Development and Opportunity Minister Terry Lister tabled the Abolition of Capital and Corporal Punishment Act last Friday. For a bill which is almost certain to spark enthusiastic debate, the initial response has been surprisingly subdued.

That is unlikely to last.

Two issues will be central to the debate. One is whether there is any purpose in having the punishments on the books.

The second concerns whether these changes will enable Bermudians to move closer to the right of residence in the UK, and by extension, in Europe.

For many years, this newspaper has taken the editorial position that capital punishment should be abolished.

There seems to be little justice in the state declaring -- correctly -- that murder is wrong, but then ordering the death of a person as a result. That is illogical and immoral.

Nor is there any evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. It is difficult to imagine that a person stops to think "I may be hanged for this'' before pulling the trigger.

There is no evidence that murder rates are lower in US states which have the death penalty compared to those which do not. Equally, Jamaica and the Bahamas both suffer from soaring murder rates despite having the death penalty on their books.

Bermuda, of course, has the death penalty on its books too. But it is a punishment which will not be used. It would appear that there have been cases where juries have chosen not to convict a person of premeditated murder because the burden of proof for a hanging offence is so high.

Even when juries have convicted a premeditated murderer, it should now be clear that the Committee for the Prerogative of Mercy and/or the Governor will commute the sentence to life imprisonment. This begs the question of why the death penalty is on the books at all if it is never going to be used.

Finally, there have been cases in other countries where people have been executed and new evidence later reveals -- too late -- that the person did not commit the crime.

Because of all of the above, there is every reason to support abolition.

However, the new legislation may not go far enough in punishing people convicted of premeditated murder. According to the bill, the sentence will be life without eligibility for parole until the person has served 25 years of the sentence.

That means that a person convicted of premeditated murder at the age of 20 could be released by the time they are 45. Clearly, any parole board will take the nature of the murder into account, but many people will ask if 25 years is realy sufficient for the most heinous of crimes.

This would be a good opportunity for the House of Assembly to set a long sentence. If a life sentence in which "the key was thrown away'' seems too extreme, then a minimum sentence of 40 years could be considered.

This would ensure that while the anachronistic and never-used punishment of hanging was abolished, a suitable punishment which fits the crime would replace it.