Episodes
-
Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has pulled his new children's book from the shelves after complaints that it stereotyped Indigenous Australians. Some First Nations leaders have called the book "offensive". Oliver says it was not his “intention".
This case raises philosophical questions about the role of intent in the way we act and in the way we judge the actions of others. If harm is measured by the impact of an action rather than the intention behind it, how much does the intention matter at all? The fact that the law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter suggests that intent is indispensable in assessing moral culpability. On the other hand, being tired or incompetent at the wheel of a car may result in a more deadly outcome than knowingly driving recklessly. In our everyday relationships, we all make excuses for our behaviour when we mess up, but what makes a good excuse – a work-deadline, a wailing infant, ignorance? More complicated still, how can we discern someone’s intent not to cause harm or offense, particularly if we don’t inhabit the same social or cultural reality?
Does intent matter? After all, you know what they say about the road to hell…
Chair: Michael Buerk
Panellists: Ash Sarkar, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Giles Fraser
Witnesses: Daniel Browning, Brendan O'Neill, Dr Paul Youngbin Kim, Professor Paulina Sliwa.
Producer: Dan TierneyAssistant producer: Ruth Purser
-
The tax increases on private schools, though long trailed, were among the most emotive measures in last week’s blockbuster budget, because they’re widely seen to be as much a moral issue as a question of politics or economics. It was a former Conservative education secretary, Michael Gove, who asked: why should the state support the already wealthy to buy advantage for their children? Others see it as an attack on aspiration and excellence, ”a vindictive piece of class warfare on parents who scrimp and save to pay fees”, according to Mr Gove’s former colleague David Davies.Taxing private schools – justice or spite?PANELLISTS: Ash Sarkar, Ella Whelan, Giles Fraser, Mona SiddiquiPRESENTER: Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine MurrayASSISTANT PRODUCER: Ruth PurserEDITOR: Tim Pemberton
-
Missing episodes?
-
Overcrowded, understaffed and in disrepair, Britain’s prisons are in crisis. One of the first acts of the Labour government was to announce that thousands of prisoners would be let out early to make room for the next wave of inmates. The Scottish government has a similar scheme. Press photographs taken at prison gates show chortling convicts cheering the Prime Minister before climbing into luxury cars and heading off to celebrate.
Arguments rage between those who say we send too many offenders to prison (more, as a proportion of the population, than any other country in Europe) and those who say we don’t catch and punish enough criminals, so we need tougher policing and more jails.
Perhaps the prison crisis is a blessing in disguise, because it is stimulating new ideas. Initiatives are already under way that may develop into long-term solutions. Reformers want more sentences of community service, more curfews enforced by electronic tagging, more flexible parole used as a reward for good behaviour. They point out that the nations with most prisoners are also, by and large, the countries with most crime; in Britain, they say, lawbreaking flourishes in the absence of both deterrence and rehabilitation.
Our sentencing tariffs, criminologists insist, are incoherent and morally dubious; we are too hard on some offenders and too soft on others; we should rewrite the guidelines to distinguish more clearly between wicked criminals and hapless inadequates; most offenders need support, guidance and incentives to address their problems, not incarceration.
But that’s not what the voters tend to think, so it’s not what MPs have tended to support. The majority view has always been that prisons should be used to protect the public. What’s more, they should be unpleasant places, to express society’s disapproval of criminality, and sentences should be longer, because there has to be punishment as well as rehabilitation.
Lock ‘em up or let ‘em out?
The panel: Sonia Sodha, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin Iman, Matthew Taylor.Witnesses: Ayesha Nayyar, Scarlett Roberts, Peter Bleksley, Dr Hindpal Singh Bhui
-
“Dawn... and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korem, it lights up a biblical famine, now, in the 20th century...” Those words, spoken by Michael Buerk 40 years ago, pricked the world’s conscience, triggered an unprecedented humanitarian effort, led to Live Aid and spawned institutions like Comic Relief. Since then, more than a billion people around the world have climbed out of extreme poverty, although around 700 million people still live on less than $2.15 a day, according to the World Bank.
Times have changed. Not only is the media landscape vastly different, making competing demands on our attention, but also our attitudes to helping the poor around the world are different. The question is not simply whether we have a moral duty to help people in other countries, but HOW we should help them.
