On the death penalty. I couldn't hep but notice that your detractors failed to mention the USA. Bill & Hillary Clinton and 78% of the American public!! Mr. Campbell you and I might not agree on most things but I salute your courage on this issue. My wife and I left Derry / Londonderry 38 years ago for a new life in California and we are so discouraged to see the level of violence ( acceptable) on the streets of the Maiden City. To few prisons and judges without B---s. A receipe for disaster.

Posted by Martin | 31.10.09, 03:31 GMT

I think Mr.Campbell has a valid point for the very worst people in our society .I think the death penalty is appropriate for these persons. Why should we the tax payer pay the £80,000 per. annum to keep these monsters alive when we know they are bad people at heart. This would not be a big loss to society if they were to die. Justice these days is far too lenient , there is no deterrent whatsoever. I think these young lads who go around terrorising people should be put to hard labour until they agree to behave. they would soon change there ways. There are plenty of ex-military around who could police it. O.K that is my winge over for today. Thanking you
Brian Jackson

Posted by Brian Jackson | 30.10.09, 11:03 GMT

Could the correspondent who used the word 'revenge' explain what he means by justice? Surely balance is what justice is about. A man stealing a loaf should pay a smaller price for his offence than a man stealing a million pounds. Why? - because of balance. If we regard human life as the greatest thing, then the taking of a life is the ultimate crime and should carry a corresponding sentence. Talk of revenge is purely emotive and shows the need for the user of the word to exert his sense of his own moral superiority, nothing more. It reduces the argument to sanctimonious name-calling.

Posted by Roy | 30.10.09, 08:20 GMT

'He should not be defending the cruelty of nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia and China in continuing this barbaric practice'

or America, Japan and a host of other 'Westernised' countries that continue to commit this barbaric practise.

If these evil murders had received a death penalty how many lives would have been saved here?'

- Given the death penalty is applicable in places such as Iraq, Pakistan and India all of which are plagued by terrorism, i'd say very few. you'd create more bitterness between communities, fuel more murder and leave more people without fathers.

Would the penalty be applicable to those in the armed forces who commited murder? Or would it be the case that 'murder is murder is murder' except when committed by the state?

Posted by MacCathmhaoil | 29.10.09, 23:28 GMT

I think that death offers no opportunity for these people to change and be sorry. I also don't think that any of us have the right to sentance this onto another man, no matter how strong the feeling of revenge is.

However, I don't see why life cannot mean life? A good long sentance of hard labour and in a cell is what people deserve. Maybe we should do prisoner exchanges with some central american prisons.

Posted by klabnix | 29.10.09, 23:16 GMT

Tony, the Birmingham 6 and the Guilford 4 were all looked upon as mass murderers. And Centaur when they were imprisoned it was with the believe that the evidence against them was proven to be beyond reasonable doubt. Also hanging is not a deterrent, as has been proved in the States. What would either of you say to the relatives of someone who was hanged, and later to found to be completely innocent?

Posted by Spot_On | 29.10.09, 20:26 GMT

Well done Gregory - this certainly takes the attention away from the DUP's disgusting expenses claims.

Posted by Anyonebutunited | 29.10.09, 19:04 GMT

I would agree with the death penalty if I felt assured that everyone convicted and sentenced was in fact guilty. Sadly this has not always been so, how many people have been later found to innocent. The Birmingham six would have been hung along with the Guilford Four, all later found to have been stiched up by the police.

Posted by Sam | 29.10.09, 18:59 GMT

....I hasten to add that Ian Brady, actually wants to die, he's being kept alive by a drip.

Posted by Honest Joe | 29.10.09, 18:57 GMT

Mass murderers are a reflection of the depravity in our society. Something we all need to look at and reflect on.

Lets face it people want the death penalty for their own depraved needs and not to prevent it happening again.

As for Mr Campbell, is redemption not a core principal of Christianity??????

