If one must have a death penalty, I would suggest that there should be a system of double or even triple trials, the first to establish guilt, the second, with an entirely new judge and jury, to establish sentence, then, perhaps, in the case of a death penalty, a pause then a third trial/appeal before a new jury.

Murders are not identical, the killing of a burgler or a violent and abusive husband is different to the killing of a gang/business rival or a bank teller which are, in turn different to terrorist crimes.

My suggestion would be the the second trial would cover the circumstances of the crime, the likelyhood of repeat and the effect of sentence. To use the above examples the first two cases are not likey to repeat and prison might be a better sentence, the next two are 'business killings' and are likely to be repeated and the perpetrators are candidates to 'go through the trapdoor', while in the case of terrorists, their executions might make them martyrs, in their case either a lifetime of hard labour (or sensory deprivation - the infamous 'white room' concept), may be more appropriate*

As for the Ian Brady case, as mentioned earlier. If he really wants to die, give him a hot bath, a razor blade and instructions on how and where to cut.

W



* Would the prisoners of the 'Easter Rising' be as strongly remembered if they had been banged up in a high security prison, rather than being shot?