Wednesday, 27 November 2013

People like Ian Watkins deserve to die

The news around Ian Watkins has been pretty disturbing to say the least. When the story first broke I couldn't read it all. Yesterday there was more twitter chat about it so I decided to have a look, I wish I hadn't.

For the purposes of this blog the highlights are 13 sexual offences (including two attempts at raping a baby) and the possession of and making of child pornography. If you want the details feel free to look but they are disturbing (I was almost sick) and made worse that some of the evidence was too horrific to report on.

Now he will live out the rest of his life in a comfortable cell, meals, TV, games and protection, all at our expense. Of course he isn't safe in prison and good, I hope his fellow inmates make him suffer unimaginable pain. But life itself is too good for him, Ian Watkins should be executed.

Some will say that in a civilised society you should never participate in capital punishment. Tell me what is civilised in allowing monsters like him to live out a comfortable life, all be it in prison, after what he has done? First to tackle a couple of the key arguments against. Deliberately ignoring morals, if you argue that then read the details and come back to me.

Certainty of guilt

The kicker in any case but when someone will die you have to be sure and mistakes happened in the past but things have changed. Modern science and technology removes doubt in many cases and you can build a fail safe in. One where a judge can only give the death penalty where criteria of "beyond doubt" have been fulfilled.


Hanging wouldn't do the trick, too gruesome and I am not suggesting the electric chair either. I would suggest lethal injection. In the US they use three injections, one to put them under, one to immobilise all muscles and then one to stop the heart. Full details


Would it actually stop any crimes? I don't know, but I do know fear can be a huge factor when people make decisions. Where I do believe it would make a difference is when they approach their plea date. Bargains are common in exchange for guilty pleas and perhaps the fear of death could spare victims and family members the pain of a trial and going over the harrowing details of the crimes committed against them or their loved ones. Obviously only if they plead guilty up front, no deal once past initial plea.

I honestly think when the evidence is so weighty that a bargain should be off the table but the victims are the most important people and without a carrot would someone so evil spare them the pain.

Surely we deserve a sensible debate on this issue.


  1. Regarding the "Certainty of Guilt" part, it's always been assumed that people found guilty of a crime by a jury is "beyond a shadow of a doubt", so in theory certainty has always been there. It's dangerous to rely on pleading guilty, as there has been cases where people have voluntarily taken the blame for crimes they have never committed, which means the real perpetrator could go unpunished. In Watkins case however, it's probably easier to sentence him solitary confinement but give him all the tools he needs to commit suicide and let nature rake it's course...

    1. I believe the term is "beyond reasonable doubt". I think allowing him to take his own life wouldn't be fair, he shouldn't get to choose how and when.

  2. I think it's worse to be honest. Him killing himself when nobody is looking is cheating his punishment. If he is already sentenced to death, him doing it himself is carrying out his sentance and making him conform to the state. Anyway, this is all theoretical, this guy is even giving peados a bad name. Expect another nonce to do the job sometime soon.

  3. I totally agree with you except for the use of the method of 'lethal injection'. The chemicals used in Lethal Injections cost a lot of money and frankly it's a cheaper method to hang the individual.

    There is absolutely no point of him being alive any more he is simply just a waste of society's money.