Death to capital punishment

I was struck by the story of Rais Bhuyian - a man who was blinded by Mark Stroman, who shot him (and killed his two friends) in the aftermath of 9/11.  Rais has been campaigning for a reprieve for the murderer who is set to be executed today.

I think he has a strong case.  Capital punishment is morally wrong - since when does two wrongs make a right?  The death penalty belongs in the last century.  We have moved on from our ancestors' barbaric principles of an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.  This is merely vengenance, not justice.

Of course, that is not to say our criminals should not be punished.  The alternative is to toughen up sentencing laws and ensure that they are not given parole after a measley 10 years or so.  This will serve the purpose of justice and what's more, serve as a detterrent.  I know that many of the proponents of capital punishment promote it on the grounds that it serves to reduce crime in the long-run.  This argument is at best unproved. The type of criminal that receives the death penalty will be serial murderers, rapists and terrorists, for example.  These types of people are psychopaths - they are evidently not rational nor stable beings.  Thus, a death penalty will not necessarily affect them.  Instead, it would only deter criminals who commit pettier crime - and I'm sure even the most ardent believers of the death penalty do not sanction killing Jim who steals from the sweet shop.  In this sense, therefore, capital punishment is ineffective.

So it's morally wrong and ineffective.  To make matters worse, there is chance that innocent people will be killed.  Our justice system is, and always will be, fallible.  Mistakes and miscarriages of justices will happen.  If the wrongly convicted criminal is serving a sentence in prison, they can be released if new evidence came to light.  If the the wrongly convicted criminal is in a grave, they cannot be brought back life - no, as advanced as our technology is, we have not got that far (yet?)  Any system that has the potential kill innocent people is a risk too far.  Death to capital punishment.

Under arrest

The police force is set to hit its lowest numbers since 2002 - 34,000 jobs will be lost, under government austerity measures.

This is a step backwards.  The state has a duty to protect its citizens.  With crime and especially, the fear of crime at alarmingly high levels, cutting police numbers compromises their duty to do so.  People deserve a strong police presence on their streets.  This reassures them - primarily because it acts as a deterrent but also because it sends the message that the government recognize that crime is a real issue and are taking active steps to combat it.

Inevitably, due to our unsustainable debt levels, the government needs to reduce public spending.  However, compromising our safety is not the way to achieve this. 

No showboating please, Parliament

Rupert Murdoch, after initially declining Parliament's request to attend the Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and sport, has accepted the invitation.

Next Tuesday (when the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks are scheduled to give evidence) is an opportunity for Parliament to showcase themselves as an effective body that aims to throw light on this hacking scandal - not to show off.  Amidst huge public outrage and anger, it would be easy enough for MPs on the select committee to grandstand and look to ridicule the Murdochs.  Instead, they must show voters that Parliament works - by asking questions designed to further the investigation - and not merely humiliate the Murdochs as an end in itself.

Indeed, it is a chance for Parliament to vindicate itself: when the chief executive of Kraft refused to attend a  Parliamentary select committee, she argued that she would be met with "ill-founded allegations and insults."  On Tuesday, Parliament can show these claims were wrong.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

British people are said to be the most watched people in the world.  There are nearly 3 million CCTV cameras monitoring the UK.

Many human rights groups oppose what seems like an all-seeing State on the grounds of privacy.  They claim that individuals have a fundamental right to a private life.

Needless to say, this is true.  But, it is also true that they have the right to be safe when they make that journey home every night from work.  Rights can be seen as relative, as opposed to absolute.  Thus, when they conflict (as is evident with CCTVs), we must weigh them up.  I for one would rather be watched every step of the way on my journey home than be mugged.

Perhaps some would claim that this argument is redundant - CCTVs do not necessarily reduce crime.  Well, of course, CCTV cameras do not eradicate crime - but it does undeniably act as a deterrant for many would-be criminals.   The prospect of having your face pop up crystal clear on a police officer's computer is, I am sure, not one a criminal relishes.

In a perfect world, yes, the right to privacy would always be preserved.  But, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  There are criminals who want to steal our wallets, rob our homes and terrorise our country.  Our right to safety does mean that our privacy must be curtailed to some extent for the greater good.

The third great crisis of trust

First, it was the banks.  Then it was our MPs.  Now, it is the turn of the media.

Recent phone-hacking revelations, which has led to the closure of the News of the World, are very unsettling.  It would probably be wrong to see the actions of the individuals concerned as acting in a vacuum.  The scandal perhaps exposes the culture that led to it.  In an attempt by journalists to find the most exclusive stories, amidst the fierce competition in the media, they have overstepped the mark - and broken the law.

The media plays an integral role in our democracy.  Its role in scrutiny is certainly welcome.  They criticise government actions and expose our elected representatives when they behave illegitimately.  Unfortunately, for some, they have confused "scrutiny" with invading privacy for no reasonable justification and frankly, breaking the law.