From my research, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a crime is 'an act punishable by law, as being forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare'. Sounds straight forward, theoretically sound, but particularly the way crime is defined, recorded, and interpreted is controversial. The large majority of a local community abides, and co-operates with the law, but the small minority does not.

Fewer than one offender in ten is "cleared-up", according to a report I read, which compares police statistics with figures based on the public's experiences of crime. In 1987, the latest year where by accurate comparisons could be made, the public reported only 41% of crimes and of those, only 64% were recorded crimes. A shocking 7% of crimes committed in 1987 led to prosecution, or cautions. I also feel that if the public is complaining so much about crime, when they are the unscrupulous victims, why are crimes not reported?

A typical day to day crime is mugging. This is usually carried out by young youths with the victims being pensioners. An example of this:

'Doris is a good example of this. For years she, a regular attainder at her local bingo hall, where she met up with her friends, had a chat and enjoyed a game of bingo. As a widow, Doris looked forward to her nights out as they provided a welcome change in her routine and got her out of her flat. She was on her way back from the bingo, and was yards away from her home when her brutal mugger pounced.

He threw her to the ground. He demanded money, and she repeatedly told him she did not have any. She did not even have enough for a taxi home.' This is a shocking example. I think people should be hung for such attacks on such a helpless and defenseless old woman.

In my opinion, there should be four bands. Band one being for crimes like murder, and brutal crimes. These types of crimes should receive capital punishment. Then the higher the band, the less severe the punishment.

The highest price paid for crime

Okay, maybe capital punishment is a bit too far. What if the criminal accused is wrongfully accused? What do you do if he has already been killed?. Well, that's a major problem for the judges in the high courts/Death rowcourts to decide.

With the recent execution in Iraq of the observer journalist Frazad Bazoft, June 1989, accused by the Iraqi government of spying, the controversial issue of capital punishment is on the minds of leaders and the public. In the year '89, there was a forum published whether to bring back 'Hanging' in the UK. I feel that if death penalties such as the electric chair, and hanging were brought back, and someone was killed by means of one of the resources, then it would probably be a deterrent to people, and the government would notice a substantial difference in the crime rates for the UK. Capital punishment has been used since history began, but its methods and the crimes, for which it can be handed out, have changed over the centuries, and are now more humane.

There are four main arguments, which the pro-hanging lobby uses to support its call for a return of the noose. First, from what I have discovered, there is the deterance theory.

This theory states that the potential murderer would think twice before commiting the act if he knew that he might also die when caught.

Next, the ridiculous theory of a convicted criminal being given a 'life sentence'.

This is only twenty five years. Once he has been set free, he could go and commit the same murder again. 'Yet another life'. The public seems to find this safer, I personally do not. I think once the judge has said 'Life', it should mean life imprisonment. Not getting out twenty five years later.

This business of saying life, and getting out after a twenty five year sentence is nonsense.

This gives the murderer a perfect chance to commit the crime again. My views are that if they kill someone for the first time, they have proven their capabilities, and therefore liable to offend the judicial system again, and again.

In the next following paragraphs, I hope to sum up my arguments by raising a few more points for discussion. I also hope that I have proved my argument to you as the reader by me, the writer backing up the arguments with evidence.

The second argument against reintroduction of capital punishment is that innocent people get wrongfully convicted, and while you can let someone out of prison, you cannot bring someone back from hanging.

The other reasons to oppose the death penalty are a matter of individual conscience. The first for starters is that murder is murder, and that state executions are included in this. The state has no more right to take a life than the individual. I feel that the state should set an example to individuals by not taking the lives of others, and use it as a measure of civility that it acts more humanely than its citizens of the world.

So, it is claimed by many people since the 'New Testament' preaches forgiveness, not revenge, capital punishment is regressive, and uncivilized.

'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'

In 1988 an international amnesty recorded 1,903 judicial executions in thirty five countries. In 1987, according to the Microsoft Encarta, the figure was only 769. This considerable increase was due to the mass execution of political prisoners in Iraq in August 1988.

The number of people executed outside the judicial system is inestimable. Extra judicial executions occur on a large scale in many countries including Burma, El Salvador, Iraq, Iran, China, and Ethiopia.

Over 85% of American voters approved of the death penalty. The issue looks set to dominate US politics in the next few years.

Due to all the evidence, I feel that it is an issue, which will be long debated in parliament, and in local communities, as it is such a wide spread issue for people's safety.