Death penalty proponents make a big deal of this contrast. They claim that European societies are just as barbaric as American societies—although they don't actually put it in those words.
Are you interested to know how some American websites interpret this result? If so, read on, but before clicking on the "Read more" link I want to warn all Europeans that you may not like what you read. If you have high blood pressure you'd better skip it.
Here's an explanation written by Wesley Lowe on the Pro Death Penalty Webpage. Remember, he's trying to explain why European governments have abolished the death penalty in spite of the fact that a majority of Europeans support it.
Differences between European parliamentary government and the American separation-of-powers system also play a role. Parliamentary government may provide voters with more ideological variety, but it is much more resistant to political newcomers and fresh ideals which may support different political views. In parliamentary systems, people tend to vote for parties, not individuals; and party committees choose which candidates stand for election. As a result, parties are less influenced by the will of the people. In countries like Britain and France, so long as elite opinion remains sufficiently united (which, in the case of the death penalty, it has), public support cannot translate into legislative action. Since American candidates are largely independent and self-selected, they serve as a much more direct conduit between public opinion and actual political action.This is so astonishingly ignorant that it leaves me speechless. Let's hear from other Americans on this point. Do you really believe that the government of the USA is more democratic and more open to fresh ideas than governments in Europe? Do you really believe that the US Congress is more responsive to public opinion than governments that have a parliamentary system? (While replying, keep in mind the frequency with which incumbent American politicians are turfed out of office. Contrast this with parliamentary systems where it's not uncommon for 50% of the seats to change hands in a general election.)
Basically, then, Europe doesn't have the death penalty because its political systems are less democratic, or at least more insulated from public opinion, than the U.S. government.
24 comments :
Since my choice when I go into the polls is between Republican Lite and Republican Evil, nah, I'm not well represented in my government.
Somehow I think people like you and me are never going to be well represented by an existing government. We need to form our own country with strict immigration policies. :-)
I'll be Prime Minister and you can be the Queen. Okay?
Where I live (Gwinnett County, Georgia) you mostly can't even pick Republican Lite.
As far as I remember, at the time the death penalty was abolished in the UK none of the major parties included its retention or restoration as a major plank in their political platforms, in spite of a majority of public opinion being in favour. Neither have they since then.
Consequently, neither I nor any of my fellow British voters have had a chance to express our opinion at the ballot box and our views are not well represented in Parliament.
Is that democracy?
For me, it's more interesting to turn the question around - why does the US still have the death penalty? You could apply the same question to other "social" issues, abortion & guns being the 2 obvious hot-button examples.
I suppose the general form of the question could be, "Who's out of step, the US or the other 'western democracies'?".
Death penalty - I recall the debate before it was finally abolished in Canada (1976, I believe, although the last execution was in 1964). In contrast to a poll asking a simple question and getting quick point-in-time answers, there was considerable debate in Parliament, and I recall that some MP's changed their views in the course of the discussions. I'm not bothered in this instance by a discrepancy between a public poll result and a parliamentary vote after consderable debate.
My main confusion with this argument is, since when is the death penalty a new idea in Europe?
European governments have been executing people since long before there've been any Europeans in North America to execute each other, and often in far more inventive ways than the US government has ever used (breaking on the wheel, drawing and quartering, etc).
Abolishing the death penalty is the "new idea" here -- and all these "undemocratic" European countries have embraced it. It's the US that's still sticking with something old.
In California's state government we have a term limits system that produces turnover similar to what might occur in a parliamentary system. I supported that initially but I'm no longer certain it's a good idea; I believe legislators here are less effective than they were formerly because by the time they've learned how to get things done they're out of office. If "responsive to public opinion" means doing what your constituents want done (the "all politics is local" idea), I would argue that high turnover, and thus the parliamentary system, is less responsive.
high turnover, and thus the parliamentary system
Why "thus"? Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister of parliamentary Canada for fifteen years; Jean Chretien for 10. Sure, we've had some short-lived governments (Joe Clark, 10 months) -- but that's because we actually have the ability to throw an ineffective government out of office before its term is up, as well as keep a government as long as we want.
