Restore the death penalty for murderers

I have always advocated that the death penalty should be restored for convicted killers. I am pleased to see therefore that a campaign is being launched to have the matter debated and voted on in Parliament. This is an issue where millions of people have their views ignored and it is an issue where I believe successive Governments have failed to mirror public opinion.

Modern technology together with the final sentence being determined by a jury would I believe overcome the objections of those who worry about the risk of miscarriages of justice.

Published by David Nuttall

Business and Political Consultant

48 thoughts on “Restore the death penalty for murderers

  1. “One day we will see the scum of the earth put down for good”. . . .hardly a Christian viewpoint. Mr Nuttall, you are aligning yourself with extremists.

  2. Keep trying David,maybe one day we will see the scum of the earth put down for good.There’s too much killing of police and young children over the last few years that something has to be done or they will spend the rest of their lives living in ‘luxury’ at our expense.

  3. The U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that there are two essential human rights that every human being has: the right not to be tortured and the right not to be killed.

    State sanctioned killing is MURDER, it is cold, premeditated and it debases the people who sanction it and who carry it out. Two wrongs do not make a right!

    “People are scared of crime, and they’ve been manipulated by politicians who push this button for all it’s worth. For politicians, the death penalty is a convenient symbol and an easy way to prove how tough they are on criminals and crime. It allows them to avoid tackling the complex issue of how to get to the roots of crime in our communities.” Sr Helen Prejean)

    Mr Nuttall claims to be Christian, yet the killing of another person is totally against the teachings of Jesus, a man who was himself executed! The Ten Commandments state ‘Thou shalt not kill’ it does not then say ‘except under the following circumstances….’

    No one has the right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad or evil that other person may be. Murder is evil, I have friends who have been murdered but to seek to kill their murderer makes me as base and bad, in fact it makes me worse than the murderer.

    Jesus Christ, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence.He told us to forgive one another, to treat others as we would have them treat us. To show mercy so that mercy will be shown us.
    To quote Sr Helen Prejean who wrote the book “Dead Man Walking” and who is an advocate against state executions –

    “I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to “God’s Avengers.” Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God’s authority and God’s blessing. I do not believe in such a God.”

    I cannot and do not believe in such a God either. So how do you, Mr Nuttall reconcile your proclaimed Christian faith with it?

    It takes more strength of character to resist the urge to do harm and commit murder than it does to carry out such a barbaric act.

    State executions DO NOT prevent murders happening. State executions are murder and those who support it and defend it as murderers.

    As a self professed Christian Mr Nuttall, you must surely know that the Bible is clear on what will become of murderers.

    International Standard Version (©2008)
    “But people who are cowardly, unfaithful, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death.”

    Better we are all pro-life, pro-living, pro-supporting those who seek life and freedom and a way out of poverty and the traps that cause people to kill than end up being as bad as or worse than those who take steps to commit the initial act of violence.

    “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.. Dr Martin Luther King 1958

    Wake Up Mr Nuttall, you are living in a world of darkness and anger, revenge and lovelessness, that is not the call of or the way of Jesus Christ or his followers, so either cease calling yourself a Christian or open your eyes, your heart and your mind to the call of a forgiving, loving God, who has forgiven you your sins and failings, you have a duty to forgive others theirs, no matter how bad they are.

    This is not to say that punishments should not be meted out to those who cause harm, break the law or kill. We all have to live with the consequences of our actions and just and fair punishments are the way to deal with this,not killing everyone we THINK deserves it.

  4. Yes – it makes it quite clear that you envisage the execution of a person when some members of the jury have real doubts about their guilt. Contrary to what I understood your reply to Paul Parkinson, above, to mean. This is an issue of principle. You clearly propose execution when doubt exists about guilt amongst those who judge you.

    Secondly, on most juries, depending on which opinion poll you prefer, there will almost always be 4, 5 or even more members who do not believe in capital punishment. I suspect they would be unlikely to agree to such punishment therefore if asked and in practice a 10-2 majority for execution would be a rare and fluke event. Not a sound basis for I submit for the extreme sanction – and one likely to bring the system into disrepute.

    Your suggestion that we rarely hear of criticism of juries is also a little worrying. How many people I wonder would have been executed wrongly, based on the subsequent overturning of a juries verdict on appeal or retrial since capital punishment was abolished. I am thinking of a number of Ireland related cases, with multiple eventual acquittals, and the Barry George case. I believe there have been others. Maybe not understood as criticism of juries, just acknowledgement they got it wrong.

