There were a raft of liberal reforms sweeping through Parliament when Labour MP Sydney Silverman finally got his way in November 1965 and won backing for his private member’s bill to suspend the death penalty.
Since that time capital punishment has not been dispensed in the UK – regardless of the fact that this country, and the wider world, has changed beyond all recognition.
In 2012 the world is unquestionably a far darker, more dangerous and depraved place than it was 47 years ago.
In Britain, the numbers and rates of serious crimes such as murder have risen dramatically and so it remains one of the great mysteries of our democracy as to why old Sydney’s handiwork remains on the statute books.
Despite consistent majority public support over five decades for the reintroduction of the death penalty as punishment for certain crimes, those we have elected to serve us have not so much put the issue on the back-burner, they’ve thrown the idea out altogether.
It is just not on their radar.
There is simply no appetite for the debate among politicians afraid of being tarred with the brush of right-wing, tabloid newspapers.
What’s more, the abdication of powers to the European Union means that such a move is now more improbable than ever.
How strange then that in the wake of recent tragic events in Manchester and mid-Wales people are once again talking about the need for a death penalty.
Sentinel readers are writing in to the newspaper, stating the case for and against capital punishment.
It happens every time there is a brutal killing and every time a child is murdered.
Every time one of our police officers are killed in the line of duty this debate resurfaces. And so it should.
I listened intently to the broadcasts of the memorial services for PCs Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone and the church service for missing five-year-old April Jones.
They were genuinely heart-breaking and the only solace I could find in any of it was a glimmer of hope that the perpetrators of the associated crimes would feel the full force of the law.
But what happens when the majority of us feel that the punishments available to our courts are quite simply insufficient?
By rights, what the decision-makers should do is properly re-open the debate about the death penalty both as a deterrent and as a solution to some of society’s ills.
Some – such as human rights organisations – will, of course, argue that capital punishment should never be reintroduced.
They will point to well-documented cases where convictions for very serious offences have been over-turned, sometimes many years down the line, and say that we would therefore run the risk of executing innocent people.
Others will argue that the death penalty is no deterrent to some people who are, for whatever reason, hell-bent on killing or committing some sort of atrocity.
I accept these arguments but the simple fact remains that the current system doesn’t work.
We have a situation where, in most cases, sentences of life in prison don’t actually mean ‘life’ at all.
We have a prison system which has spectacularly failed to reduce re-offending rates to any great extent in spite of successive governments pouring millions of pounds into rehabilitation programmes.
We have a situation where prisons in the UK are more akin to youth hostels – complete with TVs, internet access, video games and gymnasiums for the enjoyment of killers, rapists and traitors.
Thus the idea of prison itself being a deterrent or ‘much worse than to be executed’, as one eminent QC puts it, is surely out of the window.
Perhaps just a few of these low-lifes could have been dissuaded from their crimes by the knowledge that they could face capital punishment if caught.
Either way I don’t see why we should be paying to keep them. Why should the families of PCs Bone and Hughes or April Jones pay taxes to feed, clothe and entertain whoever was responsible for taking their loves ones away from them?
What use are such criminals? Forget Europe. What rights do we think such individuals should be entitled to when it is proven beyond doubt that they have committed heinous crimes and, in many cases, admitted to committing them?
As far as I’m concerned such animals waived any rights the moment their twisted consciousness sent them to destroy the lives of others.
They show no thought for other people or the consequences of their actions.
They show no mercy and, in my book, deserve none.
It is all well and good for liberal organisations to preach about forgiveness, understanding and rehabilitation. But some people are so evil, so remorseless, so beyond redemption and so dangerous that I would suggest that, for them, the death penalty is appropriate.
I am talking about people who will never, ever be released from prison and who will never contribute to society in any meaningful way.
Instead they will remain a drain on the public purse and a constant reminder to their victims, or their victims’ families, of their terrible crimes.
Personally I’d rather see them disposed of with minimum fuss and expense. They can be fed to tigers as far as I’m concerned.
If the do-gooders and the law-makers and politicians of this country spent half as much time concerning themselves with the victims of crime as they do fretting over the rights of the perpetrators I dare say we’d all feel a lot safer.
Read my Personally Speaking columns every Tuesday in The Sentinel