The brutal murder of 18-year-old Henry Nowak last December should force Britain to consider the reintroduction of the death penalty. Stabbed repeatedly on a Southampton street, the teenager gasped “I can’t breathe” to officers more concerned with handcuffing him than saving his life. In payment for this heinous crime his killer, Vickrum Digwa, received a “life sentence” of just 21 years.
As we have since learned, Hampshire Police released a statement just three days after the murder, attempting to portray Nowak as the aggressor. Digwa astonishingly still had the ceremonial kirpan on him post arrest, and was even escorted to the kitchen so that he could “choose his food”.
For Nowak’s family, this must feel like no justice at all.
I have written on the subject of the death penalty before, and I make no apology for returning to it; the timing feels prescient. First, Britain is suffering an epidemic of particularly egregious crimes – many a direct consequence of the immigration failures of successive governments, alongside the refusal of police to simply enforce the law. Secondly, the price for such failure is invariably paid by the white working class (those who built Britain and fought and died to protect her over the centuries), rather than the politicians themselves. Third, a surprising Higher Education Policy Institute poll has revealed that half of university undergraduates (those most liberal by traditional measures) would favour a reintroduction of the death penalty (47% in favour, 46% opposed). Even the young, it seems, can see what their elders in Westminster refuse to admit: something has gone badly wrong with British justice.
Before you lynch me for being an unmitigated blowhard or a simpleton, please allow me to set out my stall. First, I am deeply sympathetic to both sides of the argument; the death penalty is a hugely problematic issue. As an atheist, I’m afraid I am unimpressed by the religious argument (unless you count “an eye for an eye”). Let me add, I am unconcerned with the traditional arguments in favour of capital punishment: deterrence, cost-cutting, or even revenge. This is not to say that Singapore’s success and America’s mixed results are not noteworthy, nor that the financial savings or freed up prison real estate are inconsiderable. And while revenge is undoubtedly a very human emotion, I do not believe it should ever be the remit of the state.
My advocacy for capital punishment is based entirely on morality. The taking of life, not in self-defence, but willingly and calculatedly with malice aforethought, robs victims, their families and friends, not just of life, but of countless rites of passage: birthdays, anniversaries, successes and failures; the trials and tribulations of the human condition upon which a price cannot be laid. That Henry Nowak will never get to experience this is heinous. That the Nowak family have not just had a genuine life sentence imposed upon them, but will be forced in perpetuity to fund the upkeep of their son’s killer, is a crime against decency.
The weakest link in the case for capital punishment is the reality of human error. The widely-cited 4.1% false conviction rate among death-sentenced defendants in the United States is far from trivial, and some believe it should end the debate entirely. That is why any acceptable system would have to meet extraordinarily demanding caveats:
- In extremis: Reserved solely for the most depraved offences – the premeditated murder of children, terrorist atrocities, mass killings, or sadistic murders.
- Absolute certainty: Irrefutable evidence such as clear video, DNA, confession, or multiple independent witnesses.
- Unanimity: A unanimous jury verdict, judicial approval, and ideally the consent of the victims’ families.
By this standard, Digwa’s case would qualify, as would those of Axel Rudakubana and the Lee Rigby killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. Lucy Letby however, whose conviction rests on more circumstantial evidence, would not. The bar must remain exceptionally high.
Those opposed to the death penalty often argue that the state should not “descend to the level of the murderer”. This pearl-clutching, however, is at odds with reality. The state does precisely that in times of war, excusing the murder of the innocent as “collateral damage”. It authorises the ending of life through abortion and, increasingly, assisted dying. Having presided over the cultural and demographic changes that have contributed to the current wave of street violence, the state’s moral squeamishness appears strangely reserved for the guilty alone.
Polls consistently illustrate that the majority of the British public would welcome a reintroduction of the death penalty, for the most extreme cases. The problem, however, lies between the rulers and the ruled. On Brexit, mass immigration, two-tier policing, free speech, and now criminal justice, Westminster consistently defies the public. In the case of capital punishment, it is estimated an overwhelming 80-90% of MPs oppose it. When independent MP Rupert Lowe recently called at Prime Minister’s Questions for a legally binding referendum, he was met with jeers and disbelief.