During my life, Canada has had 10 Prime Ministers and the US has had 8 Presidents. That's not a huge difference, especially considering that two of those Canadian PMs were fill-ins covering a few months between the retirement of one PM and the following election (John Turner, Kim Campbell, 4 months each).
During the same period, the UK has had 9 PMs.
Michael said (in part) ...
"...doing what your constituents want done"
I'm never sure what this is intended to mean. 51%? How then do you represent the 49%?
Guys, call me a barbarian, but I just don't have a problem with people who do this kind of thing getting executed.
Ian:
Perhaps you could produce the evidence that UK opinion polling produced majorities against abolition of the death penalty between 1945 and 1965, and that no major policital party supported the death penalty between the 1945 and 1964 elections?
"Do you really believe that the government of the USA is more democratic and more open to fresh ideas than governments in Europe?"
I'd say that in general, the U.S. has, loosely speaking, version "1.0" of democracy, with all the little and not-so-little snags that come with being an early implementor. Other countries have seen our version of democracy and have improved on it. For example, other democracies have runoff elections or proportional representation, which allow for a strong multiparty system, while the U.S. is still stuck with a "first past the post" system that favors the dominance of two large parties with vague agendas.
I'm sorry, I have a bad comment day. Let's see if it is readable now:
"Consequently, neither I nor any of my fellow British voters have had a chance to express our opinion at the ballot box and our views are not well represented in Parliament.
Is that democracy?"
In a parlamentary system it is supposed to be, since you punish bad politics by voting the responsible, or at least ruling, parties out. A political system must give politicians and bureaucracies some acting leeway.
Switzerland may have many governing and polling votings on specific issues every year, but I'm not sure if they do better. The active voters may be happier of course.
I know of Sweden, where there have been a few polling votings on issues. About half hasn't been heeded by the parties, and that has worked out well too. For example, the people voted to keep left hand traffic, but the politicians went ahead with the long discussed change anyway 1967. (Ironically, the first traffic policy 1718 was right hand traffic, quickly changed to left hand 1734.) Poll today and I doubt anyone would want the old policy.
On the death penalty issue, not being an idealist I'm not adamantly against, but in peace time it has AFAIK no effect on crime rates. If anything, it may make criminals more desperate when cornered, it seems to cost more than prison, and the problem with false positives becomes more acute.
Robin Levett said...
Ian:
Perhaps you could produce the evidence that UK opinion polling produced majorities against abolition of the death penalty between 1945 and 1965, and that no major policital party supported the death penalty between the 1945 and 1964 elections?
I don't have any such evidence to hand but then that was not my claim.
However, based on the rule-of-thumb that lawyers try not to ask questions to which they do not already know the answers, would I be correct in assuming that you do?
I would point out that the claim that
Parliamentary government may provide voters with more ideological variety, but it is much more resistant to political newcomers and fresh ideals which may support different political views.
is simply false.
In the most common European parliamentary systems, with proportional representation and/or runoff elections, one can easily vote for "real newcomers and fresh ideals" without one's vote being wasted (or often serving to elect the candidate that one wants the least).
In the Netherlands, for example, a new party, the LPF, contested the 2002 election and won 26 seats in parliament (out of 150), and became a part of the governing coalition. In the 2006 election, two parties
entered parliament for the first time.
Compare this to the USA, where, since 1865, the number of members of the House or Senate who were not Republicans or Democrats has only rarely been out of single digits, and has frequently been zero.
Greg Byshenk
Ian:
Since you made the claim:
"As far as I remember, at the time the death penalty was abolished in the UK none of the major parties included its retention or restoration as a major plank in their political platforms, in spite of a majority of public opinion being in favour."
I rather assumed you had the data to support it.
I referred to the 1945 election because it was in that Parliament that the Commons first, on a free vote, voted to abolish the death penalty. They did so in each Parliament, on each occasion on a free vote, until final abolition.
