Hey,

This is going to be an interesting one.

I read this last week. I didn't realise, until I read this that there had been a stay, as the final motion are put through the court. In fact, I was pretty sure, when I came to check the news this morning that he was going to be dead.

I don't know where I stand on the death penalty. In many ways, for horrific crimes, I think there should be one, but, tragically, I don't seem to agree with any of the usual justifications: "eye for an eye" is a bit too religious nutter for me, I don't think it acts as a deterrent, I think the "closure" explanation is pretty brutal. I also worry about miscarriage of justices (which doesn't really apply so much in this case). The confusing part for me is that I can't think of a justification of why some of these people should be allowed to live anymore, as much as I can't think of one for why they should be executed.

And what really, really irks me is things like this editorial which quite rationally argues why this execution would be pointless, and even makes the bold point that justice should be above the emotions of the individual, before prescribing that the man should spend the rest of his life in the tiny cell he previously expressed concern over. This is a man who would rather be executed than spend any more time in prison. A man who has admitted to his crimes. How could you possibly justify, on any grounds, his imprisonment until death in forty years time over his imprisonment until death tomorrow morning? Surely you either punish or your try to reform? If the punishment of choice is a significantly more drawn out version of the one currently in use, how is that better?

Craig