Jim Stanley sent us the following letter:
To whom it may concern:
Maybe following the latest outrage London it is time to step back and think rationally about what is happening. First, this latest crime has, by some quirk of the English language been given a certain justification by calling it a “terrorist” incident, part of an on going war of a religious basis. It seems that a person, any person who happens to be going about their lawful business is somehow a target, an enemy, regardless of their race, colour, creed or religion. In other words these people go out to kill and maim, without any thought of who may be injured or worse.
In many respects they are similar to the upper classes who used to go out on animal hunts, where the aim was to kill as many wild animals as possible, and some kudos gained for the ferocity and size of their prey. These days we accept that this was wrong, for may reasons we see it as an affront to civilised society, but when a “terrorist” does the same, because of what we see as some warped sense of justification we treat it, not as the crime of murder, but a death on the battlefield! Let us stop using “terror” when speaking of these crimes and call them what they are, murder, the most heinous of crimes.
Time was, not so long ago, we had capital punishment for taking the life of another, with premeditated killing being the ultimate, and various lesser punishment for a death caused by “accident”, for example, a bar fight when a person dies when their head hits the floor, when “manslaughter” may be appropriate. However, the recent crime in London is murder, premeditated and callous. This was not murder to advance the perpetrator financially, to free themselves of a troublesome spouse, a police officer preventing another crime or whatever. No, this was a crime where the guilty party went out to kill, he did not care who, black, white, Muslim, Christian or Jew, male or female, child or adult, any living person would do so they could make their point whatever that was.
Maybe, and I know that I am putting myself in the line of fire here, but it has to asked, is it not time to bring back the ultimate sanction for the most heinous of crimes, that of premeditated murder. I believe that the death penalty has a place in our modern society, but only for certain levels of crime. The killer who leaves his home with the intent of killing, with the means to do the crime, with a target in mind, and then carries out the act, without a moments hesitation, seemingly without remorse, indeed in some cases exalting at the moment of death, surely such a person has forfeited the normal rights in society and as such should be permanently removed from that society for the good of that society, and the only way that society can be sure that they will be safe from that person is to remove them from the planet.
Jail is not the answer. Criminals do escape from prison, cases are reviewed, and release gained, early in the London Bridge killer’s case. Failure of the parole system let him go about his evil ways unfettered by the technical kit he was wearing, and the opinion that he was a reformed person, who keeping locked up served no purpose. Just ask the victims, rather the relatives, of those killed, if they believe that society was served by allowing dangerous people free to walk the streets. Obviously the conditions of his release had no bearing on what he planned to do, all he cared about was being free to commit his crime.
Society has changed since the hangman laid down his noose for the last time. The Kray Twins, possibly the most vicious and notorious of the London gangland bosses had scruples. Without doubt they were guilty of many killings. “Mad” Frankie Frazer, one of the most prolific of gangland killers was proud of his record. Why, one may ask? Like the Krays and others, he never killed a member of the public, or a serving police officer (I may be wrong there), he only ever killed those who broke the rules of “Crimeland”, criminals who were well aware of what would happen if you broke the rules. If a petty criminal mugged a pensioner in their “manor”, that person was punished, the victim compensated by the Krays, and in the eyes of the bosses, the wrong righted. The rule was very simple, you do not mess with the public where the Krays ruled. When one of their people went away, their family were looked after, their children fed and rent paid, and when they came out, they would be met, provided with a suit and money to get them by, presumably until they were able to resume their nefarious ways, of which, no doubt, the Krays took their “cut”.
But we are not talking about the internal punishment of organised crime, we are talking about a person who decided to go out and kill people. They did not care who, they did not kill to punish, or to make a political point, no they went out just to kill, safe in the knowledge that, even with a whole like tariff, they could be out in 16 years, providing they “showed remorse”, “changed their ways”, and kept out of trouble when in prison. As things stand, this man could be out of prison by as soon as about 2035/6, free once again to kill and maim without cause, except in his warped mind. He said, last time, that he had changed, but I doubt he will, so I believe that there is only one way that society can be sure that it is safe from him and those of like mind, who have killed in the past, and no doubt will kill again.
For a killer of his ilk, there can be only one punishment that is certain to protect our future society, our children and their children yet to be born, and, unfortunately that is capital punishment. Unpalatable as we may find it, sometimes, we must set aside our laudable morality and act to protect society, not for the next decade or two, but for all time by removing these killers from the face of the planet to a place where they cannot return and wreak havoc again, because, should they live, they will find a way to continue their insidious work, killing and maiming the truly innocent.
Respectfully, Jim Stanley