Why capital punishment should be re-introduced in Britain

By Tajudeen Obafemi Adenuga

Life, according to Christianity, Islam and most other world faiths, is sacred. If life is indeed sacred, how then could a firm believer in any of these faiths becomes an advocate of capital punishment?  That is the dilemma that confronts me as I write this piece to support my position on ‘why capital punishment should be re-introduced in Britain’.   

Most people have very strong and often controversial views on capital punishment (death penalty) because it is regarded as the worst punishment a criminal can receive.  For example, anyone that is sentenced to death is executed by a variety of methods like the electric chair, lethal injection or, in some other countries by being beheaded, hanged or being shot.  While some people are strongly in favour of the death penalty, some others feel it is cruel and unnecessary. Although the death penalty is presently no longer in force in Britain, it continues to be commonly applied in other countries.  It is, therefore, not surprising that in Britain, and some other countries where capital punishment is banned, some, if not most of the people would like to see it re-introduced.                                                                                                                                

 “Three held as calls for hanging rang loud - Fake gallows were held up outside the Old Bailey as protesters gathered to call for the death penalty for the killers of Lee Rigby”. 

The above was the headline of a story on page 5 of the Metro newspaper edition of Thursday, 27th February 2014.  In the past couple of months, the arrest, trial and subsequent sentencing of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale to life and forty-five years imprisonment respectively in connection with the murder of Lee Rigby, a British soldier who was hacked to death in May 2013 in London, has brought more agitation for the re-introduction of death sentence in Britain. 

Also, in recent years, bills to restore the death penalty for all murderers or the murderers of police officers have been introduced in the House of Commons by Tory back-benchers every time they have had the chance.  Most often, the motions have been moved by Elizabeth Peacock, the self-appointed leader of the pro-hanging Conservatives.  But the bills have invariably been rejected on a free vote by vast majorities; the most recent results were 406-161 for all murders on 21 February 1994, and 385-188 for police murders (Boothroyd 1995).  They (back-benchers) usually emphasise that they are not seeking mere revenge, but that capital punishment is a better deterrent than imprisonment.           

While I accept the fact that it is the fundamental rights of those that are against the re-introduction of capital punishment, I am willing to align myself with the position of those in support of the re-introduction of same in Britain because, it is my belief that by killing a murderer, it will serve as a deterrent to future murderers, and that by taking the life of a murderer; the State shall be defending another life.  I am also of the opinion that if a person kills another person, then the killer should be killed as well.  This is because life has been denied the victim, and so the only way to teach the murderer and the rest of society that this is wrong, is to deny the murderer his own life.  Also, as an advocate of the re-introduction of capital punishment,

I hold firm to the belief that it shall be a way of deterring others from killing, as they could end up with the same fate as the victims that they (the murderers) have put to death.  Therefore, the following viewpoints on capital punishments are being elaborated upon to support my position that capital punishment should be re-introduced in Britain for the crime of murder:                                               

  1. Eternal Law and Capital Punishment:  It is an efficient operation free from the defects of the material laws of nature and human reason.  It would bind both the murderer and the victim equally in participation.  Since both persons are created from the same substance predating such, the eternal law is also injured.  Taken in equal measures from the rule, the murderer must compensate for the injury that his act has done to the victim.  This may be argued as lex talonis or the position of retributive justice for an offence, i.e. an eye for an eye.  According to Aquinas:

“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good …..  It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community - just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body”.

  1. Natural Law and Capital Punishment:  Includes the acceptance of the existence of a powerful inter-relationship between legal standards and morality. Natural law recognises the existence of innate laws that are woven into the fabric of the universe, where it is assumed that all humans are, or possess the ability to be reasonable.  The natural law tradition is fair to the murderer and the victim, because there is no distinction in the operations of nature from one country or one person to the other. The natural reason of human is fallible due to their birth in nature (Aquinas1992).  Murder is an unnatural act and compensation to the injured is still justifiable. Therefore, capital punishment is proportional to murder.  For example, St Thomas Aquinas was a vocal supporter of the death penalty.  This was based on the theory found in natural moral law, that the State has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within, and without.    
  2. Positivism and Capital Punishment:  This is related to legal positivism, which would insinuate that all capital punishment and its administration is the right of the sovereign to protect its citizens.  This is a legal right, not an act of the use of crime or vice to retaliate.  Judicial and juridical punishment must be distinguished from natural punishment.  Capital punishment is inflicted on a person who has committed a crime and is legally convicted.  In such light, the civil State and the sovereign are immune from guilt as the agent of the victim and collective will as has been argued by Kant (Anderson 1998).                                                               
  3. Utilitarianism and Capital Punishment:  The main aim is to maximize one's pleasure; it would thus suggest that capital punishment would aid in increasing people's happiness as those placing a burden on the happiness of individuals would be taken care of.  John Stuart Mill argued in cases where we can only choose between executing or permanently incarcerating the villain (death or ‘life meaning life’) … execution is the least bad option because … it causes the least suffering to the villain…and there is no gain for anyone in the other option.  The utility of an action is measured against the standard of whether it achieves the greatest good for the greatest possible number.                                                                                               
  4. Islam and Capital Punishment:  "...If anyone kills a person - unless it is for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people" (Quran 5:32).  According to Quran 5:32, the following two crimes can be punishable by death:
  1. Intentional murder - Although forgiveness and compassion are strongly encouraged, the Quran legislates the death penalty for murder.  The murdered victim's family is given a choice to either insist on the death penalty, or to pardon the perpetrator and accept compensation for their loss (Quran 2:178).
  2. Fasad fil-ardh ("spreading mischief in the land") - The second crime for which capital punishment can be applied is a bit more open to interpretation. "Spreading mischief in the land" can mean many different things, but is generally interpreted to mean those crimes that affect the community as a whole, and destabilize the society.
  1. Christianity and Capital Punishment:  Although the Christian scriptures (New Testament) do not contain new codes of law which govern the death penalty, however, there were many references to capital punishment in the Bible.  In Acts 5:1 to 11, the Bible described how a couple, Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God for lying about church donations.

Also, the Bible in Romans 13:1-5, instructs Christians to submit themselves to the authority of the State, because "The authorities that exist have been established by God." Referring to the authorities, the Bible in Romans 13 verse 4 says: "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."  The reference to "sword" might be interpreted literally (to refer to capital punishment) or symbolically (to refer to the power of the State to punish wrongdoers).                                                                                                     

In Britain, for example, there is majority public support for the re-introduction of capital punishment. Also, there are surveys showing that about two-third of people in Britain would like to see capital punishment re-introduced.  Therefore, having carefully considered the above viewpoints on capital punishments, it is my conclusion that for the crime of murder, there is no better time than now, for the re-introduction of capital punishment in Britain for the following reasons:

  • It is proportional to murder. 
  • It permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration.
  • The murderer must compensate for the injury that his act has done to the victim.  This may be argued as lex talonis or the position of retributive justice for an offence, i.e. an eye for an eye.
  • It could become a highly effective deterrence, which shall put off most people from committing the crime of murder.
  • It is self-evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it.
  • The money spent on providing for criminals in prison with long term sentences, could be better spent on the old, the young, the sick, the pensioners, extra policing, etc.

* Otunba Tajudeen Obafemi Adenuga holds a LLB (Hons.) Business Law and LLM (International Commercial Law)