The executions in Britain happened almost 50 years ago. In the first 64 years of the last century several people hanged. Its use was debated and agonised over a few times during that period then, as now, it had supporters - usually slamming opponents as soft on crime. Who did it protect? Did actually deter at all? We don't think so for the following reasons:

 

In deterrent tales, Satish Sekar examines some unusual stories from the last century. Law enforcement officers knew the consequences of murder fully. Ernest Moss may even have used it to commit suicide by proxy. John Reginald Halliday Christie was fully aware of the consequences of his crime. He chose to send an innocent man to the gallows and continued killing. How would hanging the wrong man deter anyone?

 

A solicitor, a would-be executioner and friend of the chief executing all committed murder knowing the penalty was death. A serving police officer went to the gallows along with two former officers, and a special constable. All of them knew full well the punishment for murder was hanging. It failed to stop them.

 

If capital punishment can not deter people such as them, can it be considered a deterrent at all, let alone the ultimate one?