E-petitions for the death penalty
6 August 2011
Capital punishment has topped the list of the e-petitions submitted to a new government scheme launched on 3rd August 2011.
The coalition government has resurrected the idea of e-petitions which began with No 10’s previous e-petition site during the last Labour administration. It was suspended ahead of the general election then shelved by the Coalition. But it has been resurrected by David Cameron’s director of strategy, Steve Hilton, with the promise that those that attract more than 100,000 signatures will be considered for debate in Parliament.
Already the libertarian left is worried that the leading issue is multiple petitions calling for the restoration of the death penalty. Alexander Chancellor compares this unwelcome raising of former issues to the resurfacing of boils. This suggests that he thinks public opinion is like pus, putting him in the same league as the Equality and Human Rights Commission which suggested that Christian doctrine was an infection to be resisted. The first response of the humanist lobby, however, is to say, Bring it on, in a show of bravado and confidence in their arguments. We will see if their courage extends to testing their mantra that there is no deterrence in the death penalty, which could be easily tested by its re-introduction to the UK. Capital punishment was abandoned in 1965 and murders have doubled since the 1950s.
For decades politicians have ignored the wishes of the people, the majority of whom want the death penalty. So why do politicians not oblige? Recent evidence from the News of the World scandal suggests that most politicians have got something to hide and can be leaned upon by the relevant lobbyists. This leaning continues apace and we will see if these online petitions can have any impact upon this cartel of control which local London lobbyists and media moguls possess.
It is difficult to tell if this resurgence of interest in the death penalty is the result of thousands of lives being affected by ‘the life is cheap’ attitude of violent criminals; whether it is the release of the long-held pent up feelings of the population; or whether it is a right-wing backlash to replace the moral laissez-faire which has prevailed for too long.
The dissatisfaction with current legislation is varied. Many people want ‘life to mean life’. Many think that victims do not receive justice when the state ignores condign punishment. Others think that it is unjust that financial criminals receive longer sentences than murderers. The injustice and inconsistencies in how successive Home Secretaries set minimum sentences of murderers led to the transfer of this power to judges in 2002.
The top e-petitions were for the death penalty, pulling out of Europe and withdrawing from the European Human Rights Act, most of which the Scottish Christian Party support but which the BBC discredit at election time. However, it is time for debate and SCP polling shows that Christians are not familiar with Scripture teaching on the subject although they can have very fixed views on it.
Those who oppose capital punishment call it judicial murder, overlooking the definition of murder. Christians who use this terminology need to consider that they are condemning divine law, for whatever is their opinion of New Testament teaching, it was plainly Old Testament teaching. Their issue is with the Bible and whether they are prepared to be guided by Scripture or sentiment. The argument that the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights contradicts the fact that murder is the ultimate denial of human rights – this is why murder carries the death sentence Genesis 9:6.
Definition is vitally important in so important a subject, and some e-petitions manifest a right-wing mindless attitude to capital punishment, advocating it for mere possession of an unlicensed firearm, or unauthorised explosives, and similar offences. This is not murder, and such over-the-top attitudes discredit the topic. Evidence is also important, and when Tory MP Philip Davies says: “We should recognise that with advances in technology and DNA the chances of getting somebody wrong for a crime like murder is much more remote than it was in the past”, he is putting his trust in the wrong place. Forensic evidence may help to identify criminals, but it is not sufficient testimony for the death sentence, although it may be sufficient for a life sentence.
The inevitable online competition is evident on the new website with petitions for and against capital punishment. One petition wants a debate that all references to capital punishment, hanging, and the death sentence should be automatically removed from government e-petitions. This shows the form of democracy that some humanists want. Anthony Barnett accepts debate but then he questions whether Parliament can legislate to break the European Convention on Human Rights. So the humanist lobby would neuter our ability to change national law. The whole purpose of Parliament is to debate and change law, and Barnett’s arguement is just another reason why we should leave the EU and recover the right to make our own laws. The new website was so popular that it continually crashed shortly after it was launched. However, even The Telegraph has joined the media pack in describing the public interest as “hijacking by right wing campaigners”.
On the other hand the Scottish Christian Party believes in greater participation of the public and believes in referenda for important constitutional changes. We welcome this facility for online petitions directly appealing to government, with a threshold at which the government must debate the topic.
Related Stories
