Exile to an island somewhere seems a good solution, but just where do we find two islands, or maybe four?
is Mise,
The Northwest I believe has many uninhabited islands. Put several navy boats around them for excercise & stopping the boats at the same time. The crocs will be a pretty good deterrent up there as well.
Anyone caught getting out gets put back with a few lashes to make sure they know they've done wrong !

Individual>> You have a lot of waking up to do.<<

Indy, my heart is not bleeding.

I am against the State having the legal right to terminate life.

I believe that murder committed with either premeditation or for gain should attract a life sentence without parole.

OSW is overwhelmed by the senseless barbarity of the zealots.....as are we all....but life has to have a stable value for it to be deemed as precious.

OSW>> I totally oppose Capital Punishment for all classes of criminality. Convicted criminals must have two elements to their offence (i) mens rea (the criminal intent) and (ii) the actus reus (the criminal act). Therefore, the old legal maxim should apply; '...an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind is guilty...<<

.......o sung you can't have it both ways..........

.

Dear Sonofgloin,

.

You wrote :

« Agronomist ended this argument with this succinct line, “ if murder is wrong, judicial murder cannot be right. »

That is a moral judgement of human conception. There is no morality in nature. There is just what is most efficient for survival of the species and, ultimately, of life in general.

Consider murder as a virus in a computer. To remain efficient, the computer must be equipped with antivirus software that detects the virus and places it in quarantine so that the operator can eliminate it.

It has nothing to do with morality. It is a question of efficiency.

Society must protect itself in order to survive. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, morality, religious dogma, superstition or other human concepts. Call it a “law of nature” if you like.

.

Good evening to you SONOFGLOIN...

I'm sorry but I fail to understand your meaning, when you recapitulate exactly what I'd previously written as the necessary elements of a crime ? As I argued earlier on, the normal criminal 'proofs' that need to be proved by detectives, should not apply to an 'act of terrorism', in my humble opinion ?

It is for this reason that I ask what you mean by saying, '...o sung you can't have it both ways...' ? Have what both ways ? Please elucidate precisely what it is you mean, and what further explanation you require ?

o sung wu,

"With this terrorists 'filth', their acts of killing are quite unlike that of a normal murderer"

Back to the murder of Anta Cobby, her murder was unlike the acts of a normal terrorist.

Would someone, who opposes capital punishment, explain how society could have stopped the 13 repeat offenders, mentioned previously, from murdering those extra 13 people.