[MikeSz]

It seems to me that the evolution of humankind obviously has some way to go if we still have people supporting this archaic, vengeful and purposeless mechanism of punishment - the only product of which is primitive, mindless gratification at the sense that someone has paid the ultimate price.

To me, this not only reduces those arguing in favour of it to the same level but also misses the point of not only the idea of punishment (and the state exercising its obligation to protect its citizens from harm - and my that I mean protecting people from crime) but also the role of the state on arbitrating conflict. It must do this in a neutral and objective fashion and abstain from emotional retort.

Political theorists from Hobbes to Foucault will offer their varying arguments on legitimacy of the state and its right to exercise its will over a country's populace. Included in those considerations are the ways in which the state has the power to mediate conflicts and carry out its judicial functions. Surely, a virtuous argument is one that offers a solution that satisfies the requirements of fair justice and does so in a humane fashion and maintaining a moral zenith - as an example to its citizens.

Some will undoubtedly call this approach naive, but I for one would like our governments to be ambitious, to set an example worth following and to deliver a justice system which everyone can believe in. Thats not a reality yet, but its worth working towards and we should resist at every juncture the desire to regress however frightful those crimes of others may seem. Its the only way forward and anything else is surrender to a lesser cause.

And if you're still in doubt - let he who is without sin cast the first stone.