In a post-pandemic world, there are those who advance ever stronger arguments for ending poverty through debt cancellation, robust institutions and international co-operation. Critics of development aid, however, see it as wasteful, ineffective and enabling corruption: ‘poor people in rich countries subsidising rich people in poor countries’. Others view the sector as a legacy of European colonialism, citing Band Aid’s portrayal of Africa as emblematic of the ‘White saviourism’ ingrained in the system. Others, meanwhile, believe the best way to help people is to bypass institutions altogether, and give cash directly to individuals to make their own decisions about how to spend it.
40 years on from Michael Buerk’s landmark report from Ethiopia, how should we help the global poor?
Chair: Michael BuerkProducer: Dan TierneyAssistant producer: Ruth Purser
Panellists:Ash SarkarAnne McElvoyInaya Folarin ImanCarmody Grey
-
In recent weeks tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in Spain’s most popular tourist destinations. From Málaga to Mallorca, Gran Canaria to Granada, locals are revolting against what they see as the hollowing out of their communities with the buying up of properties to turn them into short-stay holiday lets for people they argue don’t respect their locality, culture or language. UNESCO has described the situation as "totally out of balance".
On one level this is an argument about economics, but the implications are profoundly moral. People shouldn’t feel like second-class citizens in their own towns, but we also recognise the freedom to move, rest and discover. The affordability of travel makes mass tourism possible, but it’s lamented by those who see it as selfish, narcissistic and damaging to native cultures and the environment. And yet travel supposedly broadens the mind and the soul – a cultural exchange that can be a catalyst for self-improvement, make us more empathetic, and provide a livelihood for host communities.
Should foreign tourism be discouraged? Or if it’s mass tourism we’re worried about, what can we do about it without holidays becoming an elitist pursuit?
Producer: Dan TierneyAssistant producer: Ruth Purser
Panel:Giles FraserSonia SodhaAsh SarkarTim Stanley
Witnesses:Guillem Colom-MonteroJim ButcherAnna HughesEmily Thomas
-
The past week of brutish, hate-filled riots has been a disturbing time for Britian’s minority communities. What started as a protest against the murder of three little girls in Southport has swept the country for days, fuelled by the spread of mis-information on social media.
The cause of the anger is starkly contested. For some, they are racist far-right agitators and opportunist thugs, whipped up by populist politicians and commentators. For others they represent a deeper unease about successive immigration and social policies which have left people feeling ignored, marginalised, even despised by politicians and mainstream media. The ideological divide is between those who see ‘diversity as strength’ and those who think unlimited tolerance breeds its own intolerance.
For all the images of burning cars, racist graffiti and violent looting, there is another side to the story: those who help in the clear up, who show solidarity with their Muslim neighbours, and who make clear their opposition to racist hatred.
What should we make of the riots? And, if there is more that unites us than divides us, what should we be doing to improve relations between communities?
Producer: Dan TierneyAssistant Producer: Ruth Purser
Chair:Michael Buerk
Panel:Ash SarkarKonstantin KisinMona SiddiquiTim Stanley
Witnesses:Matt GoodwinAshraf HoqueAdrian HiltonKieran Connell
-
One moment in the Olympics opening ceremony in Paris clearly touched a nerve: the tableau of mostly drag queens believed to be parodying Da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’. Organisers have since denied this was the intention and apologised for the offense caused. Many commentators, including non-believers, declared it “blasphemous”, and “a denigration of Western culture”. While others, Christians among them, considered that response to be an over-reaction. Stepping back from the immediate and perhaps predicable outrage drawn along culture war lines, is the deeper question of what we consider to be ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ in a largely secular Western society. What, if anything, is sacred? Does the idea only make sense in relation to the concept of God? Does it have a moral function or is it more about personal spirituality? Maybe nothing is sacred, since categorising something as such puts it beyond scrutiny? Or can the concept be widened, even secularised, to take in, for example, the idea of ‘profaning’ the natural world or hollowing out the things we hold to be of value by turning them into commercial transactions? Are the concepts of ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ still important? And if so, what role do they have in the 21st century?
