The Execution of Gary Glitter

[upsticks]

I'm watching the Exectuion of Gary Glitter, and as usually, C4 have done us proud with gripping drama.

As someone who only often truly understands and feels things once I have experienced them, this is really getting to me. It's not an "execution" it's an "institutionalised murder", and what it really shows up is how lenient our penal system is. I'm not calling for the Death Penalty by any means, but Life should mean Life, not bail in 6 years.

There are news reports, interviews, and coverage of protests. Even a short word from the coldly named, "Hanging Technician", who reveals he'll have to remain psychologically detached when he pulls the lever.

Gary Glitter is unremorseful and arrogant in this, but the wobble in his lip when the sentence was announced is heartening, and really reached out to me.

It's a war of words and of media, in a country where the politicians decide.

People have complained about this -- indeed Gary Glitter himself is planning to sue (which I think he's right to) -- but I'm interested whether this will make people actually want the death penalty or not. It seems doubtful, as the programme raises some brilliant questions that would be seized upon by an interested RE group or Philosophy class, most with an answer that most of you could tell me straightoff.

Well done C4, it's shock tactics again, but, I applaud you. 

Comments

[indes-elfwine.livejournal.com]

World of agreement. No civilised country should allow its government to murder its people.

[glitterfairy25.livejournal.com]

They talked about on the show. How it was "backward" and "uncivilised". Of course other people said differently, but that was what came out. The fact that hangman was killing people with no reason to, and remained entirely emotionless about it certainly raises some questions about who is the more cold-blooded.

Touhger sentences, yes, but not murder. It's not a life for a life - it doesn't work that way.

[kissxbangxbangx.livejournal.com]

I didn't watch the documentary, but I agree with you. The death penalty terrifies me, and I can't put into words why. I don't like how it's somehow so cold and clinical and brutal at the same time, and as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. Killing people is not right, no matter what they've done (and I'm not even convinced it's the most effective solution).

But I also agree that life should mean life. I think locking someone away forever is a far better punishment than killing them - after all, if they're did, they're not going to have to live with what they've done for very long. And plus, if it does turn out that they're innocent, at least they've got a chance at life - no, being let out will never make up for the time they were locked up for something they didn't do, but at least they'll get to make a go of it, something they couldn't do if they'd been executed.

Gary Glitter, ugh. I find what he's done repulsive, as I'm sure most people do, but his attitude towards it almost sickens me even more.

[kissxbangxbangx.livejournal.com]

Having said all of that, I'm speaking as somebody who hasn't been the victim of any crime that could be punishable by death penalty, and I haven't lost any family members to murder or anything like that. If I had, I feel like I might be crying out for the perpetrator to be executed, not because I think it's right logically, but in that situation, my emotions would take over and I'm sure I'd want them dead (I'm also sure I'd much rather do it to them myself in that situation, but obviously I never would).

[glitterfairy25.livejournal.com]

There is that point yes, which I'm very thankful for. Speaking as someone who was the victim of a pretty mild crime last term, I know that if I could choose if the perpetrators (sp?) got their comuppance or not, I would. Emotions do affect these things, one reason why it's so difficult to have an objective stance on capital punishment. I can understand too many of the argument, but my opinion is still strong: it's institutionalised murder, and completely out of the question.

[glitterfairy25.livejournal.com]

The death penalty has always made me scared, but this really got to me. A guy has been effectively murdered, and he knows he will die, and there is *nothing* he can do. I can see the appeal in a sort of "Own Medicine" kind of way, but it's still too harsh - how does anyone have the right to take a life?
It's the clinicalness of it all that gets me; it's literally clinical calculated MURDER.

I hate how life doesn't mean life. It means 12 - 15 years, then bail in half that. It needs to be taken seriously, and only carrying out half your punishment does nothing. One point this show made was that it made that Gary Glitter a bit of a martyr: sales of his songs rocketed, new fans emerged, and he was remembered for being unfairly killed rather than the fact he committed a heinous crime. Entirely the unfavourable outcome.

I knew what he'd done, but I didn't know how he was treating it; that's the thing that's really annoyed (for want of a better word) me.

[wsdante.livejournal.com]

This is fertile philosophical ground here...

I'm still on the fence when it comes to the death penalty but I lean towards the 'against' camp for all the reasons stated above.
IF our legal system was infallible; IF forensic science was 100% accurate; IF we had the ability to know for sure that the convicted person would definitely re-offend with a complete lack of conscience if released back into society, then I would go along with their being 'put to sleep' as painlessly as an incurably rabid dog at the vets. (Hanging, electrocution, etc are way too barbaric and are tools of vengeance rather than justice).

Here's the sticking point: I wonder if, to avoid hypocrisy, being against the death penalty should mean, by extension, that we are against all armed conflict and use of lethal weapons by law enforcement agencies.

After all, those who are killed by the criminal justice system have at least had the benefit of a, hopefully, fair trial and pleas for mitigating circumstances have had a chance to be heard and weighed by an appointed judge. Those on the other side of armed conflict are often killed simply because they were conscripted. Those killed by police marksmen also lack trial and conviction.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not damning our armed forces nor the police - they have my deepest respect for doing unbelievably difficult work for only half the gratitude they deserve.
It just strikes me that this subject can be a surprisingly complex one, morally.

[glitterfairy25.livejournal.com]

It could cause - and it does - a lot of discussion about what it means to have a fair trial and how much certainty we can ever actually have.

I completely agree. If we could ever KNOW that that crime was exactly this way and it was committed by that person and they were likely to commit something like it again without repetence, then I believe it would be worth considering a permanent incarceration, if you like. And the most certain way of doing that would be putting them to death. Of course, if we could be sure that the punishment system we already have could keep in them inside permanently, then that too would be an option. But we can't know that right now.

Isn't that so odd. Same consequence, different meaning, different reason. It's that whole, "one death is a tragedy, a hundred deaths is an accident." or something to that effect.

surprisingly complex? it's about death, and rights. I don't know how anyone can underestimate its complexity :S