  5. David,
    If understand your comments correctly, and thank you for being so open about this, you are saying that only where a jury has unanimously found a defendent guilty will the death sentence be considered and that it would then only be imposed if the jury unanimously though it approporiate – ie when there is no doubt in the jury.

    Given that it will always, statistically, be very likely that someone, and likely more, on a jury who opposes the death penalty your approach seems to be one that introduces something that will never happen. Do you regard this as a realisitic worry and is it not a recipe for bringing our laws even further into disrepute. On the other hand if a jury is comprised entirely of death sentence supporters a guilty defendent would be very unlucky to be killed in our name on the say of a most unrepresentative group of his/her peers.

    1. Hi,

      I would see the rules about juries operating as they do now with the Judge initially directing that they try and reach a unanimous verdict and then after a length of time the Judge directs that he will accept a majority (10-2) verdict. I agree we do not want to see our system of justice brought into disrepute but I think the public understand and trust our jury system. We rarely hear of any criticism about the verdicts reached by juries.


      1. You have now puzzled me a bit. In an salute reply you said that if there is even ‘the tiniest bit of doubt’ in the mind of a juror then capital punishment would not be appropriate. So it would only apply if there was a unanimous verdict ? Is this what you mean. And then after someone has been found guilty by a unanimous the jury would need to unanimously agree on a death sentence ? Is this what you mean.

      2. A jury could convict on 10-2 as at present and then find that capital punishment was appropriate on a 10-2 because I did state that I envisage the jury system working as at present. My reference to jurors being sure. to put it another way if three jurors were not certain that capital puishment was appropriate then the sentence would remain as at present ie life imprisonment..

        Hope this makes things clear.


  6. If you don’t restore the death penalty, then serial killers and the worst of our society, have nothing to fear for the horrible crimes they commit. The Birch should also be introduced. However the ‘do gooders’ MP’s included always fall soft because of the criminals ‘human rights’ but what about the victim’s human rights too? We are currently spending millions each year keeping these people locked up, when that money could be better spent on the NHS or something else worthwhile. It goes to show how much British human life is worth to the government and authorities, that criminals get more severe sentences for crimes against property and theft, than they do if they hurt or kill someone and by rights it should be the opposite way around. The vote for the death penalty shouldn’t just be for MP’s to vote on, but we all should be able to vote on this issue because the MP’s are not representative of the victims of these horrible crimes, therefore they have no empathy with victims. Often MP’s won’t have any insight as to how a serial murder has had an impact on the victims and community as a whole, so they don’t really vote for the people they represent, they are voting on how they feel which is why the people of Britain are so disengaged from politics. The criminal is often better thought of than the victim, the criminal will have people looking after them, making sure that their human rights are taken care of, yet the victim who has suffered gets no real long lasting support to get them back on their feet.

  7. People are not compelled to murder. The murderers do have a choice. Since the death penalty was abolished capital murder offences have increased and the nature of many murders increasingly shock society. Life imprisonment is rarely used and a significant number of offenders come out of prison and kill again. Life has got much cheaper and the killing of babies has reached massive proportions in our society.Mr Alan Barber says our MP has no mandate to put forward his views on this and other topics .Did those MPs who voted to abolish the Death Penalty have a mandate ?.The answer is NO. Mr Barber throws around terms like cretin and idiot which only weakens his argument. At least when we read of the next truly awful murder of some child or elderly person in their I hope Mr Barber will feel a little guilt and responsibilty for creating this soft approach to evil criminals. because while I feel frustrated by what is happening I do not think they can blame people who favoured the ultimate sanction for appropriate capital ooffences. However he is right that we will not reintroduce the death penalty because of our membership of the European Union but, If the death penalty is not the answer, Mr Barber has to suggest some possible alternative to remedying the never ending increase in horrific murders OR has he not noticed ? Is he the one living on another planet?

    1. Hi,
      I submit that as the issue of capital punishment is a free vote issue and I have always made my views on the topic very clear including clearly stating my view on this website prior to the general election I do have a mandate to vote as I will if the matter is ever brought before Parliament.