This should not surprise us. MPs’ reluctance to bear responsibility for potential miscarriages of justice is perfectly understandable; a case made convincingly to me by Ann Widdecombe some years ago. And while a handful of principled conservative voices such as Peter Hitchens and Priti Patel have long made the argument, they are usually shouted down rather than engaged.
Reintroducing the death penalty would not be a panacea. It would not end knife crime nor heal cultural fractures overnight. But it would send a clear moral signal: some acts are so monstrous that the perpetrator forfeits the right to life. By refusing even to contemplate it, we unconsciously declare that the life of a sadistic killer matters more than the lives he has silenced forever. That is little more than moral cowardice dressed up as civilisation – a point smugly embodied by the European Union:
“It is indeed a hallmark achievement of this Organization, that the whole area of the Council of Europe is free of the death penalty. The EU and all its Member States share this pride. And we share the deep conviction that the death penalty is incompatible with human rights, violates human dignity, does not deter crime and it is an inhuman, degrading and irreversible punishment. It constitutes a violation of the human rights we collectively committed ourselves to uphold.”
The Nowak murder may prove a landmark case. Even a generation weaned on progressive values can see that endless leniency has failed. Public trust in the justice system is collapsing. Bringing back the death penalty for the very worst offenders, applied with the strictest safeguards, would restore a basic sense of moral order.
Parliament is unlikely to act of course. Most MPs prioritise their consciences over the wishes of the electorate, but that reluctance should not prevent us from speaking plainly. Voices can be raised; petitions written and signed. And while referendums are uncommon in Britain, the public kneeling witnessed not just across Britain but across much of the West in honour of Henry Nowak, suggests this could be a watershed moment.
The Nowak family deserves real justice. And Britain as a whole deserves a justice system that reflects the values of a civilised society; one that still has the guts to say the ultimate crime demands the ultimate punishment.
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report Substack.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
I agree. Probably the best and most carefully-considered argument in favour I have ever read.
As in many matters, Parliament is patently unrepresentative of the bulk of electorate. “Most MPs prioritise their consciences over the wishes of the electorate”: this is precisely why ‘free’ (of party allegiance) votes are so misleadingly named.
Point 3 would mean no exections because these days many jurors would be unwilling to shoulder personal responsibility for condemning a criminal to death (plus certain faiths would be unwilling to even find their own types guilty of anything).
A rethink is required. What about giving the victims’ families a say? Also the method of execution needs to be quicker and more humane than any past or present ones.
With the greatest of respect I think you’re a bit out of touch with the views of the general public. I speak to a lot of people and the general consensus seems to be bring back hanging for the most serious crimes, so I think juries would see it as a duty if the death penalty was put back on the statute books.
As for the method of execution I don’t like the gas chamber, lethal injection or the electric chair as they are not instant. Hanging, done properly, is quick and efficient, or a single shot through the head.
The general public though are not MPs, Lords, Judges or campaigning ‘charities’ nor, it seems to me, the average Jury member either. Speaking to a lot of people, with respect, isn’t representative of those who you wouldn’t speak to/who wouldn’t speak to you/who keep their views to themselves/say what they think you want to hear.
Reimposing the Death Penalty in the UK will only come about if a coup results in a hardline non-parliamentary dictatorship, and that seems unlikely.
I am certainly in favour (sadly – wish it were not necessary) of reinstating the death penalty.
At my initial skim reading early this morning, I misunderstood Frank’s reference about being (as an atheist) unsympathetic to the religious arguments, seeing “traditional” and thinking, wrongly, that he believed the “traditional” religious arguments were about “deterrence, cost-cutting, or even revenge”. I now realise that I misread that part of his article but since I then went off in search of some authentic Catholic teaching on the subject – given that the recent pontiffs, especially Francis 1 & 2 (Leo) have departed from Catholic teaching on this (and so much else) – I’m taking the liberty of posting one section on the subject from Wiki. I wouldn’t normally use Wiki as a definitive source, but this is well documented and authentic teaching, so, since there’s a first time for everything, here is a snapshot of the ancient Christian position on the subject, taken from Wiki.
