Peter Moore: A case against the death penalty

After the conviction of Axel Rudakubanu who viciously killed three young girls at a Taylor Swift dance party there have been calls for the return of the death penalty. 

This is an understandable emotional reaction but, on closer inspection, it is both illogical and dangerous.

Although he could not receive a whole life tariff this does not mean that he will eventually be released. The sentence of 52 years is a minimum. Although he could be released at the age of 70 this does not mean he will. 

Even when we had the death penalty it was not given to anyone under 18 and so it would not have applied to Rudakubanu.  

Any system of punishment must be based on evidence and logic not emotion. Justice based on revenge brutalises society. The aim of punishment must be to reduce overall crime. By this criterion the death penalty does not work. 

Countries with the death penalty do not have a lower murder rate than countries without, such as the whole of Europe. 

Removing the death penalty does not increase the murder rate and reintroducing it does not reduce the rate. In short there is no international evidence that the death penalty reduces murder. In the USA in 2010 States with the death penalty had a murder rate 25 per cent higher than states without the death penalty. 

Some of our most horrific murders have been committed by terrorists with a clear ideology. They believe that God wants them to kill people with different religious beliefs. 

By dying they will become a martyr and end up in paradise.  By executing these terrorists we would be giving them the propaganda they crave. Their supporters would throng Trafalgar Square. The murderer’s name would become famous. Far better to let them rot in jail. 

When the IRA terrorists went on hunger strike and Bobby Sands died in 1981 it gave the IRA a boost. Money started flowing in from collecting tins across America. The UK was branded an evil empire killing “freedom fighters” even though the prisoners had killed themselves through starvation. How much worse would it have been if they had been executed by the state? 

After a horrific murder it is important that the focus is on the victim and their friends and family. If we had a death penalty there would be months of appeals. The murderer’s family would be seen on TV and in the press weeping. Sympathy might be switched away from the victim to the perpetrator. 

Imagine the day of the execution; crowds of supporters and protestors outside the prison with families crying. There would be huge international coverage. 

The obvious problem is wrongful conviction. Our legal system is not perfect. In recent years we have had plenty of miscarriages of justice. How would we feel if the Guildford four or Birmingham six had been executed for the IRA bombings when, in both cases, forensic evidence showed them all to be innocent? 

We then come to the difficult decision of who would carry out the execution? In the USA the American Medical Association have ruled that it would be unethical for any doctor to be involved. 

Pharmaceutical companies have refused to supply lethal drugs. I have no doubt that our British Medical Association or the General Medical Council would also rule against doctors becoming involved. Any system would have to produce a humane execution method. We no longer have any qualified hangmen. 

The crimes of Rudakubanu were horrific. I have five granddaughters and I found it difficult listening to the news. The younger ones would have loved a Tayor Swift themed party. How can any family cope after such evil? 

Rudakubanu is only 18n but will probably spend the rest of his life in prison branded a child killer. He will be forgotten and rot in jail. We do not need the death penalty. This is a fate worse than death.