British MPs in pursuit of Abolition

Death Penalty volunteer Laura Vignoles watches the All Parliamentary Group Debate on the abolition of the death penalty.

In an All Party Parliamentary Group Debate called by long-term Reprieve supporter Alistair Carmichael (MP for Orkney and Shetlands), the global abolition of the death penalty received a resounding and encouraging show of support.

In an hour and a half discussion politicians representing all three major political parties showed a remarkable consensus of opinion – the speech by DUP Member for East Londonderry, Gregory Campbell, providing the dissenting opinion which allowed the gathering to be accurately described as a debate.

The seven members of Reprieve’s Death Penalty team were encouraged by the various speeches and submissions, which covered a wide range of reasons why global abolition should be the ultimate goal. Mr Carmichael spoke of his “pride” that Britain had abolished capital punishment forty years before, specifically concentrating on the argument that the death penalty does not allow for miscarriages of justice to be fixed.

He contrasted the outcomes of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas in 2004 on the mistaken testimony of forensic scientists that the house fire which killed his children was a deliberate act of arson, and the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, who were released from prison after their convictions were overturned.

“A thread running through the use of capital punishment,” Mr Carmichael said, “wherever it happens in the world, is the fact that criminal justice systems are fallible. They are run by people for people, and people can make mistakes.”

He also raised the case of Akmal Shaikh, currently facing the death penalty in China for drug smuggling, and asked the Minister for Europe, Chris Bryant, how the government planned to intervene on Mr Shaikh’s behalf.

He also asked about two other Reprieve clients, Naheem Hussain and Rehan Zaman, facing the death penalty in Pakistan because of confessions allegedly elicited through torture; if the Pakistani authorities failed to make a meaningful investigation or to take other steps to rectify the situation in a reasonable time, what would the Government do to preserve their position?

Mr Carmichael’s speech also touched on the execution of juveniles, asking the government to urge the Iranian and Saudi Arabian governments to “uphold their international obligations”, and on the case of Hakamura Iwao, imprisoned for 43 years in Japan for a crime he allegedly did not commit, and now unsurprisingly showing the mental toll these years – 29 of which were spent in solitary confinement – have taken.

“To execute a man in such circumstances,” Mr Carmichael told his listeners, “falls well below the standards of basic decency and humanity that we are entitled to expect of those countries that, along with us, are part of the international community of nations.”

“They may be broken, but they are free.”

The Labour Member for Ealing North, Mr Stephen Pound, echoed Mr Carmichael’s fears about the finality of execution. “If a miscarriage of justice occurs,” he said, “a person can be released from prison—they may be broken, but they are free—but if a person is executed, there is no release or redemption.”

He also mentioned the “criminological” argument against capital punishment – that its deterrent effects have been overstated. “We all know that the murder statistics in executing Texas are higher than those in non-executing New York.”

In a speech that eloquently and passionately laid out the case for abolition, Mr Pound also provided perhaps the most compelling argument for abolition that was heard in that room: “I would say that putting a human being to death is the ultimate admission of failure in society, in the judiciary and in the whole jurisprudential system.”

More encouraging still was the support from unexpected quarters.

Reprieve was dismayed earlier this month to hear William Hague expressing his support for capital punishment in certain circumstances. However, two Conservative members also offered their support for abolition in this debate, Mr Tony Baldry, Member for Banbury, and Mr David Lidington, Member for Aylesbury.

Mr Lidington in particular was very clear about the path the government should take on this matter: “The first way is to persuade them to reduce the range of offences that are subject to the capital penalty. … Secondly, I hope that the Government will focus strongly on securing due process where it is absent. It is plainly wrong for capital trials to be held when the accused person is unable to understand the charges against them, or for such trials to be held in secret or without independent observers. … Thirdly, I hope that the Government will focus on the argument that Governments who retain the death penalty should have regard to mitigating circumstances, particularly to the concept of mental illness being a mitigating factor.” It is to be hoped that these MPs will continue to offer their support to Reprieve should the Conservatives come to power at the next election.

Even the one dissenting voice, Mr Gregory Campbell of East Londonderry, qualified his opposition. He was totally opposed to the execution of juveniles, he said, and he was concerned about the failures that led to the execution of innocents.

However, he was not persuaded that a total abolition was the right thing to do, fearing that a serial killer should be released or should escape and go on to commit another murder.

He was reassured that there was little chance of this happening, and reminded that there has been no case of an individual escaping, who would be liable for the death penalty if it were reinstated.

Finally, the Minister for Europe, Chris Bryant, spoke on behalf of the government, reiterating his strong support for abolition of the death penalty, promising further hard work on behalf of British nationals facing the death penalty abroad, and reassuring Mr Carmichael that all the utmost diplomatic leverage has been and would continue to be asserted on behalf of Akmal Shaikh, and Naheem and Rehan.

However, the show of support from MPs had been such that the Minister was unable to finish, and the room was handed over to the MP for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, to debate Wareham Railway Station’s pedestrian level crossing – an excellent example of the variety of issues faced by the government today