I think there may be both qualitative and quantitative differences in how much they harm society.

Exactly. All crime is not equal so not all punishemnt can be equal. But, as I keep saying, no-one but no-one can see the whole picture and cannot, therefore, decide whether death is a suitable punishment or not. The only alternative must be, therefore, that the death penalty be removed from the list of options as it is the only one which is completely irreversible!

So, what do I mean by the whole picture? I would rather not dwell on speculative scanarios but what if a murderers victim, had he lived, turned into a mass killer himself? Has the killer of that mass murderer do society good? I think so.

But let us not get too academic. Let us look at two real cases here. Shall we say Timothy McVeigh and Patrick Magee. I am sure you are aware of McVeighs crime but how about Magee? Well, Magee was released in 1999 after serving 14 years in prison for his part in the Brighton Bombings in which a lot of people died.

How are these two different? If both were tried together in your judiciary they would both have died. Do you think this is right? I am afraid that, although I have no IRA symapthies, I do not think Magee should have died. Nor do I think McVeigh should. Everyone should get equal treatment. Surely, that is the fairest method isn't it? Magee, btw, was released because of changing attitues. What will happen when someone finds that McVeigh was also a 'freedom fighter'. Will changing attitudes resurect him. I think not.

I think at the end of the day I will not convince anyone my views are right. Perhaps they are not? But at least I can, hopefuly, prove to someone that my anti death sentence views are based on justice and logic. Not on some misguided sense of either outrage for the victim or pity for the perpetrator! And I find that, because I have reasoned it out with myself, I am not very likely to be swayed either!

Cheers

DtG