Restoring the Death Penalty in Britain

Is it time for society to take the hard line??

Abomination or deterrent?  The Jury may be back soon!
Abomination or deterrent? The Jury may be back soon!
Dale Cregan...he will never be released to society again...but is this enough?
Dale Cregan...he will never be released to society again...but is this enough?
Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes Executed by Cregan
Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes Executed by Cregan

One writer's opinions

…The assassination of two young, unarmed female police officers in Manchester, Britain, on Tuesday, who were apparently lured to their death by shooting, along with a hand-grenade for good measure, by a person actually out on bail accused of another murder, has had this country dividing its loyalties between arming police or not; bringing back the death-penalty, or not.

Death sentences in Britain have been banned for any reason since 1998, although the last person hanged here was in 1964. In 2004, the EEC Convention of Human Rights banned the practice across the board for Union countries and a member seeking to restore the death penalty would have to cease to be a party to these mandates before it could proceed.

In lockstep with the argument to restore the death penalty in crimes such as the execution of the officers this week, is the furor by the public wanting to know why this criminal was on bail at all and why two unarmed police officers were sent to answer what had been reported as a burglary report!

It has been reported that many police officers, themselves, object to carrying weapons, as do many members of a citizenry still unaccustomed to gun violence. This, despite the fact that many if not most societies today see arming police officers as standard practice, including most of the countries in Europe. Britain is the main standout, as is New Zealand and Iceland, although these countries seem very vague about just what their firearms policy really is. (New Zealand, for example, used to allow officers to carry high-powered rifles in their patrol vehicles to dispatch injured stock or deer they found by the roadside). In many instances, administrations leave it to individual officers to carry or not as they see fit.

In Britain, only about 20% of officers regularly carry firearms, although this may certainly rise after the incident this week.

My own opinion, for what it may be worth, is that ALL police should be well-versed and schooled in the use of hand-guns and be required to hold a diploma and weekly practice, as they do in many US States. I believe ALL police responding to 999 or other calls from the public should attend any reported crime armed with a suitable weapon, (such as a 9 mm hand-gun). Much has been said (by the police) about the police response on Tuesday as being for a “routine domestic burglary,” which is why the officers were unarmed and possibly inexperienced. Well, burglars come in all shapes, sizes and degrees of sociopathic attitudes; many also carry knives and, yes, guns…failing this, a smack on the head by a poker can be as fatal as a bullet…ALL calls for burglary should be met by armed officers…as should calls of help over domestic violence. In fact, who can ever determine whether a “routine” call will go sour very quickly resulting on violence upon the attending officers? Police - and especially young, female officers - should not have to defend themselves against male offenders without the last word: a weapon. Generally, criminals will think twice about pushing things with an armed officer. The gun doesn’t have to be used in most cases, it just acts as the badge of authority and gives the police officer the advantage in most cases.

It’s specious nonsense to say “If the police arm themselves, so will the crooks.” The “crooks” these days are armed anyway, and for a criminal to use or display a gun against a police officer immediately ensures him of a mandatory jail sentence - or it should.

Our laws need amending to deny bail in any offence involving criminal violence, such as murder, or crimes involving weapons. What sad bungling or lack of effective jurisprudence allowed this sicko, Dale Cregan, out on bail while he was about to be convicted of TWO, or more, murders? Apart from the officers he is now charged with.

I think crimes like this are a good reason to have the ultimate deterrent, the death penalty. This scum will now be in prison for the rest of his days at the nation’s expense. He will be feared and “respected” by other cons (as those who murder all too often are).

He will have a comfortable life with all the amenities at his disposal such as canteen, TV, education and paid work. (as well as drugs and alcohol and homosexual diversions if he wishes…oh, yes!). He will become adjusted to confinement and his life will not be an onerous one after the initial adjustment. Compare this to the lives of the two police officers, snuffed out at age 29 and 23, and of their families having to carry this burden of sadness all their days. You decide who is worse off.

We have a Britain seething with scum from all over the world who have found easy criminal pickings here. The leniency from the courts and the lack of threat from our mild police is vastly different from what they received back home.

Britain IS a decent country, but our complacency is now threatening our way of life…

We should arm our peace officers, it is NOT an oxymoron.

We should review all bail procedures for dangerous criminals

We should consider bringing back the death penalty for these hideous and violent crimes becoming more and more common.

