OK, so I don't share your faith, that's one thing. I also know from experience that killng somebody is neither easy nor pleasant (though at the time it beat the alternative).

However, there is a case for pragmatism here. Most murders are commited in the heat of the moment, in desperation, fear or anger. These 'crimes of passion' are usually not the result of an intention to kill - the human body is far more fragile than people think. Certainly a woman killing an abusive partner in a desperate attempt at self-defence is no murderer. People such as these need counselling and therapy as much as they need punishment.

But, the person who undertakes to cold-bloodedly kill another person? Someone who feeds their victim poison over weeks or months. Who carefully sabotages a car. Who plans every detail for perhaps years, or hires someone else to do the killing. Can the person who does this sincerely claim remorse? Can they be trusted not to do the same again? If they can't, is it not more humane to euthanise them than to imprison them for the rest of their lives?

Those who sexually prey upon and/or murder children are beyond help and forgiveness. Someone who can bypass one of the most fundamental instincts of a human being is damaged beyond repair, a waste of skin. They need to be disposed of.

The serial killer and the mass-murderer are similarly damaged beyond repair. Euthanising them is, again, more humane than life-long confinement.

It's not about revenge, or even justice. Just about what's best for them and for the rest of us.

Just as a side-note, it is highly unlikely, given the evidence, that Evans was innocent. Neither victimology nor MO match Christies' - there was no use of carbon monoxide and no sexual assault on Beryl Evans and Geraldine was far too young to excite Christies' interest. Evans, on the other hand, was a drunk and a thug who frequently assaulted his wife. Christie confessed to their murders in his attempt to excape execution on an insanity plea.