Dialogue: Violence fails to solve the problem

Reading about Taffy Hotene's recent sentencing, including details of the crime he had committed, I was so disgusted that all I could think was, "This man should die."

I'm a little chagrined to have had this reaction, and am wary of saying it out loud, but why not just have him painlessly put out of other people's misery?

It's not as if there's any reasonable doubt: he admitted he did it, filled in the blanks pathology could not, and left no question as to his culpability.

I know, I'm usually a spare-the-rod kind of person, favouring rehabilitation over retribution, but this man completely blew all my sickly liberal leanings out of the water.

Taffy Hotene brutalised, humiliated and killed a young woman who clearly had a full and valuable life ahead of her. He then took a taxi, bought some beer and went to a party, pockets full of money he had taken from Kylie Jones' savings account.

The sentence he received, although harsh by New Zealand standards, was pretty lenient considering the damage he had wrought.

So, I wondered, should I come out with my hardline views or keep them to myself? After much consideration I decided to do it, to insist that people pay for the lives they take with their own. Outrage had superseded compassion.

I soon realised, however, that to do so would support the behaviour that in Taffy Hotene I found so abhorrent. But for all of you who shared my first feelings, I will continue, if only to show that I was wrong. An eye for an eye? Or two wrongs don't make a right?

When a community is savaged by the actions of one of its members, should we break society's most basic natural law - thou shalt not kill - or should we just string the culprit up?

Does the death penalty violate the rules of humanity or is it just punishment for murder and similarly violent crimes? Considering that it is the ultimate act of violence, its existence perpetuates atrocity in the world.

Similarly, one of the strongest arguments against corporal punishment asks, if adults hit children to modify their behaviour, how will children ever know that violence is not an answer to solving problems?

You might ask whether capital punishment saves taxpayers' money. No, I discovered. It actually costs more than custodial sentencing because of the lengthy and expensive and expedient process of appeals.

Clearly, too, it transpires, the death penalty is no deterrent to criminals, who are often irrational, insane or think they are beyond the law. Studies show that there is actually a higher level of violent crime in countries that still have the death penalty.

The issue of capital punishment will always be subject to debate, perhaps because it is possible to take either side and still be mostly logical.

Also, despite the many arguments against the death penalty, it is tempting to provide society with a means to relieve itself of its most repugnant characters. Maybe it's revenge, then, that makes the idea seem so satisfying - and it would certainly solve the problem of re-offending.

How often do we read of extremely violent offenders doing terrible things shortly after being released from prison? How often should we suffer the Minister of Corrections refusing to accept departmental responsibility for the release of an obviously dangerous individual?

I still wish there was a way for Taffy Hotene to be quietly disposed of, but I'm also aware that, deeper down, in the place that makes me human, humane and, hopefully, evolved, I know, as Taffy Hotene didn't, that murder is wrong and that none of us has the right to take the life of another.

So, killing Taffy Hotene will not reduce violent crime, and might even encourage it. Killing him will not save the taxpayer money. And it certainly won't bring Kylie back.

Instead, then, I strongly support tougher custodial sentences for violent offenders, the waiver of any rights they might have to ACC and for life imprisonment to mean life imprisonment.

An eye for an eye? Better that our justice system be given sharper teeth.