I've surprised even myself with how strongly I've reacted against the idea that on Sunday Osama Bin Laden was "brought to justice".
I condemn utterly the atrocities that have been perpetrated under his leadership over the last two decades for which he should - and will, before God - be held to account. However, his death in a firefight in a fortified house in Pakistan doesn't conform to my understanding of justice.
Interestingly, I don't think my response is particularly shaped by my faith, although it is clearly informed by godly principles such as a belief in the sanctity of human life. I suspect it's due more to living under a judicial system which doesn't consider death to be an appropriate punishment for any crime, no matter how heinous.
My understanding of the British legal system, limited as it is, tells me that every defendant has the right to a fair trial - the opportunity to state their case in a court of law, to explain their motives and their actions, and to be judged accordingly, no matter what crime they have been accused of.
I'm not naive enough to think that this system is foolproof, that the innocent are always acquitted and the guilty always punished. However, I think the outcry over the proposed introduction of 40-day detention for terrorist suspects tabled by the last government in response to the London Bombings in 2005 speaks volumes about the British view of the nature of justice, particularly in relation to terrorism.
I also concede that holding Osama Bin Laden to account under this kind of system would be fraught with difficulties, although the fact that the international community has established a war crimes tribunal speaks volumes about a universal understanding of how justice should, and can, be done.
