I have every sympathy with Kath Eastwood but I was left cold by this comment; "I think the politicians should accept there is a public appetite for capital punishment".
It's such a strong choice, and not one I feel is backed up even by supporters of the death penalty. I'm left with the image of the mob braying for blood.
Even more chilling though is the fact that another man had originally confessed to the murder of Lynda Mann, Mrs Eastwood's daughter. Forensic evidence at the time backed up this confession, and it was only because of the work of scientists pioneering the use of DNA evidence that proved that he had not actually committed these crimes.
In essence, Colin Pitchfork might not have been caught, and had the death penalty been in place for child killers, another man would have died at the hands of the State for a crime that he did not commit.
Given the history of this case, I am shocked that somebody associated with it could think that State sanctioned killing is acceptable.
It begs the question; is capital punishment really about punishment, or is it simply allowing victims to exact their revenge?
Whilst I'm on this subject, capital punishment cannot be compared to sending soldiers out to war, abortion, or assisted suicide. These are three completely different scenarios with different moral objections and arguments and should be considered independently and upon their own merits.
It's such a strong choice, and not one I feel is backed up even by supporters of the death penalty. I'm left with the image of the mob braying for blood.
Even more chilling though is the fact that another man had originally confessed to the murder of Lynda Mann, Mrs Eastwood's daughter. Forensic evidence at the time backed up this confession, and it was only because of the work of scientists pioneering the use of DNA evidence that proved that he had not actually committed these crimes.
In essence, Colin Pitchfork might not have been caught, and had the death penalty been in place for child killers, another man would have died at the hands of the State for a crime that he did not commit.
Given the history of this case, I am shocked that somebody associated with it could think that State sanctioned killing is acceptable.
It begs the question; is capital punishment really about punishment, or is it simply allowing victims to exact their revenge?
Whilst I'm on this subject, capital punishment cannot be compared to sending soldiers out to war, abortion, or assisted suicide. These are three completely different scenarios with different moral objections and arguments and should be considered independently and upon their own merits.
