Plan B Forum

Question Time is a topical debate BBC television programme in the United Kingdom, based on Any Questions?. The show typically features politicians from at least the three major political parties as well as other public figures who answer pre-selected questions put to them by a carefully selected audience. The independent production company Mentorn has made the programme for the BBC since 1998. Question Time is presented by David Dimbleby.

Joe Guy wrote:Only a person who possesses the meanest intelligence would believe that...

One wonders whether the moderator is correct about large numbers of people being convicted of capital crimes, then proven innocent.

The revival of the capital punishment debate is a truly remarkable example of how society can so easily forget the lessons of history. Where better to rehash the age-old arguments of both sides than Questiontime, and who better to referee it than David Dimbleby.

Just to declare an interest, I am against the death penalty. But that does not mean I cannot respect a mature debate about its pros and cons. What struck me on Thursday night, however, was Priti Patel MP’s absolute disregard for the twin requirements of rationality and reason that you would hope of someone given the privilege of a platform on BBC1 and certainly expect of a Member of Parliament.

Harriet Harman MP was up first and compellingly argued against capital punishment for two reasons. Firstly, the moral argument: if the taking of a life is a criminal offence, the response should not follow suit. Secondly, the practical argument: you can never put right a miscarriage of justice if you take the life of someone subsequently deemed innocent. Vince Cable MP agreed, suggesting that, in a civilised society, capital punishment is not the right way to punish people.

In response, Priti Patel MP argued that we have a criminal justice system that completely fails in this country. She went on to suggest that capital punishment should be brought back as a deterrent to murderers and rapists. According to her, we have a revolving door with murderers, rapists and paedophiles who come in and out of prison.

Ian Hislop rebuked that the sheer number of miscarriages of justice that we have witnessed over the last few decades makes the case against capital punishment. He put forward the novel, but nonetheless interesting argument, that if you took the life of people who turned out to be innocent, it would create a dangerous new breed of terrorist martyrs.

Despite this, Patel crashed on with her deterrence argument. She downplayed the significance of killing innocent people, making inane references to the “burden of proof”. She appeared to be arguing that miscarriages of justice would not have to be an issue as long as defendants were convicted on the basis of sufficient burdens of proof. In other words, the jury would have to be sure that the defendant was guilty.

The obvious point to be made is that in all miscarriages of justice the jury, at the time of the trial, were sure that the evidence proved the defendant’s guilt. It is only subsequent discoveries that put the evidence, and the jury’s conclusions, in doubt. Take an example: at the time of Troy Davies’ trial, the prosecution passed the burden of proof – the jury was sure he was guilty. It was only subsequent events, not contemplated at the time, that put into question the reliability of the evidence upon which the prosecution’s case rested.

As for deterrence, at the very best there is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty affects the murder rate, and that is being very generous. In actuality, most criminologists think that it has no effect. In a recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado, they found that 88% of America’s leading criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. Let’s face it; these experts who spend their working lives studying the penal system have a better idea than the average person. Surely, to even countenance such a drastic step as taking someone’s life there would have to be compelling evidence that there was a point to it.

The deterrence argument is part of a common misconception that increasing the sentence for a crime inevitably leads to a proportionately increased deterrence. For years, however, criminologists have been saying that it is not the level of punishment that acts as a deterrent, but the likelihood of being caught.

This was certainly a controversial first appearance for Priti Patel on Questiontime. It was surprising that she propelled herself into the firing line in taking the stance she did whilst utterly failing to back it up with anything resembling a cogent argument. If this is supposed to be a “rising star” of the current party with the most power, then we all have something to worry about.

He did not bully or run over his opponent. He did not "keep" interrupting and overtalking. The moderator actually interrupted her equally as often if not more. Hislop was not obnoxious, sneering or pompous

he made a very humorous riposte "They'd be dead". That's wit.