THE shooting of Leeds traffic policeman Ian Broadhurst has raised once again the question of whether we should restore capital punishment.

The biggest argument against the death penalty is the risk of the state executing an innocent person. You only have to look at the number of convictions which have been overturned in recent years to realise that has to be a real concern.

However, whilst I do not support a return to hanging, I do accept that in certain circumstances it will act as a deterent to others.

Another argument I cannot support is the suggestion that the death penalty be brought back only for those convicted of murdering members of the police.

Police officers are rightly highly regarded by society and every day these brave men and women put their life on the line. However, the life of a policeman is no more valuable than the life of a bank clerk, shop worker or security guard who could be murdered as they go about their daily business.

And are we really suggesting that someone who murders a police officer deserves the ultimate punishment whilst, for example, Ian Huntley, who murdered two innocent young girls, does not?

Imagine the pressure jurors would be put under if they knew their verdict was not simply a question of innocence or guilt, but one of life or death. Bringing back the death penalty could actually result in more killers getting off.

I also happen to think the life prison sentences imposed on notorious killers such as Myra Hindley and the Krays proved far greater punishment than had they been hanged. All those years rotting in a cell, coming to terms with what they had done and realising the worthlessness of their own lives.

An argument has also been advanced that one way of protecting the police is to arm them.

I feel this would be a very dangerous course to take and would probably deter a lot of people from joining the service. We already have armed officers who are highly trained and have undergone lengthy psychological tests to assess their suitability. They already patrol sensitive areas such as airports and I know for a fact that mobile armed response teams patrol the North-East 24 hours a day and can be on the scene of any incident within minutes.

But arming every officer as a matter of course is fraught with danger. Just like any other profession, members of the police service do make mistakes. A small number commit criminal acts or simply "flip". The consequences of an armed police officer doing any of these could be catastrophic.

You just have to look at the States to realise that arming the police does not stop police officers from being murdered and there are two other side issues that advocates of such a policy should consider.

Firstly, do they really want to see members of the public who have been stopped for speeding, a faulty tail light or whatever routinely ushered from their vehicles at gunpoint?

And secondly, has anyone considered the massive cost of arming every police officer and training them in the use of firearms?

Published: 12/01/2004