fault.


As I said at the beginning, it's strange.  It's strange how the anguish and moralising about the harshness and barbarity of the death penalty refuses to countenance the anguish and barbarity of the increased murders that would consequently arise.  On the whole, we make a judgement.  My judgement is that there would be fewer miscarriages of justice with the death penalty -- a hell of a lot fewer than there have been increased murders since it was abolished.  If you want to bring morality into it, fine. If you want death penalty advocates to feel guilty for any miscarriages of justice, then the abolitionists must also be prepared to accept responsibility, both for murders that are committed by previously-convicted following their release, as well as other murders that only occurred because there was not adequate deterrence.

I just think that my way will actually save more lives.  Barbaric?  I think not.  Justice.