Unfortunately we have to accept the fact that there are some people in society who are so wicked, so evil, that they can pull the trigger to end a life without any feeling or remorse.

In trying to prevent such acts it is no good appealing to the human emotions of such a person, they are, to all intents and purposes, inhumane.

Similarly, the threat of prison for the rest of their days would not deter some from the sort of act that saw a policewoman shot dead in Bradford last week.

But if the perpetrators were executed I do think the message would get across to others of a similar frame of mind that society has decided enough is enough.

The one thing such people do value, possibly the only thing, is their own life and the threat of the ultimate sanction may just be enough to make them think twice before committing similar murders, or possibly even carrying guns.

We need to do away with manslaughter and move towards the American system of different degrees of murder.

Of course, to anyone who has lost a loved one in such circumstances, this may sound ridiculous; there are no degrees of pain to their suffering, once a life has been taken it cannot be brought back. So when I speak of degrees it is not in the terms of the pain a murder causes but in a cold, analytical assessment of the crime.

It should not be left to a jury effectively to impose the death penalty on someone. Their job should remain to decide whether the accused is guilty of the crime.

Once guilt is established then the judge or a panel should decide the degree of murder and punishment - possibly at a separate hearing where arguments can be heard. The majority of cases would still result in life imprisonment, but capital punishment would remain an option.

Mitigating and aggravating features can be brought out, but I do not accept that the penalty for murdering a police officer should automatically be greater than the penalty for murdering another member of the public.

By that rationale you are suggesting that the crimes of someone like Ian Brady should not be regarded as serious as those of a police killer.

The law must have the same regard for the life of a security guard, a jeweller, a shop assistant or anyone else who might be randomly gunned down without feeling, as it has for a police officer.

I accept that, in the past, if the death penalty existed, some people who were wrongly convicted would have been executed. But we have learned from those mistakes and, whilst we can never completely eradicate the possibility of this happening again, advances in DNA science plus other safeguards should ensure this risk is so minimal as to be mathematically negligible.

Capital punishment ensures, of course, the person never offends again, and there will be no risk of a breakout attempt. It will protect prison staff and other inmates from potential attack and also save the taxpayer a fortune.

But these are all minor issues compared with the reason I support the limited re-introduction of capital punishment. I firmly believe it is the most effective way to deter others from committing the sort of cold blooded murder we witnessed in Bradford last week.

Published: ??/??/2004