Online petition revives call for death penalty

Shipley’s Philip Davies spoke out as MPs face the prospect of discussing the issue for the first time in more than a decade under a new system where petitions backed by the public could spark a House of Commons debate.

He said it was “offensive” that killers like Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe were able to “swan about” at Broadmoor Hospital while families of his victims had their lives torn apart.

And he said unless killers were made to spend life in jail, the death penalty should be brought back.

“Something that’s being debated up and down the country in pubs and living rooms should be debated in Parliament,” said Mr Davies. “That’s what we are there for.”

Referring to convicted killers who are freed to offend again, he added: “People might say the death penalty isn’t what happens in civilised countries, but as far as I’m concerned that isn’t what happens in a civilised country either.”

Yesterday Commons leader Sir George Young warned that MPs must not shy away from debating the restoration of the death penalty if a groundswell of voters backs a petition demanding it.

He spoke out ahead of the publication of the first submissions to a new e-petitions scheme which could see the most popular appeals discussed in Parliament.

Among the most prominent is one calling for legislation allowing child killers and those who murder on-duty police officers to face execution which has been presented by Paul Staines, who writes the libertarian Guido Fawkes blog, and has already been backed by several MPs.

If it is signed by the required 100,000 supporters or more then the cross-party Backbench Business Committee will decide whether it will be debated.

Sir George played down fears about airing the subject – which was effectively abolished as a sentence for murder in the UK in 1965.

“The site has been widely welcomed as a realistic way to revitalise public engagement in Parliament,” he said. “But there have been some who have been concerned by some of the subjects which could end up being debated – for example, the restoration of capital punishment.

“The last time this was debated – during the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998 – restoration was rejected by 158 votes. But if lots of people want Parliament to do something which it rejects, then it is up to MPs to explain the reasons to their constituents. What else is Parliament for?

“People have strong opinions, and it does not serve democracy well if we ignore them or pretend that their views do not exist.”

Tory Simon Reevell, MP for Dewsbury and a barrister, said he had favoured capital punishment in his younger days but his opinions had changed during a 20-year career as a criminal lawyer in Leeds, mainly because of the potential for miscarriages of justice.

He said he would consider it depending on the circumstances. He could understand the arguments for applying it on those who murdered children or police officers, but not in all cases of murder.

Shadow Commons leader Hilary Benn, MP for Leeds Central, said: “Anything that helps to put Parliament at the centre of national debate has to be a good thing.

“However, the Government is going to have make more time available in the House of Commons to discuss these matters and Parliament will still have to exercise its judgment.

“For example, there are many MPs – including me – who will never vote for a return to capital punishment. And just as members of the public should have the right to say what they think, so we want our elected Members of Parliament to do the same.”