      1. Once again you defy the people of Bury by saying you will vote for the death penalty when it is patently clear you DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY .Other people have pointed this out to you but as is the case with most of your party YOU DON’T GIVE A DAMN. By stating it is a free vote makes no difference and as i and others have said we have NEVER heard you spout on about the death penalty, 4 lines on this website, not read by the majority of people in Bury, does not give you the right to vote AGAINST the wishes of the majority. You said in answer to one of my previous posts that if the government did not LISTEN it would be accused of complacency, well that is the case with you and if there is any legal redress i and others can take to MAKE you act on this and any other matters, including LYING to the voters then believe me we will take it. Erick Pickles said the voters ” SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET RID OF A MP” so i hope you will watch your step and vote in accordance with the wishes of the people of Bury but i am not holding my breath because what Eric Pickles said was just another soundbite because if it was put into law most of your tory mps, including you and the lib dem leader would have to look for a proper job. I would like to point out to you that David Davis called a by election on a point of principle so if you have any priciples then call a by election and we shall see who is right, but because of your voting record in the house and your attitude to the voters of Bury you will not have the guts because you would be kicked out of office. I therefore challenge you to call an election A.S.A.P. You were elected by a MINORITY of the electorate so do not say you are speaking for the MAJORITY when it is clearly NOT THE CASE.

  8. Well, after these comments from your constituents, you won’t be able to say you are representing the views of the people of Bury on this issue.

    The death penalty is a violation of two fundamental human rights, as laid down in Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
    ■the right to life, and
    ■the right not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment

    The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

    Quite simply, killing people is wrong – “Thou shalt not kill”!

  9. Ever had a family member or close friend murdered?! i have and I back David Nuttall 100%.

    1. Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. At least with THOSE retributions the punished person is still alive when it turns out they are innocent. Who would do the killing? I bet you won’t. The death penalty is a disgusting punishment designed to appease rather than punish.

      And when you get the wrong person in the dock and a miscarriage of justice happens? What then? Shrug your shoulder and move on? How would you feel if your loved one was accused of a murder they didn’t commit? Would you still support the death penalty then?

      1. Hi,
        My solution is that the jury who hear the case should be able to determine if capital punishment should be considered. This would allow them to determine whether there is any doubt about the identity of the murderer. Very often there is absolutely no doubt at all. If there is even the tiniest doubt in some of the jury members minds then they would not recommend capital punishment.

  10. It is grotesque that this is even being considered as a possible option. This is another example of the ‘blue sky’ thinking that contemplated such pearls as ‘what would happen if we stopped statutory maternity pay or closed jobcentres?’ It’s absolute madness and rightly condemned by the vast (and sane) majority of people.
    On a separate note to James – it is pretty offensive and frankly irrelevant to compare killing a fully developed human to stopping the growth of a potential human….. That said, it probably won’t be long before these right-wing nutters start an e-petition on ‘Should abortion be outlawed?’, ‘Should unmarried mothers be made to wear a scarlet letter?’etc.
    Watch this space…

    1. XX It’s absolute madness and rightly condemned by the vast (and sane) majority of people.XX

      However much you obviously hate facts 53 % in a recent poll are IN FAVOUR of bringing back the death sntence.

      But don’t let things like FACTS detter your wooly thinking lassie

  11. Mr Nuttall
    I was WRONGLY convicted and given a life sentence 19 years ago but still fight to clear my name. The whole system IS flawed and therefore the death penalty cannot be even considered. You cannot have it for certain murders either……the state would be murderers if you persist with this proposal. Remember Mary Druhan, Birmingahm 6, Guildford 4, the Maguires, Bridgewater 4, Cardiff 3, Stephan Kisco, Sheila Bowler, Tony Poole, Gary Mills, Sally Clarke, Kevin Callan, Paul Blackburn, Suzanne Holdsworth, and many others who have cleared their names. Use your efforts to make the system just and fair. Make CCRC and Court of Appeal more accountable. Let us have a total review of the Justice System!
    Sue May

    1. Absolutely right Sue May. Mr Nuttall is wasting his time on age old chestnuts that get the UK nowhere on the world stage of upholding human rights. His proposal is degrading to the UK and is a total infringement of the The U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that there are two essential human rights that every human being has: the right not to be tortured and the right not to be killed.

  12. I am usually part of the silent majority but this is one thing I have very strong views on. The reintroduction of the Death Penalty is something I can never agree to, irrespective of the crime and this is for many reasons.

    The simplest one is that it is impossible to release an innocent dead man.

    To that end I have set up a counter-petition to the UK Government titled “Do NOT restore Capital Punishment” which they say will be live on the petitions site in a few days.

    As and when it goes live can I ask all readers on this site who do NOT want it to happen to sign this petition and re-post, blog and otherwise get this message out.

    We, the silent majority, do NOT want people put to death in our name.

  13. I agree with most posters above that the Death Penalty should NOT be re-introduced, for a number of reasons, not least that of possible mistaken identity.

    However, I am also sure, Rob Spence and others, that you would find many doctors willing to carry it out.