Abolition followed the Ellis and Bentley cases which are described as turning public opinion against the death penalty.
Following abolition, until at least the '90s, there was at least one - free - vote on restoration in each Parliament
I don't agree that the state has the right to take the lives of its citizens by way of capital punishment - I certainly don't agree with your strained analogy with self-defence - but your point here was that it was somehow undemocratic to abolish the death penalty. That is tosh.
Robin Levett said...
Ian:
Since you made the claim:
"As far as I remember, at the time the death penalty was abolished in the UK none of the major parties included its retention or restoration as a major plank in their political platforms, in spite of a majority of public opinion being in favour."
I rather assumed you had the data to support it.
From my time in the BBC press clippings library I had collected a few newspaper articles which listed some of the polls about capital punishment taken over previous years. Alas and alack, I lost them in a computer crash some years ago so I'm afraid this is just another unsubstantiated claim for the present.
Abolition followed the Ellis and Bentley cases which are described as turning public opinion against the death penalty.
So public opinion being turned against the death penalty by a couple of sympathetic cases is more important than public opinion being turned in favour of capital punishment by particularly horrific cases?
Following abolition, until at least the '90s, there was at least one - free - vote on restoration in each Parliament
And if I am right about the opinion polls, the legislative body that, to some extent, is supposed to reflect the public view, consistently fails to do so while smugly congratulating itself on its supposed moral superiority.
I don't agree that the state has the right to take the lives of its citizens by way of capital punishment - I certainly don't agree with your strained analogy with self-defence - but your point here was that it was somehow undemocratic to abolish the death penalty. That is tosh.
The state takes the view that citizens are responsible for their actions and can be held to account if they break the law. It has taken to itself the power to forcibly detain, interrogate and try those suspected of such breaches and to detain - for years in some cases - those found guilty.
We have already agreed that is not a question of whether but when individuals or the state are justified in killing, so the step towards the death penalty is not really such a giant leap.
In the United States, there is a majority in favour of the death penalty and many - though not all - states permit it. In the United Kingdom, there is a similar majority in favour but capital punishment has been abolished by Parliament. Regardless of the morality of the death penalty, on this issue which nation is the more democratic?
Ian, you said:
So public opinion being turned against the death penalty by a couple of sympathetic cases is more important than public opinion being turned in favour of capital punishment by particularly horrific cases?
No. But it does give the lie to your claim that public opinion is and at all relevant times has been staunchly in favour of the death penalty.
And if I am right about the opinion polls, the legislative body that, to some extent, is supposed to reflect the public view, consistently fails to do so while smugly congratulating itself on its supposed moral superiority.
We have a parliamentary democracy, Ian. Members of Parliament are not delegates. Those MPs who continue to vote down capital punishment are still re-elected by their constituencies in the knowledge of their views on the subject. It seems that the contituents aren't sufficiently irked by what you claim is the MPs' disregard of their wishes to vote them out, or to put up alternative single issue candidates.
We have already agreed that is not a question of whether but when individuals or the state are justified in killing, so the step towards the death penalty is not really such a giant leap.
Wow - just wow. The difference between individual or collective self-defence and the state deciding that it is the arbiter of whether its citizens should live or die is not a matter of degree.
(sorry, missed this)
Ian, you said:
In the United States, there is a majority in favour of the death penalty and many - though not all - states permit it. In the United Kingdom, there is a similar majority in favour but capital punishment has been abolished by Parliament. Regardless of the morality of the death penalty, on this issue which nation is the more democratic?
The nation which decides that the state's power is limited and not totalitarian on this issue is the more democratic. I don't accept your premise, by the way.
Robin Levett said...
The nation which decides that the state's power is limited and not totalitarian on this issue is the more democratic. I don't accept your premise, by the way.
I'm not sure I follow. Neither state imposes the death penalty willy-nilly. It's just that one is more responsive to the views of its electorate and agrees that the most serious crime should incur the gravest sentence
Robin Levett said...
