With the exception of roughly 50% of US states, the death penalty has long since been repealed across the western world.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)
Regarding religious opposition (I speak as a traditional Catholic) there should be no religious opposition! Unlike Protestant Christians we can’t quote chapter and verse of the Bible, but we do know that what is now known as capital punishment often appears in the Good Book quite frequently e.g. eye for an eye, etc.
Until that idiot Pope Bergoglio stuck his oar in the death penalty was in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being necessary for dealing with clear cut murder cases. Now people will say “Yes, yes, but the 6th Commandment says ‘thou shalt not kill'”, but they get it completely wrong. The Commandments properly translated from the Hebrew have the 6th saying “Thou shalt not commit murder”, thus clearing the way for capital punishment.
The Church, until Bergoglio, has never been against the death penalty for murder. If you kill someone in self defence, or in war, or even manslaughter, that is not seen as wilful murder. Sadly the Church is going the way of the world, going soft on many issues. I personally believe that capital punishment should be brought back for cut and dried cases of murder, and I can say that with a clear conscience as a Catholic!
Well, what a nice surprise – I thought li’l ole me was likely to be the only “traditional” Catholic on this blog. I don’t usually add the adjective because really, one is either a Catholic or one is not. Due to the ongoing, horrendous, crisis in the Church right now, though, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish fully believing (i.e. traditional) Catholics from those who, albeit sometimes unwittingly, are going along with the modernist takeover within the Church. That’s why it’s a mistake to blame “the Church” for much that is shocking – there is a crisis in the priesthood stretching to the current hierarchy, and it is they – the modernists – who are the cause of the scandals such as changing the Catechism teaching on the death penalty. Modernism, note, is “the synthesis of all heresies”, so it’s not “the Church” to blame; the Church is indefectible, cannot fail in teaching the truths necessary to save souls. It’s the modernist hierarchy, including the recent popes who are causing confusion. Thankfully, a sign that Christ has not failed in His promise to not let the gates of Hell prevail against the Church, none of the modernist heresies have been defined as binding teachings. Still, although the gates of Hell have not prevailed, they have come close, so it’s necessary to analyse every word that comes from the Vatican these days. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, because “the Church” is often used as a shorthand, but, for the sake of readers who may not understand that, I’m mentioning it, tenaciouss… so please don’t take offence. I’m confident you won’t.
Frank ‘s article is a breath of fresh air. Expertly, he makes the case for the restoration of the death penalty, pointing out the false dichotomy – tragically now embraced by Pope Leo – of making opposition to the death penalty and illegal (or too much) immigration, key to being “pro-life”. I frequently point out in discussions that being against abortion and euthanasia/assisted dying is not a “Catholic” or “Christian” issue but a basic moral issue, it’s about our very humanity, and, I always add, people of every religion and none oppose these barbaric actions. Frank has proven me right – claiming to be an atheist. I hope he’s not, really, but if he insists I would urge him to check up on some of the (alleged, I admit, difficult to corroborate) deathbed statements from famous atheists. That moment of death terrifies me as it is: if I had rejected God, I cannot imagine the fear that would engulf me as I am about to enter eternity – maybe a blog topic for a future conversation? Frank is so perfect in every other way, I’d love him not to be an atheist!
I agree with two out of Frank’s three “rules” for the restoration of the Death Penalty. I would not include the following:
“That the judge (and possibly the victims’ families) would need to request it.”
It seems to me that that would put a target on the backs of both the judge and the victims’ families. In a serious murder case, possibly a mob/mafia killing, the fear of reprisals would be too great; it is unlikely that either the judge or the families would choose the Death Penalty. So, I would not make that part of the package at all. In sentencing, the Judge should follow the guidance set out, as per Frank’s other two conditions, that this punishment would be only for the absolute worst crimes and only be used in cases of absolute certainty.