Producer: Dan TierneyAssistant producer: Ruth Purser
Panel:Anne McElvoyGiles FraserAsh SarkarTim Stanley
Witnesses:Melanie McDonaghAndrew CopsonFergus Butler-GallieFrancis Young
-
The Modern Olympics were founded in 1896 by a Parisian with serious moral principles . Pierre De Coubertin even made up a word for it: Olympism: ‘a way of life based on the joy of effort ..and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. He thought that sports at an international level could foster respect and peace between nations. This week as the Games get underway in De Coubertin’s city, athletes have been meeting to do just that, talk about the role that sport plays in building bridges. But how much does the modern games live up to these highminded ideals? For detractors, it’s a bloated megagames, always billions over overbudget that displaces communities and marginalises the excluded. What about nationalism and the place of the politics in the competition? The way De Coubertin conceived the idea with nations competing for international glory, means it’s impossible to put nationalism and politics aside. He insisted it was individuals, not countries in competition but the medal tables tell a different story. And the Olympics has often been the battleground to show the triumph of one ideology over another, particularly during the Cold War. Does the Olympics really promote peace as it’s goals suggest or is just ‘war minus the shooting’ as George Orwell wrote. Do the Olympics cause more harm than good?WITNESSES: Dr Shakiba Moghadam, Dora Pallis, Prof David Case Large, Prof David PapineauPANELLISTS:Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy,Ash Sarkar, Mona SiddiquiPresenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Catherine MurrayAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserEditor Tim Pemberton
-
The attempted assassination of former US president Donald Trump was a dark day for American politics. We don’t know whether the gunman was induced to kill - as some commentators have suggested - by the current political climate. Nevertheless, it appears that the line between passionate criticism and incitement to violence is becoming increasingly blurred. Words matter, but calls to curb speech beyond current laws are immediately met with opposition by those who see freedom of speech as essential to democracy.
And yet, the abuse and intimidation of politicians also threatens democracy. In the UK the government’s adviser on political violence, Lord Walney, has written to the Home Secretary saying there has been a "concerted campaign by extremists to create a hostile atmosphere for MPs within their constituencies to compel them to cave into political demands".
All parties seek to control the narrative through forceful language, hyperbolic rhetoric, and attacks on opponents, but when do words become dangerous? Politics is tribal, but when does tribalism become toxic?
If democracy is a system in which citizens – and tribes – can disagree without resorting to violence, what can be done to strengthen democracy? Is it possible to turn down the political heat without losing the passion?
PANEL:Mona SiddiquiMatthew TaylorSonia SodhaInaya Folarin Iman.
WITNESSES:Hannah Phillips - from the Jo Cox FoundationJohn McTernan - Political Secretary to UK PM Tony Blair, and Director of Communications for Australian PM Julia GillardBrian Klass - Associate Professor in Global Politics at University College LondonNicholas Gruen - policy economist and visiting professor at King's College London's Policy Institute
Producer: Dan TierneyAssistant Producer: Ruth Purser
-
The idea of when to step down is front and centre in American politics as 81 year old Joe Biden continues in the Presidential race despite concerns about his mental agility. His performance in a recent TV debate has sown doubt among supporters with polls suggesting some are losing faith in his abilities. ‘Pass the torch Joe’ said one placard as he declared his intention to keep going.
Are the elderly blcoking the young if they cling on to powerful and influence ? Does it skew society even more in favour of older people who seem to have had it better when it comes to pensions, homeownership and the opportunity to save money? Gerontologists say that society is ageist, that most people are not like Biden and will hit barriers to staying in work once they get older. That these barriers have to be cleared because as the population gets older we all need to stay in the workforce for longer.
Wisdom is said to come with age but if you have a fulfilling job, how do you check that you are still capable of continuing? Will those around you tell you the truth ? Is it pride that keeps elderly people in powerful positions, a sense that they are irreplacable, an unwillingness to give up something that defines them and take on another role. What's the morality of stepping down?
