With Britain's prison population hitting an all-time high and the prison system reaching exploding point it seems as though the British government is trying to address the problem in every way possible but the correct one.
The latest hair-brained idea is to re-introduce floating prisons. This is just one more idea that is destined to fail like previous silly ideas such as sending young offenders on holidays to "rehabilitate" them. I wonder why harsher punishments are not implemented?
Lets take the case of Ian Huntley. Not only did this evil man kill two innocent girls after sexually abusing them, he then had more child porn smuggled to him in prison. He is kept jailed, and fed, and protected from the wrath of other inmates at the tax payer's expense. Thats your and mine tax money going towards his welfare and protection. Now if capital punishment were to be applied here, Huntley's life would come to what most people would agree is a deserved quick end. Not only that, our taxes wouldn't be spent on keeping this evil man alive. And lastly, a decisive punishment would have a deterring effect on others who would think of committing a similar crime.
I remember watching a debate about the death penalty in America in which the pro-camp brought some guy who had been in a bank in Texas when a young man burst in to rob the bank. The robber threw the man to the ground and pointed a gun to his face. He was just about to pull the trigger when the guy says "Son, this is Texas. You kill me and when they catch you, you'll get the chair." The robber hesitated for a moment and then ran out of the bank.
Now i think that lots of people in the UK are in favour of harsher punishments, but the prime worry that people have is how can you ensure that justice will be served correctly? What happens if you kill an innocent man? After all, had the death penalty not been abolished the Guilford four would not be alive and free today. The obvious answer is that you don't establish such punishments unless you have conclusive proof that the perpetrator of a crime really is the perpetrator.
A thought on a verse of the Qur'an
During Friday Prayer Imam Abdul-Qayyum from East London mosque recited surah at-Takathur from the Qur'an. The last verse reads "Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about an-Na'eem." What this is referring to is that on the Day of Judgment we will be questioned about the enjoyments and blessings we were given in this life. And i thought, imagine that you are standing in front of Allah, and a huge list of blessings that you were given is being read out. Family, dwelling, friends, good health, food, drink, sound mind, good upbringing, and the million other blessings that are between you and Allah. Imagine one is standing there and this huge list of blessings that were bestowed is being read out and you are acknowledging that you received every single one of them... how shameful and unthankful and embarrassing and humiliating will it seem were even one sin of ours to be read out after that huge long list?
May Allah not let this month of Ramadan end without forgiving each and everyone of us.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
In the states we had a period of time when sentences were much too light and in response to that over the last two decades the government has went to the other extreme and they are now much to heavy with no focus on rehabilitation. What is needed is balance.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
After all, had the death penalty not been abolished the Guilford four would not be alive and free today. The obvious answer is that you don't establish such punishments unless you have conclusive proof that the perpetrator of a crime really is the perpetrator.
The Guildford Four, and many other people innocently kept in prison, were victims of police brutality and then official disbelief, largely on account of the inauthentic forensic evidence used to convict them. The fact is that there were police who deliberately fabricated evidence in order to get people convicted of murder in order to be seen to have solved a crime and gain promotion for themselves. The judge at the Guildford Four trial said that Gerry Conlon should have been charged with treason, because then he could have been sentenced to hang, and would have been.
They then lost an appeal, after the IRA had publically declared that the real culprits were a well-known terrorist cell; the appeal judge simply refused to believe that police would fabricate evidence and then lie under oath. The victims of that and other injustices were not believed, for more than a decade after, and if we had maintained the death penalty, innocent people would definitely have been hanged.
Yusuf, that is a real issue, a lot of people think that the police and prosecutors are perfect and can do no wrong and this includes juries and most of the media.
Re Conclusive proof.
Of course, removing that element of doubt is the key to hudood being applied.. as you know under islamic law we have punishments severe enough to be deterrent, but these are not applied in every case necessarily, and I guess one reason is this exact point.
But the fact is - and here I am coming to the point of my post - no matter how 'conclusive', and no matter how above-reproach the judiciary and police, there is may well remain even an infinitesimal chance that the death penalty has been applied to the wrong party. It is this notion that paralyses western justice and causes all their angst... because - and this is the key - they put defending the rights of the individual (ie the accused) first and foremost (almost it seems above those of the victim, to the point of considering the perpetrator themself as a 'victim'..but I digress).
(And btw we ought to realise that as members of such a society, this attitude may also be part of our own thinking, unchallenged and under the radar.)
Whereas in a system or society that puts defending the rights of society.. (the 'greater good', or Star Trek's Mr Spock's 'the need of the many outweigh the need of the few or the one'.. is surely not alien (ho ho) to western society?).. the issue may not give rise to the absolute paralysis we see here today.
So I am going to throw out a very challenging statement here guys:
Assuming that due process and conclusive proof requirements etc etc are satisfied..
might'nt it be that the small chance of the wrong individual being executed is, though unpalatable, acceptable when balanced against the needs of society for strong, effective justice?
What do you suggest should be done in Britain, given the Council of Europe's absolute prohibition of capital punishment?
Post a Comment