In terms of the “religious opposition” – without meaning to hammer on about the crisis in the Church, the fact is, those who oppose the Death Penalty are swimming AGAINST what has always been the religious – certainly the Christian – position on this subject. And the longstanding Christian support for the Death Penalty is not for bad motives. Quite the reverse. Those who claim religious reasons to object to the Death Penalty – and I include the recent dreadful, modernist popes – forget that our main purpose on this earth is the salvation of souls from Hell: our own soul and the souls of others whom we may encounter who may be at risk of losing their souls. Faced with the prospect of death, the convicted murderer is more likely to think again about his life and his eternal future, more likely to experience the stirrings of grace in his/her soul and so, ultimately, to (hopefully) meet his ultimate Judge as a repentant sinner, over whom, the Gospel teaches, there is more rejoicing in Heaven than over the 99 who do not need to repent (words to that effect – I think that’s an accurate enough quote).
The modernist position embraced by recent popes and other churchmen shows them as victims to a false charity. Pure humanism. Worldly prelates. Christ Himself accepted the State’s authority to impose the Death Penalty. That’s why it’s not accurate to say that He was “murdered” – at no point did He suggest that the State had no right to use the Death Penalty albeit in His case, unjustly, in human terms.
In short, I would be voting for the restoration of Capital Punishment. Like, yesterday.
I read the first comment without realising it wasn’t yours!!
BTW, this site doesn’t allow links but there is some new research (Oxford I think) that you’d be interested in but wouldn’t agree with. It postulates that it was equally Vatican delays and indecision in the excommunication of H8 that led to the Reformation in England….
Who knows? What we DO know is that Henry VIII decided he would not accept papal authority when it conflicted with his baser instincts/desires and made the decision to create a post for himself as Head of the Church IN England – not OF England. He had no wish to launch his own Church, which is probably why Anglican and Episcopalian churches are very like Catholic churches in many ways. I’m more inclined to accept the traditional historical reports on the Reformation period, including the contemporaneous writings (of, e.g. St Thomas More) than some Oxford researcher. No offence intended to those researching at Oxford…
I think the new theory was that swift excommunication would have made G8 rethink but the long delay (8 years?) in carrying out this sanction allowed him time to reflect on how weak and inconsistent the Papacy and Catholic Church was (whilst, as we both agree, remaining a sort of Catholic himself). In any case it’s, as always, politics, as had Wolsey become Pope as H8 hoped things would have been smoothed over (and annulments are still granted under rather dubious circumstances in my opinion).
Nathaniel, just to let you know: the website has to block links otherwise we get swamped with spam. You can post them regardless, they get flagged up back to me and I will approve them.
Patricia, you are most kind thank you! I am a complete coward, so it is more than likely I shall have a deathbed conversion!
Article misses two things:
Judges should have no say in the matter as they have become both too woke and repercussions on themselves. Nor could understandable family revenge alone be the decider.
The method of execution needs to be painless, quick and foolproof, ruling out all the traditional methods, even hanging as the criminal knows what is happening. Those who favour a painful exit as part of the punishment really ought to consider converting to Islam btw.
Perhaps the subject of the execution order ought to be given a method choice with suicide being one?
Suicide – unlike State sanctioned Capital Punishment – can never be justified. In any event, the concept of the convicted person being permitted to choose the method of death doesn’t quite match the “punishment must fit the crime” sentiment – up to a point, of course. We don’t want the State stabbing people or putting the convicted murderer through the same agony which he/she inflicted on their victim(s). That said, there would have to be an agreed/accepted method for all those sentenced to death. It’s not the time for pic ‘n mix – a sombre sentence requires a sombre method.
I agree that a (better) method needs to be devised for despatching those who deserve it. I strongly disagree that offering a suicide option is wrong – in fact it’s preferable as it gives the guilty the chance to accept that they no longer deserve the right to live.
Perhaps this abhorrence of suicide is one of your Catholic quirks (I don’t mean this in a disrespectful way)
More emerging evidence indicates that the Lucy Letby case is a complete foul-up, the most likely truth being that a cover-up needed a fall-girl.
As Frank indicates in his article, cases such as the highly dubious Lucy Letby case would have to be exempt from the Death Penalty.
You may well be right, in any case, about the cover-up. Something is definitely not write at that hospital and there seems to be very good reasons to doubt the safety of Lucy’s conviction.