Death penalty discourses and the U.K. polity
Eugene Flanagan
Abstract
Eugene Flanagan
Abstract
In this paper I investigate the lack of public participation and consequent democratic deficit on the issue of the death penalty in the United Kingdom (henceforth the U.K.). I critically analyse the institutions and practices of the U.K. polity, and several parliamentary contributions to the death penalty discourses around abolition in 1964/65 and in 1994, the last debate to date on the issue in the U.K. parliament. Consequently, I argue that a range of causal tendencies operating in the polity are responsible for the lack of public participation and hence democratic deficit on this and other issues. And while I am sympathetic with present abolitionist penal policy, I nevertheless argue that these tendencies constitute dominatory practice.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In this paper I investigate the lack of public participation and consequent democratic deficit on the issue of the death penalty in the United Kingdom (henceforth the U.K.). I critically analyse the institutions and practices of the U.K. polity, and several parliamentary contributions to the death penalty discourses around abolition in 1964/65 and in 1994, the last debate to date on the issue in the U.K. parliament. Consequently, I argue that a range of causal tendencies operating in the polity are responsible for the lack of public participation and hence democratic deficit on this and other issues. And while I am sympathetic with present abolitionist penal policy, I nevertheless argue that these tendencies constitute dominatory practice.
Key concepts: Polity, Parliament, Democracy, Democratic deficit, Political science, Sociology, Law, Political economy