Timothy Kirkhope: We can debate the death penalty again, but there will not be any simple answers

Obviously, as “representatives” of the people, MPs and MEPs should always be aware of the feelings and priorities of their constituents, but as they are not “agents”, there is a wide discretion available to them as to what theme or area of policy to prioritise.

In the European Parliament members can, through their committees, raise “own initiative” reports which can deal with themes that may not otherwise come forward for debate.

Of course, inevitably, this new Westminster exercise will bring up the issue of the death penalty.

As a former Home Office Minister responsible, among other things, for the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which took the issue of miscarriages of justice out of the hands of Ministers and replaced their discretion with an independent body, I have no particular problem with a matter of apparent importance like this being debated again.

However, even as one of the diminishing number of MPs in the 1990s who continued to vote for the return of capital punishment until the theme was no longer debated, I wonder whether returning to it now is such a good idea.

Opponents of the EU (including UKIP) claim that we would have capital punishment restored if we were not members of the EU. That is not true.

It was our own House of Commons and MPs that decided without outside pressure to end capital punishment in 1965.

It was our own House of Commons that decided time and time again not to restore it.

Of course, as signatories with 46 other EU and non-EU countries of the Convention on Human Rights, we would always be subject to some criticism if we had restored the death penalty, although we only ratified the relevant Protocols 6 (in 1999) and 13 (in 2003).

However, in 1998 when the Labour Government incorporated the Convention into domestic UK law, it had become almost impossible under our law (not EU legislation) to return to the issue or change things back. Only subsequently did the EU confirm the position in the Lisbon Treaty.

Then, there are the issues surrounding the death penalty itself and the changed circumstances since it was ended.

On the one hand, there is no doubt that with the advent of DNA and other scientific detection advances the argument that innocent people could be executed by mistake is now much diminished if not totally discredited.

On the other hand, we would have to re-define “capital offences” for which the death penalty could be applied in the light of new and appalling crimes which were not heard of many years ago.

We would also have to set up a new apparatus to deal with convicted prisoners awaiting execution and a new system for actually carrying out the executions. By hanging? By electrocution? By lethal injection? How?

Despite the stated enthusiasm from some politicians to act as executioners themselves, would we seriously be able to select suitable candidates to act in this role and to train them up effectively? Could we be sure that our society as a whole (including our courts) would really accept this change?

There are also the arguments about whether the death penalty is punishment or simply revenge by society.

In some respects, imprisoning an individual for their whole life is arguably a more fitting punishment than executing them. If we are simply wishing to wreak revenge, will that really help to reduce criminality?

When we had the death penalty before, there were many arguments about it acting as a deterrent particularly in relation to one of the main “capital offences” –- namely killing a police officer.

In those days, our police service, with very few exceptions, was completely unarmed. There was certainly evidence then that the death penalty deterred. But would it now? I am not so sure about that.

It is also true that we now have moved on. We have sought to isolate and even overthrow “despots” around the world who cling on to power by exercising viciousness and harsh penalties (including the death penalty) against their people; Iran and North Korea, for instance.

Our riposte to these “terror states” is that we are civilized, we are humane, and we do not need such devices to curb crime.

By all means, let’s have this debate. But please do not assume that it can be an easy one and that there is a clear right and wrong on the issue. There is not.

Timothy Kirkhope is a solicitor and a Conservative MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber. He is also the party’s spokesman on justice and home affairs in the European Parliament.