Posted by Honest Joe | 29.10.09, 18:55 GMT

THe strongest argument against the death penalty is not being able to correct mistakes - once someone is executed he canot be unexecuted if later found to be innocent. But why this logic is not appleid to mistakes arising from our present liberal leniency. Why is it that we just shrug our shoulders when murders are released and go on to commit further murders? This is equally a case of not being to rectify a wrong decision and an innocent person dying as a result. The reason of course why this is not given so much weight is that the only thing liberals really care about is keeping their own hands clean. If we applied this logic then doctors would never operate on seriously ill patients. The sins of omission are just as serious as the sins of commission. The only sensible way to resolve the issue is to make a judgement on the numbers involved. Can anyone seriously believe that fewer innocent lives are lost under the present regime than if the death penalty were reintroduced?

Posted by Roy | 29.10.09, 18:43 GMT

I suppose the Birmingham Six and Maguire Seven and Guildford Four would all be dead now if the Death Penalty was used here in the recent past. They were all innocent yet all convicted of many murders and involvement in murder. They all had their convictions quashed and a presumption of innocence confered on them.

There cannot be justice without miscarriages of justice because the courts are not infallible.

I suppose the contributors who ask what if it was your family member who was murdered might consider what if it was you who was convicted wrongly of murder? I suppose you would still be pro-death penalty?

Posted by Simon | 29.10.09, 17:21 GMT

donegore - "it could very easily happen and then they would change their tune! It's a different story when it's other families doing the suffering!"

True, but it wouldn't make them right either.

Does no one else see the irony in punishing murder with state sponsored murder?

Posted by McD | 29.10.09, 17:08 GMT

Ulysses32 - I don't know what you are on about - it could very easily happen and then they would change their tune! It's a different story when it's other families doing the suffering! Which makes me wonder - have you yourself walked the walk?

Posted by donegore | 29.10.09, 16:06 GMT

i have always said that the law in n ireland is weak,,,this being a throwback to the troubles ,,,,we see people getting 10 years for murder and they are out on 6,,,as for the guilty meeting the relatives of the people they murdered ,,i would agree to that and when i came face to face with with the person who commited the crime on my family ,,i would beat him to a pulp and apologize later,,,,,,the bleeding hearts should get real,,,,,,

Posted by hg | 29.10.09, 15:49 GMT

mr campbell grow up u call youself a christian i dont think your god or church would agree with u lets do the work u where elected for the people of derry needs u

Posted by ray usa | 29.10.09, 15:22 GMT

Donegore, you are heading into the world of hypotheticals. Anyone listening to Gregory this morning would realise that hypothetical situations do not exist and therefore do not need to be addressed.

Posted by Ulysses32 | 29.10.09, 15:18 GMT

I wonder how many politicians would agree with Gregory if it was their loved ones who had been murdered/raped?

Posted by donegore | 29.10.09, 15:07 GMT

While the taking of life is wrong,Gregory Campbell has a very strong case.Lets look at our own country where mass murderers knew there was no deterrant for their crimes,they killed with impunity and if they were caught they served a life sentence which at the most lasted 15 years,others served a few short years in prison and were released on an agreement.If these evil murders had received a death penalty how many lives would have been saved here ?Would people who knew the consequences of their actions be under the threat of death themselves as the defenceless people they murdered ,would they still have done it ? I think maybe not,and for one thing they wouldn,t have been released to do it again.

Posted by steve | 29.10.09, 13:22 GMT

Totally agree!
Mass murderers simply are scum and do not deserve to be part of this world! They should swing - all of them! Instead, what do they get? a cushy cell with a play station and out in several years for good behaviour - why? because 'do gooders' who never experienced crime like this make the law - sickening for the families of the victim! Time for justice for families and victims! Also the deterrant will be there to help make society safer fo all of us - one of these scumbags ready to kill will think twice!

Posted by Tony | 29.10.09, 13:20 GMT