On 4 August 2012, I will be posting an article in memory of Holly Marie Wells and Jessica Aimee Chapman to mark the 10th anniversary of the Soham murders on 4 August 2002. I saw an article by Steve Doughty on The Daily Mail titled: Evil Huntley's cushy prison life is a disgrace, but restoring of the death penalty is not the answer Monday 9 July 2012. When I was a death penalty opponent, I would agree with him 100% but not anymore, I will explain why I do not agree with him on three points.
For a number of reasons, I do not support the restoration of capital punishment. One of them is that the nature and seriousness of wrongdoing is changing all the time.
There are very senior lawyers and judges who dispute the assumption that underpinned the death penalty and which remains overwhelmingly the popular view – that murder is more serious than any other crime and that for the protection of the public murderers must be punished differently from other criminals. They believe that long jail sentences are cruel and unusual, and that murderers do not deserve them.
Rebuttal: By putting people like Ian Huntley to death, the family members can move on with their lives and the media can stop focusing on a lowlife like him. Immanuel Kant will agree to that.
“They believe that long jail sentences are cruel and unusual, and that murderers do not deserve them.” As usual, whenever there is no capital punishment in the country, never be surprised that the liberal courts will abolish life sentences next. I suspect that Ian Huntley rather live in prison than be released as he is afraid of lynch mobs.
Years ago, Ian Huntley’s mother said her son's actions were "unforgivable" and he should pay for them with his own life.
Ms Nixon, 49, also said she had thought Huntley was guilty because she "saw it in his eyes" when he was arrested.
Ms Nixon told the paper: "I truly wish we had capital punishment.”
"I believe Ian should not live after what he's done."
She added: "He's my baby boy and I love him but he deserves to be punished. He deserves to be strung up for what he's done.”
"I wish there was an electric chair in this country that they could put him in and that would be the end of it."
I do not trust these judges with the power of life and death, any more than I trust them not to decide on a whim that Huntley should go free.
They are very humane, educated and experienced lawyers, but somehow their thinking has lost touch with the people over whose lives they are assuming ever greater powers.
The spectre of Moors murderer Ian Brady, who is at present trying to win the right to starve himself to death, should remind us that many pillars of the legal establishment favoured the release of Brady’s partner, Myra Hindley, before her death in 2002 robbed them of their cause.
European judges order that in Britain prisoners must have the vote; British judges regularly regard the right to a family life of a criminal with a girlfriend as more important than the need to preserve the public from his activities.
Rebuttal: Why not get rid of the current justice system then? The current British justice system is like the European Court of Human Rights who are the best friends of criminals. We need judges like Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Alex Kozinski, and Chalerm Ubumrung who are tough on crime. Just look at the Black Vultures in Iran, the Iranian government has put down evildoers in their country.
So I prefer hearing the galling news about Ian Huntley’s steaks to giving our current generation of judges the power to hang him.
Rebuttal: Leo McKinstry wrote in The Express on Monday 2 August 2010: Only in the sick world of modern judicial Britain could a murderer challenge for almost 10 times the financial recompense that relatives of his victims received. But his claim is not just an offence against morality, it makes no sense. Huntley has tried to kill himself at least three times in prison. So why is he complaining when another inmate attempts to do the job for him?
A swift end is what he appears to have been seeking since he began his sentence. Tragically, despite this weekend’s assertions that it will “vigorously defend the case”, the Ministry of Justice will probably negotiate a deal with Huntley, showing its usual moral cowardice and contempt for the British public. “They will try and settle this out of court if they can,” says one ministry insider.
Already, even before a payout is agreed, it seems certain that Huntley will receive legal aid to fight his case, so as taxpayers we will all be forced to support the legal antics of this brute. Blood money down a moral sewer is the only way to describe the farce. All this could have been avoided if Huntley had been executed in 2002. That is the punishment his terrible crimes merited.
Hanging would not have been barbarous, as opponents of the death penalty would no doubt argue. It would, in truth, have been an act of the highest morality, providing closure for his victims’ families and justice for our society.
His execution would have ended all this expensive nonsense of lawsuits. Far too often infamous lifers use our misnamed human rights culture to create a drama around themselves. We saw it with the nonstop, self-pitying campaign by Myra Hindley for early release and in mass murderer Dennis Nilsen’s vile demand, predictably funded by legal aid, to be provided with hard-core gay porn in his cell.
The gallows would have ended such absurdities, just as they would have prevented other inmates trying to act as lynch mobs. The prison system is forced to spend more than £1million a year protecting Huntley from other convicts, giving him a constant watch by three teams of two officers. Many would, understandably, say attacks from other inmates are no more than Huntley deserves.
But doesn’t that undermine the argument that the death penalty is more barbaric than a life sentence? The truth is that capital punishment is the badge of a civilised society. England was a far gentler, more well-ordered and cohesive place in the Fifties when we executed monsters like Huntley.