THE EDITOR, Madam:
I WAS gratified to read C. Roy Reynolds' recent article on the death penalty. I had been waiting for some of the furore over the Privy Council decisions to abate before I wrote in similar terms but a news item on page B12 of today's edition (Tuesday 17 October) prompts me to nail my colours to Mr Reynolds' mast.
Like Mr Reynolds, I do not see the implementation of the death penalty as a deterrent measure against future murderers, I see it and will always uphold it as a preventive measure; executed murderers do not kill again.
The article I refer to above is the Reuters item about the French brothers who murdered four girls. One of the two had been released from prison after serving eleven years of a 15-year sentence for the murder of a girl, the other released from prison after 8 years of a 10-year sentence for rape (which in my estimation is tantamount to murder and should be a hanging offence). So, because the preventive measure was not applied, four more innocent girls are dead, three of them after having been raped.
I am of a generation that knew the Straffen case in England. Straffen murdered a young child but pleaded madness (nowadays known by the euphemism of "mentally challenged") and was sentenced to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure in the asylum for the criminally insane at Broadmoor.
Straffen escaped and before he was recaptured had murdered two more young children two young lives lost for the want of six feet of the hangman's rope.
Since that day I have been a committed supporter of the death penalty and would beg our Government to
(1) Start executing all convicted murderers who are only awaiting their opportunity to make their escape through the sieve that passes as secure confinement and,
(2) Execute all future convicted murderers with due despatch. The period between the Judge pronouncing sentence and the execution used to be 21 days, the corpse was buried in quicklime in an unmarked plot within the prison grounds. I realise that the lunatic fringe or is it now the majority? of "rights" activists will howl for my blood; I must ask them, "Whatever happened to the concomitant of rights, RESPONSIBILITY?" But that must needs be the subject of another letter.
I am etc.,
JOHN G. LUKE
18 Acadia Drive
Kingston 8
