there are no doubts, thanks to confession and/or witnesses, plusrnDNA tests, it should.rnI suppose that in the 30 years I have lived in Canada, the twornmost notorious murder trials (Paul Bernado apart) have beenrnthose of Steven Truscott and Clifford Olsen. Truscott was accusedrn(in the 1960’s) of the rape and murder of a young giri.rnHe was convicted, but not executed, served a sentence, and wasrnreleased some years ago. The evidence was circumstantial, andrnsubsequent books by Isobel Lebourdais and Bill Trent didrnmuch to undermine the prosecution’s case. Obviously,rnTruscott should not have been sentenced to death. But therernwas no doubt about the guilt of child-murderer Clifford Olsen,rnwho gloried in his crimes and made deals for cash whereby hernled police to the graves of further victims. Yet this creature isrnspared to live out a comfortable life in prison at the expense ofrntaxpayers and the feelings of his victims’ parents.rnA case from 1950’s Britain is often exhumed by abolitionists,rnespecially since the recent movie and television documentaryrnabout it. A youth named Derek Bentley was tried for the shootingrnof an unarmed police officer during an attempted robbery.rnHe was the accomplice of a younger teenager, ChristopherrnCraig, who actually pulled the trigger. The case turned on thernwords “Let him have it, Chris,” shouted by Bentley to Craig.rnThe prosecution maintained he meant Craig should shoot thernofficer; the defense argued that he was telling Craig to give uprnthe gun and surrender. Both were convicted; Bentley wasrnhanged. Since Craig was legally too young to be executed, itrnwas seen as particularly unfair that Bentley should die. Thisrnmisses the point, which is that the law that saved Craig wasrnwrong. Teenage murderers are not naughty children but criminalrnthugs who know very well what they are doing. Again, liberalsrnwant it both ways: it is right that teenagers be allowed torndrive cars (lethal weapons!), get married, and so on, but whenrnit comes to taking responsibility for their actions, oh dear no,rnthe little dadings are too young.rnWhen capital punishment was abolished in Britain andrnCanada, one of the main arguments raised against it was that itrnwas not acceptable in a “civilized society.” But 30 years on, willrnanyone seriously maintain that either British or Canadian societyrnis more “civilized” without the death penalty than it wasrnwith capital punishment?rnThe death penalty is often attacked as a mere act of revenge.rnQuite so. It is, and what is wrong with that? A distinguishedrnRoman historian at Yale, Ramsay McMullen, denouncing whatrnhe called Roman judicial savagery, quoted Tocqueville: “Arnmesure que les peuples deviennent plus semblables les uns auxrnautres, Us se montrent reciproquement plus compatissants pourrnleurs miseres, et le droit s’adoucit.” Alas, fine words butter nornparsnips: we are not there yet.rnAs earlier said, neither side has any conclusive statistics forrndeterrence. And one might add (I’m surprised abolitionists sornrarely do) that Britain’s last official executioner (like his fatherrnbefore him), Albert Pierrepoint, concluded his memoirs (Executioner.rnPierrepoint) with the statement that as far as he couldrntell, hanging was more revenge than deterrent. The point is,rnhowever, that all civilized societies have had coercive punishments,rncapital and corporal. Not to have had them is untypicalrnand perverse. Desire for revenge is innate in humanit}’. It is notrnenough to reserve it for God. He may not exist, and if He does,rnif you take the Deist approach from Epicurus to Lord Herbertrnof Cherbury to Voltaire, He may not be concerned.rnAlthough it is congenial to give oneself the last word on everything,rnit may often be more cogent to concede it to someonernelse, especially in the present debate where marginality is an issue.rnSo I shall quote from Roger Scruton’s collection of essaysrnUntimely Tracts, which was occasioned by the case of Klaus Barbie,rnwho was brought with great fanfare from Bolivia to Francernin order to be elaborately protected from the fate he deserved.rnAfter this shaft, Scruton wrote: “A system of punishment withoutrnthe penalty of death is a moral absurdity. Punishment existsrnin order to express and confirm the consciousness of crime.rnIt is an essential instrument of civilization…. When a criminalrncomes before the law, he comes before an agent of justice,rnwhose purpose is to make him suffer for his crime. Morallyrnspeaking, that is the important act. To think of punishment eitherrnas a deterrent or as a cure is to misunderstand it…. It is therncriminal who chose to murder, and therefore he chose to die.”rnGriswold Slanders Poe One Midnightrnby Lawrence DuganrnCroak not, black angel…rn—King LearrnPerhaps I’ll say that he used to claimrnHe was the only survi’ing soldierrnOf the Alamo, a hero of TexasrnIndependence. No; when a lie is thatrnRomantic, it might make sense somehow.rnPoe at the Alamo. Why not? Some madrnProfessor starts to search, and who knows whatrnHe’ll hnd in San Antonio legends:rnPoe on the walls of Fort St. AnthonyrnWith Crockett and Bowie . . .rnI’ll say he said it.rnBoasted over a drink (or dead sober.rnFor that matter) or left a note foldedrnIn a book, hinting he was a hero;rnOr told the tale to a drunken printerrnOne night on Callowhill Street as they walkedrnHome to Fairmount. It’s a riskv lie, peoplernHave swallowed so many about the man.rnThis could be the one that chokes the whole messrnUp, leaving my work in an allevway.rnEnough of Ed Poe, magazine magician.rnWhat is a bottle of ink against a ghost?rnAUGUST 1997/25rnrnrn