"Give me men about me who are fat -
sleek headed men, and men as sleep o' nights."
"Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look."

Thus may the pampered ones, snug and content in their lack of exposure to evil, sense the merest tingle of foreboding.
And, shrugging off such minor transient discomfort, make haste to re-assume the comfort of their assured disbelief and complacency.
Just so did Rome, Empire and Order crumble before a stealthy and entirely unscrupulous foe.

No-one may rest while evil lurks in parts we dare not enter, where we may not discern the source of our misgiving; yet is there place untouched, immune, beyond breach? Not so whilst smiling face concealing ill intent may be milling in the mass of hurried unconcern.
Too late when bitten, and hearts are rent.
No undoing of futures foregone.
No balm and no recovery - from blind and foolish complacency.

One may not ascribe a conscience, penitence, or a capacity to reform, to a rabid dog.
A leopard can not change its spots, and what is more telling, has not, and can not form an intention to do so.
We should not be mislead. Mere cloistering away from society injures only society.
The boil deserves nothing less than excising, fully and finally.
"Out, damn Spot!" Let Justice be done.

Very good, saltpetre.

My favourite is from Roman Alus Vitellus.

'A dead enemy smells good."

The normal way to make a political point is to start off with premises and then come to the conclusion you hope you have proved. After you have completed this syllogism you are at liberty to make further points using, as premise, the ‘truth’ you have just allegedly proved.

Mr Hayworth seem to work in reverse. He starts off with a “preaching to the choir” type style assuming for some reason that readers are already in agreement;“barbaric punishment like the death penalty”, “the role of governments is to protect their own people from harm, not kill them “,“[C.P.] demeans us all”, “dangerous to build a criminal justice system based on what is essentially an eye for an eye philosophy”, and doesn’t bother to attempt to justify these allegations. (Isn’t ‘eye for an eye’ simply a metaphor for ‘punishment fits the crime’?)

Only near the end of his essay does he attempt to give some rationalisations, one of an unsourced statistic from Canada and the other in declaring the risk of executing an innocent outweighing the benefits of C.P., without in fact, detailing what those benefits might be.
One suspects that this article may well have been originally written for a home audience at his anti-death penalty organisation Amnesty International.

Edward Carson - One suspects that this article may well have been originally written for a home audience at his anti-death penalty organisation Amnesty International.

You may well be right. Interestingly, not one of the anti-death penalty drones even hints at a problem with its application in war. Surely the poor mug on the receiving end of whatever weapon is not remotely near as 'guilty' as some lowlife bottom-feeding grub who exterminated half a suburb ?? If we are going to decry state-sanctioned turning the lights out treatment of the worst scumbag serial killer who ever infected the planet, how then can we justify state sanctioned killing of people purely because they are unfortunate enough to wear a certain uniform that identifies them as a 'baddie' ?? The simplest way to solve this dilemma of course is to insist the then head of state (personally) leads the troops into battle. Whilst I'd dearly love to see the red-headed witch on the firing line (or the RAbbott for that matter), I very much doubt we'd get involved in any future yankeefied conflicts.

Ahhh, praxidice,
Your delicious turns of phrase delight me. Well put!

'Killing' (as per CP) is 'barbaric'? Rolls off the tongue nicely, does it not? But how accurate in the broader context, we should wonder.

The 'human' animal, extraordinary, amazing, intriguing - and how prone to self-indulgence when it comes to truth and perspective, in the harsh light of reality.

We 'kill' to eat (but not personally of course, oh no, dastardly dirty stuff - best left to the 'untouchables'), and this follows nature's example, up to a slender point, in quest of survival.
But then, in nature predators kill to eat, to raise young, to propagate the species; males compete for mating rights; and almost all will fight for territory. But how many males/females are intent on killing a rival, and how many go so far, with intent? Such contests are rarely fatal - in nature.
Not so in the 'human', where deadly force is so often the direct and immediate means, and weapon of choice.
'Barbarous'? Of course.
But to 'execute' a psychopath? Oh no, we mustn't, for 'we' are too civilized?

The human animal is a paradox, an 'enigma'. Superficially 'enlightened' (at least some are, and many like to think so), yet beneath the thin veneer lurks a blood-lust like no other, held in check by slender and vulnerable threads - of 'conscience' or possibly of religious conviction, of 'morality'.
Yet where is morality in Syria, in Yemen, Somalia, the Congo or North Korea? (Or in Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland?)
'Humanity', living compassion, and deadly scourge, all at once; living in group 'delusion', or in stout denial of glaring evidence?

What we would 'like' to be, generally, is commendable.
What we 'are' is inconclusive.
The quest for peace, at home and abroad, demands that no quarter be given to genuine threats to harmony and security; and this must apply no less to any home-grown psychopath than it does to the likes of Al Qaeda, Al-Shabaab, Taliban or terrorist extremist.
Make an exception for one murderer, then why not for all?