Witnesses: Dorothy Byrne, President of Murray Edwards CollegeMary-Kate Cary, Professor of Politics at the Univeristy of Virginia David Sinclair, Chief Executive of the International Longevity CentreDr Erica Benner, Political Philosopher and Historian
Panel: Inaya Folarin-Iman, Mona Siddiqui, Matthew Taylor,Ella Whelan
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Catherine MurrayAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserProduction Co-ordinator: Nancy BennieEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? Well, Camden Council for a start, who’ve put a QR code on her statue in Bloomsbury explaining that some of views and actions of the prototype feminist, widely regarded as one of the leading modernist writers of the 20th century, are now considered “offensive” and “unacceptable”.Funny how we look back for drama and moral clarity, not just judging the past by the prejudices of the present, but affecting to see in its messiness either inevitable progress, or relentless decline. More and more, it seems, history is a weapon with which to fight today’s battles.What should history teach us?
Witnesses:Professor Ada PalmerProfessor Kehinde AndrewsDr Amanda ForemanProfessor Robert Tombs
Panellists:Anne McElvoyAsh SarkarTim StanleyMatthew Taylor
Presenter: Michael Buerk
Producers: Catherine Murray & Peter EverettAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
Taylor Swift fever has swept the UK week. She’s back in August and fans have been paying hundreds sometimes thousands to get their hands on seats through resale sites. It’s led us to think about the price and value of art and culture. St Thomas Aquinas came up with the ‘just price’ theory, that it is wrong to sell something for more than it is worth and charging more based on the need of the buyer is exploitative and sinful. Is that what is going on when punters are asked to stump up for a once in a lifetime experience?In Latin the word pretium means both value and price, but the two are not interchangeable when it comes to the arts. How can you put a price on a potentially transcendent experience, or the life changing power of art? Is that what makes good art and is that what is worth paying for? Do live events culture have a value in itself aside from the economic impact? What does it mean for society when people are priced out? Should governments pick up the bill to make sure everyone has access to the arts. Or are they just an indulgence, a nice way to spend your leisure time but not something deserving of funds in comparison to global problems like poverty or malaria.
Presenter: Michael BuerkPanel: Inaya Folarin-ImanJames OrrProfessor Mona SiddiquiMatthew Taylor
Witnesses:
Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the IEAProfessor Mel Jordan, Professor of Art and the Public Sphere, Coventry UniversityMatt Reardon, Advisor at 80,000 Hours Professor Paul Gough, Vice Chancellor of the Arts University Bournemouth
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Catherine MurrayAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserProgramme Co-ordinator Nancy Bennie & Pete Liggins Editor: Tim Pemberton
-
The way we grieve is changing and that is seen most starkly by the rise of the direct cremation and the no fuss funeral. I in 5 people of people opted for a direct cremation last year, a startling figure that’s risen 3 fold in 5 years. At it’s most basic the direct cremation means the final journey is purely functional. Body taken unaccompanied to an unknown crematorium. You can even get the ashes posted back through the letterbox. It's cheaper and you can mark the last hurrah with a party or memorial service or perhaps even nothing at all. What does this changing trend say about our respect for human dignity as a society or is this just another step in the removal of religion from the lives of a significant part of the population.
Only a quarter of people in the UK now want a religious funeral. The rise of direct cremation could also be a sign that mourners are throwing off the shackles of inherited tradition and religious belief to decide how they want to grieve. Direct cremations and DIY celebrations cut out the reality of death and if there’s no grieving at the graveside or standing in a crematorium what do we lose? There's another aspect to consider. The digital afterlife is one where someone never leaves. Grieftech can keep us in touch with AI loved ones . Instead of the finality of a funeral we could be conversing forever with the deceased. Do we need a final farewell?
Presenter: William Crawley Panellists: Anne McElvoy, James Orr, Matthew Taylor, Ella WhelanWitnesses: Rosie Millard, Dr Madeleine Pennington, Justin Harrison, Prof Linda Wheeler.Producer: Catherine Murray & Peter Everett Assistant Producer: Ruth PurserEditor: Rajeev Gupta
-
It will soon be time to vote in the General Election. A moment for us all to play our part in democracy. The theory is that politicians do their best to get elected, and then do all the right things so they are re-elected next time round. But in practice it can be difficult for governments to do what really needs to be done and still stay in power. A good example is climate change: There is a broad consensus that very urgent action is needed, and yet as the election nears, there's little from the major parties promising radical, decisive action, because they fear that voters don't really want it.
