With the exception of roughly 50% of US states, the death penalty has long since been repealed across the western world. Ever-determined to retain the ultimate punishment, even Uncle Sam appears to be losing his appetite for the practise. Western liberals make a point of congratulating themselves on this demonstration of ‘civility’ and commitment to ‘human rights’. Here for instance, is the European Union’s self-satisfied statement on the matter:
“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.”
However, in a western world increasingly susceptible to barbarian forces – forces a tad less ‘civility’ might help guard against – such smugness is arguably misplaced.
Following a spate of particularly heinous, high-profile murders, the question of capital punishment is daring to raise its head once again. Stateside, this was provoked by the brutal stabbing of Iryna Zarutska at the hands of career criminal, Decarlos Brown Jr. There have also been widespread demands for capital punishment in the case of Charlie Kirk shooter, Tyler Robinson; President Trump himself has called for both to face the death penalty. Across the pond meanwhile (where the option has not been on the statute books since 1965), there have been similar calls in the case of Lucy Letby – the nurse convicted of murdering neonatal babies – and Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer who plead guilty to the maniacal slaughter of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
I have written previously in favour of a reintroduction of the death penalty in Britain, and before you accuse me of being an unmitigated blowhard, let me say from the outset that I am genuinely sympathetic to both sides of the argument; it is a deeply problematic issue. While as an atheist I am not persuaded by religious opposition, I am absolutely on-board with the imperative to eradicate bias, human error and bad faith actors from the proceedings.
Nonetheless, for the most egregious crimes – particularly the murder of children – I maintain that purely on moral grounds, those who deny victims their fundamental right to life, should immediately forfeit their own. By robbing victims – and their families – of birthdays, milestones, future generations, and memories; imprisoning survivors in lifelong grief, they have destroyed multiple lives. Society must exact a price for that.
In order to ward off the spectre of human error, I would advocate the following caveats for capital punishment:
- That it could only be used in extremis, for the absolute worst crimes.
- That it could only be used in cases of absolute certainty.
- That the judge (and possibly the victims’ families) would need to request it.
In light of this, Lucy Letby would not meet the threshold for the death penalty, notwithstanding the enormous amount of circumstantial evidence against her and the truly appalling nature of the alleged crimes. However, in the case of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale who decided to decapitate Lee Rigby in broad daylight, I would advocate death. For Dahbia Benkired who confessed to the tortuous and sadistic murder and dismemberment of 12-year-old Lola Daviet, I see no reason why Lola’s family should subsidise her existence in perpetuity. And as for Axel Rudakubana, who had the gall to gloat about the murders of Bebe, Elsie and Alice when caught in flagrante, I would not hesitate – regardless of whether he committed the murders nine days shy of his 18th birthday.
It has long been the case that a majority of the British people support the reintroduction of the death penalty for extreme cases. Such support however, does not extend to the Palace of Westminster, where it is estimated 80-90% of MPs oppose it. Former Reform UK MP (now independent) Rupert Lowe, raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Question Time last week, where he called for a legally binding referendum:
For the most evil criminals, domestic and foreign, we must reintroduce the death penalty.
I just asked the Prime Minister to consult the country in a legally binding referendum. MPs tried to shout me down, but the British people are with me.
We don’t have to live like this. pic.twitter.com/vIHztbCFtd
— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) November 12, 2025
That his question was met with jeers and disbelief is hardly a surprise. Westminster MPs are regularly opposed to the expressed wishes of their constituents, and tend to sneer whenever the public ‘vote the wrong way’. This was markedly the case during Brexit, with 52% of the electorate voting Leave compared to just 24% of Parliament. The disconnect extends to mass immigration, with 62% of MPs (but only 31% of the public) believing Britain should allow as much immigration as the economy needs. The divide is stark also, when it comes to voting reform: around 60% of the public are desirous to move to proportional representation, while MPs largely support first-past-the-post.
In terms of the death penalty, I do have some sympathy with MPs uncomfortable with the issue. When I spoke to Ann Widdecombe (former Shadow Home Secretary) a few years ago with particular reference to Letty’s case, she intimated that political opposition to capital punishment came down to ‘personal responsibility’ – i.e. that MPs were loath to be held responsible for a potential miscarriage of justice. The problem with such an argument, is that MPs are markedly less squeamish about pulling the rope when the innocent are at the other end of it. Just this year, MPs voted to decriminalise abortion up to birth – something supported by less than 1% of the public. And indeed, such lust for blood extends to the assisted dying bill which was also passed this year. In other words, the State has no issue switching off life support for baby and granny, but somehow has an attack of conscience when it comes to the Axel Rudakubana’s of this world.
Capital punishment may be an ‘inhuman’, ‘degrading’ and ‘irreversible’ punishment, but it’s thanks to our MPs that the British public are overly familiar with such practises of late. Having unleashed hell upon the electorate via the state-sponsored influx of migrant criminals – some of whom mete out the death penalty on a daily basis – it is a bit rich for our politicians to refuse to take responsibility or to grant justice to those affected. As it was in the case of Brexit, it may once again be time for Parliament’s arm to be twisted into giving the people a referendum; a referendum in which they can almost certainly be trusted to ‘vote the wrong way’. Keep pushing Mr Lowe!
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report, which you should probably subscribe to.
This piece was first published in The European Conservative and is reproduced by kind permission.
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!
(Photograph: CACorrections (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)