We have to do something…

More by this Author


Comments 17 comments

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Bob, Living in the USA I had never given much thought to Police Officers in many countries being unarmed. I can't even imagine how terrifying it would be to be called to an unknown situation with nothing but a club to defend myself. We all know that gun laws don't apply to bad people. They will have guns no matter what law is in effect at the time they commit their crime.

I have mixed feelings on the death penalty. Is the death penalty a deterrent to crime? I don't know because I am not a criminal and don't think like a criminal. To sentence a criminal to life in prison means the authorities have determined this individual is unfit to walk the streets and mix with society. The cost for keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life is horrendous. I would think once it is determined this person is unfit for society the death penalty should be considered depending on the crime he or she committed.

You bring up some very interesting points, but I doubt many will agree on what is the correct path to take on either issue.


diogenes profile image

diogenes 4 years ago from UK and Mexico Author

Hi buddy: Yeah: One can argue both sides of the death question: so many millions being lost all the time from wars, accidents, disease, smoking, drinking, et al, yet we worry ourselves sick about a couple every year and what should happen to them. I was against the DP in the past, but now I sort of feel an eye for an eye where criminal murder is committed could be the guiding philosophy.

Thanks for visit and comments

Bob


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Bob, The death penalty is one of those topics that could be argued either way. I still feel that once it is determined this criminal should never, ever, be released into society again the death penalty should be a consideration. When a vicious dog is captured, it is put down with no hesitation at all. Is there really a huge difference between a mass murderer and a vicious dog? Neither one can seem to figure out it is not OK to harm others. I suspect in both cases, either their brains go wired incorrectly, or something in their youth turned them into what they are.

I'm delighted you wrote this hub. It gives me something to think about today other than politics and the upcoming election.


diogenes profile image

diogenes 4 years ago from UK and Mexico Author

Thanks again, Old Poolman. The vicious dog analogy is a good one. We condemn so many good men and women to die in war, surely we should have the guts to get rid of a threat to the very fabric of our society at home. Lions kill neurotic pride members without compunction...

Bob


bac2basics profile image

bac2basics 4 years ago from Spain

Hi Bob. I agree with every single word you have said. You are spot on mate. police do need to carry firearms because the scum they are up against all carry something, be it a gun a knife or a bloody pitbull trained to attack. And as you so rightly point out, even police attending what should be a non threatening call out, can soon find they have a big problem, especially nowadays with the lack of respect shown to anything and everything, including Police officers, by some of todays layabout no hope drug taking ( or selling or both) Dole heads. One of the reasons my husband and I left the UK was because of how bad things were getting there, including lack of respect for law and order. Police do need arming and the death penalty should be brought back. I never thought I would say this in 1998, but now it seems the insane are running the asylum, and yes , something needs to be done and PDQ.


Isibi profile image

Isibi 4 years ago

"Outlaw the guns and only outlaws will have guns." I agree with you 100% and I personally would go a step further and make sure the average citizen should have access to a firearm for self defense. Now I'm not saying give away guns willy nilly, there should be licencing and registration, much like a car which is also easily capable of taking lives through negligence. That being said criminals can attack anytime, anywhere, and innocent victims should have a fighting chance for survival. Call me harsh, but the minute someone goes after another person's life their own right to live is waived. This would most likely deter criminals and increase survival rates of victims, as long as the victims are properly educated and mentally sound.


diogenes profile image

diogenes 4 years ago from UK and Mexico Author

Thanks Bact2basics. The police are not trained as they should be to really realize what they are up against in Britain, rapidly becoming one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Guns are such an emotive issue that politicians are scared to do the right thing for fear of loosing votes. Same applies to the death penalty, only more so.

This administration reminds of Nero fiddling as Rome burned down around him

Bob


diogenes profile image

diogenes 4 years ago from UK and Mexico Author

Hi Isibi: The Swiss have no army because all Swiss nationals are required to keep a modern rifle and ammo, etc., in the house. It works for them.

Of course British police should be armed and fully protected; the cops not willing to carry a weapon should be politely asked to hit the road.

Either that, or don't complain when officers get gunned down.

Life sentences are not a punishment really and they rarely mean natural life, we can't afford to keep them in prison. We need a cheaper and stronger deterrent.