    The Hippocratic Oath specifically forbids murdering unborn children, i.e. abortion. Unfortunately many doctors will still perform them.

  14. David, the failure of government to ‘mirror public opinion’ is an interesting concept but surely this alone cannot be your only reason for advocating the death penalty. I would be very interested to hear your personal views on why you think the death penaly is a good thing.

    1. And unsurprisingly enough, Mr Nuttall has failed to reply to your question.

      So David, come and answer the question honestly, stop hiding behind this facade of ‘public opinion.’ You weren’t voted in by the majority of people in Bury North so don’t pretend that you have the support of the majority of people on this issue, because you don’t.

  15. You want “qualified medical practitioners” to carry out the death penalty? They’ll be the ones who’ve taken the Hippocratic oath, then, will they?

    1. Of course, for there has to be more Dr Harold Shipman’s working in the NHS and if not then we just import and pay a Swiss doctor from the Dignitas clinic. That’ll be costly in this financially challenged environment. Or perhaps the millionaires David Cameron and Nick Clegg will give private financial support and save the State the burden?

  16. Sorry David, I am another one who think that even considering restoring the death penalty is regressive, misguided and counter productive. Your belief in the power of technology is touching, but ultimately naive. Technology is only ever operated by people, people are fallible. Police are sometimes corrupt, sometimes inept, sometimes under pressure to get results. Our system at present is not perfect, but if a mistake is made we can let an innocent person out of jail. You can’t dig an innocent person out of the ground, give them 20 quid and a new suit and release them into civilian life, because they are dead at the hands of the State. Judging by the comments on this posting thus far, your popular support for this measure must be slumbering far far away from the Internet. I count not a single voice in support of you. Time for a rethink?

  17. Only when the criminal justice system is infallible will it ever be acceptable to consider execution as a possible form of punishment.

  18. Thank you people of Bury. I had expected all the comments were to be of the “abaht time samwun spoke up for the ordnary decent hard working tax payer with knee jerk string em up tendencies” variety, but instead we have the rightful condemnation of this nasty little right wing policy put forward by… a self proclaimed christian. Hypocrite!

    As pointed out above, the only purpose of judicial killing is revenge. Hardly in accord with the Christian message of love and forgiveness.

  19. “Modern technology together with the final sentence being determined by a jury would I believe overcome the objections of those who worry about the risk of miscarriages of justice.”

    …and with all our wonderful shiny technology and the input of a jury, our judicial system convicted Barry George of the murder of Jill Dando in 2001. His conviction was quashed in 2007 and a retrial in 2008 acquitted him.

    You can’t acquit a dead man, and whilst the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent (wo)man is horrible enough, the wrongful execution (i.e. murder) of a innocent man is indefensible and leaves a stain on the executioner (i.e. murderer), our judicial system and our society as a whole. I’d rather pay the costs of imprisoning murderers than suffer the indignity and shame of belonging to a (primitive) society that supports the death penalty (We’re not Texan!).

    There was a reason we rid ourselves of the death penalty, and with widespread public support might I add. People WERE wrongfully convicted of capital crimes, and INNOCENT people WERE put to DEATH due to miscarriages. Perhaps many more than are documented, as many wouldn’t have the energy/time/money to pursue a case in defence of an executed (wo)man (who may well have been innocent of the crime for which (s)he was convicted)

  20. this is insane! what sort of society would we live in if this were to happen. we’re a country trying to stop extremism, not advocate it!

  21. But what is the underlying purpose? To deter others? (doesn’t work), for revenge? If the latter, what kind of a society is that? Living by an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Go and do something more useful with your time. How someone like you ever got elected in the first place is deeply worrying. You might like Iran. Loves & kisses, John

    1. You do not shoot a rabid dog as a warning to Mrs Smiths poodle not to go catching rabies.

      As I see it the idea behind the death penalty should be to remove dangerous rabid scum from our streets. NOT to “serve as a a lesson to others”.

      IF someone is detered from comitting a crime, then all well and good, but it is not the main objective.

  22. I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, you really are mad. I, along with thousands of others used to think the death penalty should be brought back until we grew up and started to think of all those who would have been ‘legally murdered’ who turned out to be innocent. As a lawyer you should know better but, yet again you are espousing policies for which you have no mandate and which you never mentioned during the election campaign.I ask you one question, would you be the one to administer the final act?. Matt called you a cretin, i could think of stronger words and i really think it is time you resigned so we could elect a MP who has the honesty to reflect and put forward the views of the electorate. The campaign will get nowhere because it has been debated numeruos times and been heavily defeated, just like your stupid bill to reverse the smoking ban and other daft ideas like giving the head of state more cash and bringing back hunting. I sometimes wonder how you made a go of your legal practise because i would not liked to have been in the dock if you were defending me because i don’t think you are on the same planet as the rest of us, do the decent thing and RESIGN A S A P

    1. Hi Alan,

      Just one point as a matter of fact my view on capital punishment has always been on my website and Labour knew about my views during the election campaign. In answer to your question the answer is ‘Yes’ I do not think it would be appropriate to propose the death penalty and not be willing or prepared to carry out that penalty although I believe capital punishment should be dealt with by qualified medical practitioners.

