AFTER reading Mr Hudson's letter on crime and punishment, I have to conclude that he and I live on different planets.

First, his over-hysterical reaction to what I consider to be quite reasonable solutions to the problems by an anonymous reader. He dismisses these suggestions out of hand, relying solely upon his use of emotive language such as "brutal" and "torture" to try and gain the moral high ground.

Military prisons are brutal? Yes, I suppose that might be the case if you use the definition -- harsh, severe, even extreme. But not as you meant the word to be understood. Cruel, vicious, savage? No, Mr Hudson, those words more closely describe the people you are trying to defend.

And how on earth did you come to describe solitary confinement as "torture"? You must be aware that every civilised country on earth uses this sanction within its penal system. Are they all wrong too?

Capital punishment. There is no other form of punishment that will ensure that the perpetrator will never kill again. I'm not after revenge. I'm not after punishment. All I want is to know that a killer will never ever have the opportunity to kill again. Please tell me how you would ensure this result?

But no! You would rather gamble with the lives of some innocent child, some young woman walking home, or a police officer bleeding in the gutter, than soil your hands with a painful, distasteful decision.

Also, would you please stop misusing the word "abuse". It is not that I am being pedantic about the English language, it is that your constant loose usage of this term trivialises real cases of abuse.

I spent 15 years fighting real abuse and it sickens me to hear of a slap on the leg being so described.

Please try and spend a little time thinking of the victims of crime -- their loss, pain, grief and trauma. To me, they are far more deserving of understanding and compassion than the "poor, misunderstood" criminals that you seem to feel are so deserving of our sympathy.

Bob Bamford

Longcauseway

Kearsley