19 May 2007

Veering from the absolute

A few days ago, I commented on Diana Mahabir-Wyatt's stance on an article she wrote. She decried the position of Pa-trick who wants to go back to implementing the death penalty. I was of the impression then that she saw the implementation of the death penalty as being no-no in any circumstance. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the Guardian's website design, their links expire every 24 hours so I cannot point you to her original thoughts. However I took the precaution of printing her article as a pdf file which you can download here.

This is why we have a rule of law, and why dealing with the perpetrators of such deeds must also be carried out according to the rule of law.

For whoever they are, however loathsome the actions they have committed, they, too, by virtue of having the inestimable gift of birthright and citizenship, have certain rights, among them not to be deprived of life and freedom of movement other than by the rule of law.

What this tells me that if the rule of law (i.e. the law of the land) prescribes the death penalty for a particular crime, then it should be implemented. At least, that's what Mrs M-W is (hopefully) saying.

So... did I get to her via my blog? Hardly likely, but at least now she has regained some semblance of sense, and is veering from the absolute.