If liberal democracy can’t solve our problems, can it at least unite us around the principle that everyone’s point of view is worth hearing? Well no, not any more. For every listener to good old Radio 4 there are many more who get their news from social media and their opinions from their silo of friends. Is it too cynical to suggest that voters are short-sighted, selfish and stubbornly wrong-headed? And what about the quality of our leaders? Does anyone think our political system is serving up the nation's finest?
Some say our democracy isn’t democratic enough. They fear excessive influence by lawyers, quangos, peers, and press barons. Others applaud activists for challenging the worst excesses of a corrupt Commons. Three cheers, they say, for the unelected European Court of Human Rights and the judges who go easy on civil disobedience while thwarting the Home Office over asylum policy.
Do we still believe that our democracy is morally the least-worst system, when it seems incapable of producing long-term solutions to the most urgent problems? Can we learn anything at all from authoritarian states that seem better at simply getting things done? In this special edition of the Moral Maze, recorded at the Hay Festival, we ask - what is the moral basis for claiming that our version of democracy is superior?
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducers: Jonathan Hallewell, Peter Everett and Ruth PurserEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
The Legacy Act in Northern Ireland provides a conditional amnesty for people who committed crimes during the Troubles, as part of a broader process of reconciliation. It’s an attempt to draw a line under events of the past, but it’s generated anger among the families of some victims, who feel they’ll be denied justice. When things go wrong, we need to find people to blame. Who’s responsible? Who should be punished? But might we do better if we were prepared to blame less – prioritising the truth, and forgive more? It's been proposed that the NHS adopts a no-blame system where staff don’t lose their jobs if they admit a failure, so the NHS learns quickly from its mistakes. The “no-blame culture” idea already exists in parts of the US aviation industry where people are encouraged, even praised, for owning up to mistakes that could cost lives. If blame means disgrace and the end of a career, it’s hardly surprising that people hide the truth about their own failure. How many of us would admit it quickly, if we discovered that a mistake at work had led to terrible consequences? More forgiveness might lead to greater openness and honesty. It could make it easier to avoid mistakes being repeated. But is it moral to forgive serious wrongdoing? Where is the justice in that? Surely the fear of blame is a powerful incentive for us all to do our jobs properly and avoid mistakes. Do we need more forgiveness – or less?
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Jonathan HallewellAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
Many people seem to be going off the idea of work. In the UK there are more than nine million people who are "economically inactive". Some are unemployed, some are students, others are not actively looking for a job or available to start work. There’s no shortage of jobs, but people are choosing not to take them. Many people decided not to return to work after the Covid lockdowns. They reduced their working hours or took early retirement, choosing the golf course over the office. For some, it’s a moral failure that so many are economically inactive. But why do we ascribe such virtue to the idea of work?
Politicians endlessly refer to "hard working families", perhaps inducing a sense of entitlement among workers, but in the process stoking resentment against those who don't work. Of course the economy relies on work - the wheels only turn when enough people are employed and paying tax.
Some believe the benefits system is to blame - if it's too comfortable not to work - then why bother? But there’s also the broader societal shift where people choose to work less, or not at all and live a more modest but perhaps less stressful life. Is this a laudable position, where people prioritise wellbeing over wealth and status, or a selfish one that denies the collective responsibility we all bear to contribute to society, through labour and taxes? The personal value of work might feel clearer if your job is rewarding and well paid, but less so if you’re on a low income. What is the moral value of work?
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Jonathan HallewellAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
This week it emerged that Abdul Ezedi, hunted by police after an attack on a woman and her daughters with a corrosive liquid, was granted asylum after being convicted of sexual assault. He'd converted to Christianity, which could have put him at risk in his native Afghanistan. It’s just the latest story stirring debate about one of the most divisive issues of our times - immigration. In 2022 net migration hit a record 745,000. That’s more people than live in many of Britain’s biggest cities. Last week the Office for National Statistics predicted that the population could rise by nearly 10% between 2021 and 2036. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are legal. Economists are split on the costs and benefits of immigration. Some suggest that it could help tackle a demographic timebomb as our population ages. Britain also attracts some of the world’s most capable and highly qualified people, driving up our wealth-creating potential. National life is enriched culturally and socially. Isn’t there also a moral imperative to open our doors to people from countries troubled by war, oppression and climate change? But immigration has been high for decades without a clear electoral mandate. Some neighbourhoods have been transformed, raising concerns over social cohesion. It’s added to the pressure on housing and on creaking public services. Is it right that whole industries rely on immigrants willing to work for low pay – social care, health and hospitality? What is a desirable level of immigration? How should the balance be struck between the demands of our economy and social cohesion? What’s the moral case for immigration?
