I recently read the book by Ann Rule entitled, The Stranger Beside Me. Having been only 12 when he was finally executed, I remember only the horror of the execution - parts of the day being broadcasted. The story is a fascinating read, and allows some fascinating insights into the life of a man who was, according to Rule and his psychiatrists, without a conscience. Interesting part at the end of the book, though....Rule suggests that she does not approve of the death penalty. She felt more use could have come from examining Ted, not killing him. To which I pose this question - a man clearly involved in escape, manipulation, without thought or interest in the harm he can cause others....should he ever escape again, and murder yet another victim - or victims - could she then comfortably sit and explain to the family of the dead woman why she doesn't believe he should have been killed? I don't stand by offering the death penalty, except in the most extreme of crimes, when there is no doubt. Clearly, there was no doubt in the situation of Ted Bundy, and unfortunately, what was brilliant in him was too tightly wrapped around what was evil. The risk of allowing evil to exist - when there is always the slightest chance that it will become a threat again - is too high.