Last Death Penalty for Woman in Britain

Muriel Jakubait, right, the sister of Ruth Ellis, with her grandaughter Tamara Harrington at the High Court, London, Tuesday. A two-day appeal hearing began Tuesday, at the High Court, aimed at quashing the murder conviction and substituting a verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation and/or diminished responsibility against Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be executed in Britain.

The case had all the ingredients to make it one of the country's most memorable: A beautiful blonde nightclub hostess, her dashing race car driver lover and a so-called crime of passion that led Ruth Ellis to become the last woman executed in Britain. On Tuesday, lawyers delved into transcripts from the decades-old trial to argue that Ellis was severely provoked into killing lover David Blakely as he left a London pub in 1955, and that her murder conviction should be overturned.

Michael Mansfield, a lawyer acting for Ellis' surviving family, told three senior judges in the Court of Appeal in London that there was a miscarriage of justice at Ellis' original trial because the judge rejected a defense of provocation.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: Britain

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Mansfield used testimony from Ellis and others at that trial to paint a picture of the hanged woman as someone who was emotionally and physically abused by her lover. He argued Ellis suffered from what is now characterized as "battered woman syndrome."

"Were this trial to be allowed to occur today, the course of the trial would be entirely different," Mansfield said as he sought to have Ellis' conviction changed to the lesser verdict of manslaughter on the grounds of provocation or diminished responsibility.

"The jury should have been given the opportunity to decide what was provocation and was reasonable in the circumstances," he added.

Ellis' 1955 trial lasted just over a day and the jury took less than a half hour to reach its verdict. Ellis, 28, never appealed the sentence, and three weeks later she was hanged at Holloway Prison in north London while around 1,000 people held a silent vigil outside. The death penalty in Britain was suspended in 1965 and permanently removed in 1970.

The Ellis case remains one of Britain's most famous. It has inspired several books and a film, "Dance with a Stranger," starring Miranda Richardson as Ellis. Mansfield said Ellis and Blakely had a tempestuous relationship, with Blakely alternating affection with abuse. Ten days before she shot him six times outside the Magdala pub in northwest London, Ellis suffered a miscarriage after Blakely, the baby's father, punched her in the stomach.

"This wasn't one or two incidents. This is plainly a pattern of violence," Mansfield said. He contended that Ellis "snapped" after a weekend during which Blakely deserted her despite promises to take her out, and ignored her telephone calls and attempted visits. "It was obvious that when I shot him, I intended to kill him," Ellis testified at her trial. Mansfield argued that the intent did not rule out the defense of provocation.

But Lord Justice Kay noted that 50 years ago a defense of provocation meant a "sudden and temporary loss of control." He asked how that could apply to Ellis, who carried her gun for 90 minutes before shooting. Mansfield said the question should have been left to the jury. David Perry, the lawyer acting for the Crown Prosecution Service, maintained there was no unfair trial on the basis of the law as it then existed. It was not a crime of passion, but a "calm, deliberate, premeditated killing," he said.

Ellis' sister, 81-year-old Muriel Jakubait, said outside the court that she believes she is fulfilling her sister's dying wish by pursuing the appeal. "She always said the truth would come out and that is what we have been trying to do," Jakubait said. A medical expert is scheduled to give evidence Wednesday, the second and last day of the hearing. A ruling is to be delivered at a later date.

The death penalty is just and humane

How can there be so different reactions to the execution of Karla Fay Tucker, a pickaxe murderer? There are arguments for and there are arguments against capital punishment. These arguments are of different types; some are religious, others emotional, judicial or prevention. To start with the religious argument, we should be aware that this is not to be neglected in the American society. The impact from conservative Christians is important and many people try to find answers to all questions in the Bible. The truth is that the Bible favours the death penalty, not only for murder but also for several other crimes. So if religion means anything and if the Bible is still valid, the death penalty has to be maintained.

The emotional argument is that the victims and their family have a right to vengeance. That is exactly what Mr Tony Thornton expressed. Why should he be denied the ultimate suffering of a criminal monster that in cold blood had battered his beloved wife to death with an axe? It is easy to understand that his long suffering and mourning need to be released by the murderer's execution. When he expressed that his dead wife finally had found peace, it also meant that he himself had got it.

The death penalty also expresses that justice must be done. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. (4) If Carla Tucker killed a human being, justice means that she, in turn, must be killed by humans. An even stronger argument is the necessity of preventing other cruelties from being committed. Society has to act with fervour against any horrendous act whatsoever. Only the death penalty shows how terrible a homicide is. If we do not answer with fervour to the most bestial crimes, how will youngsters ever learn good behaviour and be prevented from becoming brutal beasts? The fact that an executed criminal will never be able to reproduce his terror is enough to defend the capital punishment.

On April 21, 1868, in opposition to a bill banning capital punishment, John Stuart Mill convinced the British Parliament that the death penalty is far more humane than lifetime prison. "As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) has remarked, the most that human laws can do to anyone in the matter of death is to hasten it." (5) Was he not right? Is it not true that the death penalty in point of fact is a very humane punishment?

The death penalty is horrendous

No, John Stuart Mill was not right about human capital punishment. In reality, the death penalty is horrendous and I will now show why. Let me return to the Bible. What those conservative Christians, supporting the state's killing of people, have forgotten when they quote the Bible is that there is more to find in it. They do not even read the whole passages. While quoting "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" they stop reading just before this comment of Jesus: "But what I tell you is this: Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left." (6) So it is not only that the Bible interpreted by Jesus is against the death penalty, it is also evident that vengeance is opposite to true Christian faith.

Not even the judicial argument can be supported. Why so? Is it not the legislatures' purpose to decide about laws and punishments? It certainly is. However, it is a fact that the poor and racial minorities are over-represented among the executed. Worse, innocents are sometimes sentenced to death. As long as errors like that can happen, there is no justice in taking a man's or a woman's life. An erroneous prison punishment can be rectified. An executed innocent can never get his life back. Death is definitive. Killing can never be just!

To those who maintain the deterrence argument while defending the death penalty, it is important to show that there are no facts supporting the belief that the ultimate punishment should scare anybody not to commit a crime. On the contrary, the statistics show that severe crimes, even murders, are even more frequent in states where the death penalty is practised. (7) It seems that, instead of preventing from killing, the pure fact that society itself kills human beings contributes to a dangerous devaluation of human valour. The effect is that more serious crimes are committed.