Everybody has been banging on about the prospect of resurrecting (as it were!) the death sentence in the UK.
And just to get it out of the way, like every right-thinking person, I'd be absolutely in favour of killing some brutal mass-murderer or child-killer if it was cut and dried that they'd done it.
But the truth is, it's almost impossible to find a case where its cut and dried who did it and why they did it and that there were no extenuating circumstances. Even a voluntary confession is by no means conclusive, and despite all the crap you see on CSI, most crime scenes are nowhere near as conclusive. DNA isn't conclusive either. And even CCTV and so on can be misleading or tampered with.
And that's before we even get on to the dozens of miscarriages of justice that have been waved through British courts over the centuries.
Be honest, even if you were absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone was guilty of a heinous murder, would you still want their death on your conscience? Would you, personally, actually be able to flick that switch? I wouldn't.
So, we are at a point where there is no fucking way I'm going to endorse the death sentence anyway.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that I have massive reservations about the state deciding not only who should die, but which "crimes" deserve the ultimate punishment. (One that had me wondering about the sanity of the person saying it was "cop-killer". Why is killing a cop worse than killing anyone else? And why should someone who is quite happy to enforce blatant bullshit laws for victimless crimes be regarded as anything but a thug in the service of other thugs?)
The state is happy to go to war, happy to funnel money from taxpayers to large corporates, clamp down on our freedoms "for our own good", and so on. Given the glorious judgment shown by the government in deposing Saddam Hussein (and elsewhere!) do you really want them deciding which crimes deserve to have the ultimate sanction?