Pope Innocent III (1209)
Pope Innocent III, in the context of reconciliation of the Waldensians back to the church, said in a letter to Durand of Huesca:[23]
We declare that the secular power can without mortal sin impose a judgment of blood provided the punishment is carried out not in hatred but with good judgment, not inconsiderately but after mature deliberation.
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
See also: Thought of Thomas Aquinas § Death penalty
In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position. The following is a summary of Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146 which was written by Aquinas prior to writing the Summa Theologica. In it, Thomas Aquinas supports the death penalty.
For those who have been appropriately appointed, there is no sin in administering punishment. For those who refuse to obey God’s laws, it is correct for society to rebuke them with civil and criminal sanctions. No one sins working for justice, within the law. Actions that are necessary to preserve the good of society are not inherently evil. The common good of the whole society is greater and better than the good of any particular person. “The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.” This is likened to the physician who must amputate a diseased limb, or a cancer, for the good of the whole person. He based this on I Corinthians 5, 6: “You know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough?” and I Corinthians 5, 13: “Put away the evil one from among yourselves”; Romans 13:4: “[it is said of earthly power that] he bears not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil”; I Peter 2:13–14: “Be subjected therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether to be on the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of good.” He believed these passages superseded the text of Exodus 20:13: “Thou shall not kill.” Extract ends.
It is also worth noting that Christ’s own death is testament to the fact that God would not permit sin as a means to carry out His plan of salvation – the punishment for criminals of crucifixion was a legitimate action of the State. That Christ was the innocent “Lamb of God” does not negate the truth that the State does have the authority to impose the death sentence. That this authority comes from God is evident in the response of Jesus to Pontius Pilate when, frustrated by Christ’s silence in the face of his questions at trial, Pilate reminded Him that he had the power to condemn or to release Jesus. The reply of Christ underlines the positive authority of the State in capital punishment, when Jesus replied that Pilate would not have this authority but for the fact that it was given to him by His Father in Heaven. It is a God-given authority and this has always been the position of the Church.
And since I mention that God would not use sin as a means to execute (no pun intended!) His plan of salvation, I can’t resist mentioning the other old chestnut which regularly appears in the media coverage of Christmas, that Joseph and Mary were not married; this false belief is corrected on any Jewish website you care to visit, where they detail the history of Jewish weddings. In the first century there was a two part marriage ceremony, where the first part (Betrothal) completed the legal side of things, and so a couple were technically married. It was not a mere “engagement” like we have today. Only the second part, the consummation remained, although in Christian teaching this did not happen – Mary and Joseph lived chastely, in what we would today call a “brother and sister” arrangement.
Apologies for going off topic in that last paragraph – just couldn’t resist! But, to repeat, I am in favour of the death penalty and the fact that the majority of MPs are against it, merely underlines the confusion of minds in contemporary society, where, it seems, the wrong-doer(s) are protected while the innocent are left to suffer.
One last thing about the general opinion against the death penalty – and I say this, aware that many, including Frank, are atheists, but the general anti-capital punishment mind is rooted in the belief that nothing is more important than this life. That is wrong; we do, of course, value human life but if our lives on earth lead us to an eternal life full of suffering – Hell – then, the Christian must admit, it is NOT the most important thing. Faced with the prospect of being put to death, justly, by the State, there is evidence of repentance, as conscience and a healthy “fear of the Lord” touches a soul who knows he/she is soon to meet their God and Judge. God’s mercy is not available after death. It is then that we meet His justice and this knowledge can lead to murderers repenting, albeit an imperfect contrition. I know that’s not an argument which persuades any agnostic or atheist but it is a key reason why the Church supports the death penalty.