Bring back the rope

Spectator, The, Jun 9, 2001 by Clark, Neil

NO ONE expects Tony Blair to seek to reinstate capital punishment during the lifetime of the next parliament. But I should like him to. I am a socialist, and until Mr Blair jettisoned Clause 4 I was a card-carrying member of the Labour party. According to the childish Left-Right rhetoric of British politics, a socialist is expected to hold a set of 'politically correct' views that includes a 'liberal' approach to punishment and, of course, opposition to the death penalty. Support for capital punishment is supposed to be the preserve of crusty old colonels in the shires or ladies with big hats at the Tory party conference, not that of nationalising, redistributing 'Lefties'. Yet, as a socialist, I believe the case for restoring capital punishment in Britain to be overwhelming, and the opposition to it by many on the 'Left' to be completely illogical.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that it is wrong for the state to take life. This is a line that Tony Blair takes. Yet, to be consistent, holders of this view would also have to be against the state taking life in times of war. As Aldous Huxley once wrote, 'It is impossible to be an 85 per cent pacifist, it is all or nothing.' It is interesting in this context to think back to the 1999 war against Yugoslavia. Then, by and large, the most enthusiastic supporters of the Nato bombing campaign on Belgrade were those politicians and journalists (such as Tony Blair, Robin Cook, Clare Short and the Guardian duo Polly Toynbee and Martin Woollacott) who are fierce in their opposition to any reintroduction of the death penalty in Britain. It seems to me a rather strange morality that justifies the killing of innocent make-up girls and cleaners in a Yugoslav television studio, but not of convicted serial killers at home.

The case for the death penalty rests on two tenets: first, that it is just that convicted murderers should pay with their lives; and second, that the death penalty deters.

As for the first point, crucial to the maintenance of any criminal-justice system is that justice should be seen to be done. But in an age when convicted murderers such as Jeremy Bamber can have their own websites, it is of little surprise that public confidence in the whole penal system has broken down.

It is always satisfying when reading crime fiction from the 'Golden Age' that at the end of the novel, the murderer, having been detected by the likes of M. Poirot or Miss Marple, is led off to meet his or her deserved fate on the gallows. Justice was always served. However, if the Queen of Crime were writing today, her convicted murderer would probably be out on appeal after four years and suing the prison authority for denying him cable television in his cell. Inadequately protected by the government, police and judiciary, more and more people are seeking to take the law into their own hands. The vigilante state is fast approaching, if it has not arrived already, and cases such as those of the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin will become more and more common.

The second point, that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, has always been disputed by the anti brigade. Yet every country that has abolished the death penalty has, within five years, seen a dramatic increase in its murder rate. The most notable recent example of this phenomenon is South Africa, with Johannesburg being transformed into one of the most dangerous cities in the world. The main reason for this is simple. In the days of the death penalty, criminal gangs would take great care to avoid the risk of violence in their activities, because they knew that, if a killing ensued, they might pay with their lives. Moreover, there is one crime for which the death penalty is arguably the only deterrent, namely the smuggling of hard drugs. With the potential rewards running into millions, and the chances of being caught and punished slim, it is no wonder that, despite `Drug Czars' and numerous other costly government initiatives, Britain is, in the words of the National Crime Intelligence Service, 'awash with drugs'.

Compare the position of Britain with that of Singapore, a country at which Western liberals love to sneer. All those arriving at Singapore airport are greeted by a large sign stating that anyone convicted of carrying more than a small amount of controlled drugs faces the mandatory death sentence. The message could not be plainer. The result is that Singapore is one of the most drug-free nations on earth, and consequently one of the safest. It may be boring for some, but those who get their kicks from watching armed robberies can always go elsewhere.

Even if we agree that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, what about the possible miscarriages of justice which the anti-- hanging liberals love to keep reminding us of? Inevitably, miscarriages of justice did occur when Britain had the death penalty, but their number was tiny and must be set against the considerably larger number of people saved from violent death by the much lower homicide rate. Now, though, there is the very real breakthrough of DNA-testing, which narrows the odds of wrong conviction to one million to one. That still may not be good enough for Paul Foot and Ludovic Kennedy, but it is for me and, I expect, for most other people. The great tragedy about the abolition of the death penalty is that it never was the result of public opinion. In fact, every opinion poll ever taken has shown a clear majority in favour of capital punishment.