Ian, you said:
"So public opinion being turned against the death penalty by a couple of sympathetic cases is more important than public opinion being turned in favour of capital punishment by particularly horrific cases?"
No. But it does give the lie to your claim that public opinion is and at all relevant times has been staunchly in favour of the death penalty.
Not necessarily. Did the Ellis and Bentley cases turn a majority of those polled against the death penalty or did it simply reduce the majority in favour?
As far as Ruth Ellis is concerned, there is no doubt that she shot Blakely and, as far as I remember, she admitted in the witness-box that she intended to kill him. I suspect the outcry about her execution was as much to do with her being a woman as it was to do with any opposition to the death penalty. If it had been her boyfriend of the time that did it, I doubt that there would have been anything like the furore about it.
Bentley's case was a miscarriage of justice and hence an indictment of the system of trial by jury. It had no bearing in whether capital punishment is an appropriate sentence for murder.
"And if I am right about the opinion polls, the legislative body that, to some extent, is supposed to reflect the public view, consistently fails to do so while smugly congratulating itself on its supposed moral superiority."
We have a parliamentary democracy, Ian. Members of Parliament are not delegates.
That does not excuse them from the responsibility of representing the views of their constituents in Parliament. If you argue that Members are under no obligation to take any notice of their constituents views then I, as a voter, would have to ask: then what is the point of me voting for any candidate since they will not represent me in the Commons?
Those MPs who continue to vote down capital punishment are still re-elected by their constituencies in the knowledge of their views on the subject.
We both know that candidates stand on a platform constructed of policies on many different issues and that, in any constituency, one of them must be elected regardless. If none of the candidates includes support for the death penalty then what can electors do other than make their choice based on other factors? That does not mean they would not support a pro-death penalty candidate if one stood. It simply means they are not offered that choice.
It seems that the contituents aren't sufficiently irked by what you claim is the MPs' disregard of their wishes to vote them out, or to put up alternative single issue candidates.
More likely they have simply given up hope seeing that the Westminster elite has set its face firmly against capital punishment regardless of what anyone else thinks.
And a single-issue candidate has about as much chance of being elected to Parliament as an atheist does of being elected to the Presidency of the United States.
"We have already agreed that is not a question of whether but when individuals or the state are justified in killing, so the step towards the death penalty is not really such a giant leap."
Wow - just wow. The difference between individual or collective self-defence and the state deciding that it is the arbiter of whether its citizens should live or die is not a matter of degree.
Once you allow that the prohibition against killing is not absolute then it becomes not a matter of 'if' but simply 'when'.
And casting "the state' as the "arbiter of whether its citizens should live or die" is a nice rhetorical flourish but I think you know as well as I do that it is not what was intended.
I think that, for many people, the word "state" in this context will be understood as a political structure whereas courts of law, while deriving their authority from Acts of Parliament, are supposed independent - free of all political interference. A legislature may decide that capital punishment is an approriate penalty for the worst cases of murder but the guilt or innocence of the accused should be decided in a court of law.
As a society, we have the power to decide that if someone unlawfully and with malice aforethought takes the life of another then we have not only the right to execute that person but that we have a duty to do so if justice for the victim is to mean anything at all. To deny that is to deny that is to deny the victim that which is their due.
I think the US system is far superior to our British and certainly European systems of government.
Too many reason to mention but if you read Jonathan freedland,s, bringing the revolution home, I think you will get the picture.
Lets not forget that Europe is a dying place, the demographics of Europe are all against its survival in its current form, this stems from its moral relativist culture imposed upon it from its elites.
AS for the DP, we have the death penalty in Britain, its called abortion of demand (and no I am an atheist! before you assume!), I like the GREAT Immanuel Kant, improbably the greatest philosopher in western history (Marx was not a PHILOSOPHER btw) reluctantly support the death penalty, just as i reluctantly support limited abortion.
see The Retributive Theory of Punishment
from THE SCIENCE OF RIGHT, by Immanual Kant,
Post a Comment