Bob


aviannovice profile image

aviannovice 4 years ago from Stillwater, OK

You have made several valid and important points. Two females should not have been sent on that call weaponless. That is a simple fact. Are the families suing the jurisdiction?


diogenes profile image

diogenes 4 years ago from UK and Mexico Author

Hi aviannovice. This is a good point, but I don't think they would win in a British court, always prejudiced in the favor of the establishment.

Bob


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago

I agree with you! If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And if citizens are not allowed to have guns in their homes, criminals would not be afraid of getting shot in another person's home.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Gun control is perhaps one of the most controversial issues we ever talk about. To set the record straight, I am pro-gun. I have a Concealed Carry Permit in my wallet, I practice shooting at the range at least once a week, and I train regularly in tactical defense that insures I really know how to use my weapon.

Contrary to popular belief, holders of Concealed Carry Permits are not vigilantes. The mandatory eight hour class required to obtain this permit mainly stresses that your weapon is only for personal protection. It may not be legally used to protect your property, just your life. To use this weapon in defense of your life will most likely result in a civil lawsuit costing you a minimum of $10,000 in legal fees, even if the law judges it a rightful shooting. It is not the job of the Concealed Carry Permit holder to stop a robbery at a convenience store. It is to save your own life or the life of those you love.

With every shooting by some nut case the immediate cry from many is to abolish all guns from the country. Yet daily, many people die in automobile accidents but nobody suggests banning cars. I saw a recent publication showing the total number of people in the US who purchase hunting licenses every year. This number is in the millions, and we can assume that most if not all of them own at least one firearm.

Bottom line is it is the person holding the gun that does the killing. If they are intent on killing another person there are a great many weapons that could and would be used other than a gun. A baseball bat would do the job just as well. I live in a rural area where the response time by law enforcement can be up to one hour. A lot of things can happen in one hours time and I can't even imagine how terrifying it would be waiting for the police to arrive with no means of defending yourself and your family until they arrived on the scene.

I for one will defend the right to own weapons until the day I die, unless someone can figure out a way to eliminate all the bad people we now have roaming around the country.

It was less than 100 years ago that most men in this country carried a gun. There was no law enforcement in many areas of the Old West. Then law enforcement was established, and over time they put their guns away. Now we have a shortage of law enforcement due to budget cuts, and new laws have tied their hands to the point they can do nothing until a crime has been committed. So in a way, we have come full circle to where it is once again time for citizens to have the means to provide their own protection. With the increased use of illegal drugs this need is getting more important by the day.

I doubt that everyone will agree with my views, and that is OK, but they will never change my mind.


bac2basics profile image

bac2basics 4 years ago from Spain

Hi Bob. The administration has always " Fiddled" and Mamby Pamby do gooders and civil rights aficionados are turning the pages of the sheet music. Criminals now have more rights than those they target. Where´s the justice in that ? Ask any ex - pat in my neck of the woods why they left the rat infested ship " HMS Grand Britannia "And Crime rates and lack of suitable punishment will come top, or near the top of the list I can assure you.


diogenes profile image

diogenes 4 years ago from UK and Mexico Author

Noted all: Thanks for visit and comments

Bob


b. Malin profile image

b. Malin 4 years ago

Good Hub on a Timely subject Diogenes. I believe in the death penalty...Except in a "Crime of Passion". The "Bad Guys" will always be able to get Guns, or use a Weapon of sorts to kill...While the "Good Guys", should be allowed to carry guns as well, as long as they meet the requirements.

I look forward to Following your Interesting Hubs.


srsddn profile image

srsddn 3 years ago from Dehra Dun, India

I have lived in Manchester about two decades back and your Hub helps me to recall my impressions about lady police there. While it is an unfortunate incident at Manchester but it should be an eye opener to all those who monitor police functioning. It is difficult to imagine police without weapons in many parts of the world and my latest observation is about police in Singapore which was not seen at all during my three weeks stay there, what to talk about weapons. It is also interesting to note that it could be a discretion whether to carry weapons or not. Death penalty is still a debatable issue and more often than not it is drifting towards abolition in many countries. But our laws should be responding to the realities of the situations prevailing in a particular country and I feel the decision on death penalties need to be revisited in the United Kingdom. Thumbed up.


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago

I believe your police women should have weapons. And I believe in DP.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working