Reform calls for return of death penalty for Southport murderer

January 2025

Following the horrific murder of three young girls in Southport last year and the attempted murder of others, the man who committed the murders, Axel Rudakubana, was sentenced this week to 52 years in custody before he can be considered for parole. He could not be sentenced to a whole life tariff because he was 17 at the time he committed the crime and such a sentence cannot be passed on someone below the age of 18.

As is normal in cases of crimes of this gravity which deeply shocked the nation, there are some who call

for the return of the death penalty. This was kicked off this week by the Reform party currently doing well in the polls. They have called for a debate on the issue although it is clear from the chief whip Lee Anderson MP, he is keen for the penalty to be restored. The Labour MP for Southport, Patrick Hurley, said the sentence ‘was not severe enough’.

“This animal has no right to breathe the same air as the rest of us” Lee Anderson MP [Daily Express]

This came up on today’s Any Questions (24 January) programme on BBC Radio 4 and Any Answers was substantially devoted to the topic. The answers were interesting and there did seem a majority in favour for its return. The presenter of the programme, Anita Anand asked several times about mistakes. If you have executed someone and discover a mistake some years later it is too late to undo it. Answers mostly seemed to base themselves on the availability now of DNA inferring that this provides some kind of guarantee of correctness. She also questioned the deterrent claims by pointing out that several North American states maintain the penalty but studies show no link to a reduction in violent crime as a result. One person tried to say that violent crime has increased since the death penalty was abolished in the ’60s. As Anand pointed out, it hasn’t and the murder rate has remained fairly consistent for many years. There did seem to be a touching faith in the justice system not making mistakes because we have DNA evidence now. Have they not heard of Andrew Malkinson, released after 17 years for a crime he did not commit?

One feature which came up was cost. Several people phoned in to say keeping him incarcerated for 52 years or more will be very expensive (someone had done a calculation). Whereas they argued, an execution would be over and done with. A few argued he would have time in prison to reflect on his crime.

A high degree of emotion and disgust at crimes as serious and heinous as this is to be expected. The moral argument did not make an appearance however and whether it is right for the state to take someone’s life. One thought it might make him a martyr.

A lot of the debate focused on how do you stop this kind of thing happening in the first place. Young men (it mostly is) sat in their rooms downloading violent material including the al Qaeda training manual. He bought his knife just days before from Amazon. It is reported today that he deleted his search history and if Google, Facebook, X et al decline to release details from their servers, it could take years through the American courts to retrieve the information. Finding out the source of his rage may take years.

Amnesty is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. It is not a deterrent.