Report comment

What a strange comment, Barry Turner.Where have I, enthusiastically or otherwise, endorsed the re-instatement of the death sentence here? I have simply stated that I find that the entirely self-interested and deathly behaviour of these people deserves to be met with a punishment equal to the fate it brought to the dispensable innocent casualties .
It also indicates that you, a lawyer, are as unthinking and irrational about the death penalty as too many supposedly rational people. My main objection to it is that even the judges of this country (each of whom seems able to devise his/her own definition of justice, when it is in fact a societal construct) have been unable to avoid miscarriages that have only been recognised after execution. Tell me why, if someone (and an additional query, regardless of mental competence) is seen (eg CCTV) calmly raping and killing a woman and is deemed too dangerous ever to be released, should I and other taxpayers be obliged to pay to keep him incarcerated in relative comfort (or on 'bread and water, for that matter) for several decades? Give me a rational argument for that. Why should I pay for the incarceration of a repeat non-lethal offender? I have willingly paid a lifetime of taxes to provide social benefits for those who, for no fault of their own cannot (fully) provide for themselves, and there are always others, inc children, who remain deprived - why should I not be able to direct my contributions to them, even if it means insufficient life-support for the criminal? I shall be very pleased if you have a rational argument for that.