Mmmmm ! The problem is that Capital Punishment is final - and not applied with any equity. A little digging on that period between 1800 and 1840 (circa) when the "Bloody Code" was the main feature of British Justice will indicate that - If you were poor and 'friendless' you choked, in public, whilst you danced the "Tyburn Jig" - Interestingly some juries would not convict, or took conveluted paths to find the value of goods stolen less than the "Capital" ammount.

Does this sound familiar to our US of A members ?????

Personally I have no difficulty with the concept of a judicial system having the right to kill a convicted culprit, provided it is done humanly (SP) and with dignity. ie NO T.V. spectacle etc.

The problem is in the UK (and US of A) is the adversarial (SP) system of a trial. "Discredit" evidence, and may the best paid Lawyer win.

The Police are not infailable, and there have been some spectacular miscaridges of justice in the UK, possibly due to "pressure" on the police to get a result or smooth public disquiet.

A more investgative approach by the courts might have produced different results.

For instance - In the case of the Birmingham Six I have no doubt that they were inocent of the bombing of the Mulberry Bush Pub. I am not convinced that they were not set up by the perpertrators to act as decoys whilst the real facists escaped. Unfortunatley this aspect seems to have been ignored. And I would also venture to suggest that it is possible that some senior police may have realised this, hence the non objective evidence produced in court to secure a conviction, to save Police faces.

My objection to capital punishment is more practical - It puts a pressure on the Jury, and may result in the aquital of the guilty, which is an equal a miscarridge of justice as the conviction of the innocent.

Possibly an unfashionble view, but I will stand by it.

Gareth