Well, finally I agree with something Little Hawk said — "Neither capital punishment nor changes in the law will end the imperfections of life."

But when it come to people like that, capital punishment sure as hell cuts down on recidivism.

I don't know if it's what LH would say, but I get sick of the people who argue capital punishment is "cruel and unusual." Locking somebody up for life, especially if -- as in this kind of case -- it will be in the form of solitary confinement called "protective custody." That, to me is cruel. People are social beings, whether or not they abuse the rules. I think life in isolation would be worse than death.

Unusual? Gimme a break! Read history. Throughout most of it, death penalties have been meted out for crimes against property. At least now it's meted out -- in western societies, at least -- only for heinous crimes against persons or the state. Under Islamic law, a thief -- even if he's stealing food or something else necessary for existance -- has his right hand cut off. Since the culture dictates that you eat from the communal bowl with your right hand and wipe you ass with your left, severing the right hand is a death sentence. It's just slower and less humane than hanging, the electric chair, lethal injection or a firing squad.

In the past there have been terrible mistakes in trials. Folk song abound about people killed, only to have it discovered later they were not responsible for the crimes they were killed for. Canada has had a recent spate of cases in which people have spent up to 25 years in prison for crimes they didn't commit and who -- if Canada hadn't banned the death penalty -- would have been executed.

That used to be a good argument against the death penalty. I agree with the concept that "I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than to see one innocent man hanged." But forensic technology has reached a point at which many of those mistakes are not possible.

Can mistakes still be made? Of course. That's what appelate courts are for.

I don't know the details of the Ian Huntley case, but I say that if — after all the appeals have been made and found wanting, solid evidence exists to support a conviction and there are no mitigating circumstances — they should shove in the needle. If there is ANY doubt, then life imprisonment is an accecptable alternative. Otherwise, save taxpayers the $70,000 or $80,000 per person, per year it takes to keep these people locked up.

cheers,
david