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Jonathan HallewellAssistant Producer: Linda WalkerEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
It’s Valentine’s Day, when we celebrate romantic love, and is there anything more romantic than getting married? It’s the way all those old films end, after all the “will they, won’t they”, the couple finally tie the knot, the titles roll and we all enjoy the warm certainty that they’re sorted for life. What’s not to love about marriage? A lifelong commitment to care for each other... a solemn promise rooted in love… perhaps the foundation for starting a family. But for many, marriage is losing its gloss. The latest government figures suggest that the proportion of adults in England and Wales who are married has, for the first time, fallen below 50%. The rise of pre-nuptial agreements signals a change in levels of confidence about marriage. Is forever still forever? If it probably isn’t – then let’s just plan ahead for when it all goes wrong. We live much longer than in the past, so “til death us do part” is likely to be a very long time indeed. Perhaps it’s now unreasonable to expect a lifelong commitment. Short of that, are human beings even built for monogamy? If love dies in a marriage, should that be the end, or is marital commitment broader than that? There is some evidence that outcomes for children are better if parents are married, and some people see it as a fundamental building block of society. But is there a moral value to marriage? Is it a striving for what is finest about being human, the highest realisation of not just romantic love, but of that important social unit – the couple? Or just an old fashioned idea, rooted in outdated traditions, all wrapped up in a sentimental rose tinted fantasy?
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducers: Jonathan Hallewell and Peter EverettAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
It emerged this week that scientists in South Korea have created a new kind of “meaty” rice, with high levels of protein. The grains are packed with beef muscle and fat cells – all grown in a lab. It’s just the latest of many meat-alternatives that are helping people to eat less meat. Supermarkets are responding to public demand by offering an ever wider choice of plant-based foods. But while we might not need to eat meat, most of us really enjoy it.
The goal posts are shifting in the age old debate about the morality of meat. Whatever you think about the industrial breeding of animals, to be slaughtered and served up for our pleasure, there’s now another compelling argument for us to stop, or at least cut back – meat production significantly contributes to climate change.
In the last decade, the number of vegans in the UK has increased steeply, but it’s still small. Estimates vary between about 2% and 3% of the population. Many more are vegetarian, who avoid meat and fish, but eat dairy. There are also flexitarians, who mainly choose a plant-based diet, but do occasionally eat meat.
A moral argument that was once focused on whether humans have the right to exploit animals has become a broader debate that includes protecting the planet for future generations. Some say it’s natural for humans to eat meat, indeed we have evolved to do so. Others think it’s barbaric and the effects of the meat and dairy industry on the climate have made the argument for veganism overwhelming. What’s the moral case for veganism?
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Jonathan HallewellAssistant Producer: Ruth PurserEditor: Tim Pemberton
-
The last week saw two contrasting examples of how societies treat killers. Valdo Calocane, who killed three people in Nottingham and tried to kill three more, avoided jail and was instead sent to a secure hospital for life because of his mental illness. One of the victim’s relatives protested that he “got away with murder”. Meanwhile in America, convicted murderer Kenneth Smith became the first person in the US to be executed using nitrogen gas.
Calocane’s charge was reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility because of his paranoid schizophrenia. The mother of one of his victims objected and complained that the families were not consulted. The Attorney General will be reviewing the sentence. It’s raised questions about what punishment is for: Is it for criminals – to provide the suffering they deserve, or reform them or deter future offenders? Or is it for victims – providing retribution and a sense of fairness to them? Victims are uniquely placed to appreciate the true impact of crime, so shouldn't their perspective have a greater weight in the judicial process? Would a bigger role for victims improve or hinder justice? What’s the purpose of punishment and can it ever provide justice for the most serious offenders, and their victims?
Presenter: Michael BuerkProducer: Jonathan HallewellAssistant Producer: Linda WalkerEditor: Tim Pemberton
- Show more