      Best wishes,

      1. How do you propose that we kill people then? By hanging – as has been the usual way in the UK before it was abolished?

        Mr Pierrepoint wasn’t a qualified medical practioner and yet he carried out state hangings. I doubt that any you would get a qualified medical practioner to carry out such an act, it is against the hippocratic oath that they ALL take. You should have engaged Dr Harold Shipman, he was willing to ignore all rules of basic humanity and his oath to preserve life. Shame he killed himself isn’t it!

    2. Alan Barber, I can understand your anger at the re-introduction of the death penalty, but I fail to see why you have the same level of vitriol against the smoking ban. The argument agaist the penalty of capital punishment are very self evident, the evidence of harm caused to others by second hand smoke is extremely unreliable and many other causes of cancer and other disease are not taken into consideration in the debate, such as at least 2057 atomic weapons tests, 20% above ground, a huge, several hundred percent, increase in road and air travel and industrial output to name only four of many valid reasons for the causesin the increase of medical complaints. Figures showing the number of people that smoke are indicating a drastic reduction over the last 40 years yet medical ailments are increasing rapidly, If you so passionately care for the right of the life of someone, why the antagonism against people who it is yet to be fully scientifically proved who partake in a legal pastime? Tell me would you support the death penalty for people were smokers?

      1. My argument with our MP is that he is wasting his time AGAIN and he does not have a mandate to back his argument. As others have pointed out, how can you be a christian and back legalised murder at the same time, hypocritical or what. He then tries to wriggle out of my question by saying it could be carried out by qualified medical people presumably the same people who take the oath to SAVE life.Your silly argument that smoking does cause death by cancer is beyond belief, go to a cancer hospital and tell the doctors that, and your last sentance is also daft

    3. What happens if one of your family is murdered ? think of the pain and suffering they have been through. The only mad person is you – the death penalty would be a great deterent to prevent the mindless acts of violence in this country these days . Culprits would think twice about even hitting someone and the streets of Britain would be safer for our children and grandchildren. Andrew,Mat,Alan and Ray – the loonie left!

      1. XX the death penalty would be a great deterent to prevent the mindless acts of violence in this country these days . XX

        As I said before here, “Deterent” is all very nice if it does so, but it is not, and should never be, the main objective.

        The main objective of the death penelty is removing dangerous, rabid scum from our streets and communitys.

      2. Trev T would you be the one to kill someone whom it may turnout was innocent? Numerous people have been proved not guilty on appeal but under your rules would now be DEAD, what do you say to that, oh! i’m sorry!! A letter from a lady contributor who would i am sure like to hear your answer but i’m afraid there will be a deathly silence in your case. As far as being the looney left i’m afraid you and your ilk and our pathetic mp are the only ones who have yet to realise your looney ideas are as out of date as yesterdays news. David Nuttall says he expressed his views at the election, not at the meeting i went to he didn’t and to say he put it on here,4 lines on his views page, is taking the you know what out of the voters. Mr Nuttall you had 2 or 3 out of 37 comments that supported your daft idea so you DO NOT HAVE A MANDATE to vote for the death penalty and you are in parliament to vote on OUR views NOT YOURS. As has been pointed out to you before you have not spoken to the people of Bury so you cannot claim to represent them in the house like you have done on previous occasions. While i am on here i would suggest to the voters that you do not trust the medical profession or the Marie Stopes clinic and similar organisations because of your stance to vote for changes to the sort of people who can give abbortion advice to women, which i am pleased to say was defeated, yet another defeat for YOU, when will you ever learn, by saying that you do not trust them how do you think the voters of Bury feel when you and lansley lie to the electorate to get votes, dispicable or what, where is the trust now.

  23. You really are an idiot. Firstly, we know of many miscarriages of justice, our legal system is based on the the concept of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, sometimes this is wrong.

    Secondly, you’re advocating murder. Do you see the problem here? Intentionally killing someone is murder.

    Who would carry out the sentence? Someone else I bet eh?


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: