Should T&T retain the death penalty? – Part 1 of 3

October 30, 2009 by Edmund Gall

The term 'death penalty' is a literary iceberg - two words that hide a huge amount of detail beneath the surface.  When I attempted to discuss this in the past, it bore little fruit because either folks assumed I had confrontational motives, or they were too emotional to explain their thoughts, or they wanted to address so many issues, that they were all over the shop in terms of coherence.

I believe there are cogent arguments for and against the death penalty, and others that are less logical.  I think folks too often rely on the illogical ones, thinking that quantity of supporting points is more important than their individual quality. These are then quoted wholesale as if impervious to challenge, but when questioned, the rationale given is feeble.

In this three-part post, I shall explore some of these arguments and state my opinion of them.  At this time, I believe that there is a case for the retention of the death penalty in T&T, with some modifications to the current implementation.

Let me know your views.

The wrong persons have been executed

One of the stronger reasons for abolishing the death penalty is the potential for executing the wrong person.  There is credible evidence of such cases in the past, particularly from the US.

However, the key point is not the nature of the penalty, i.e. inability to resuscitate an executed convict after an error is discovered.  The key point is the error(s) made in the process before sentencing.

In my view, if the sentence is given after the case passes through the many courts in our justice system, including the Court of Appeal and CCJ/Privy Council, then there is a very, very low risk of arriving at a wrong decision.  However, more research specific to T&T needs to be done before banning the death penalty in our jurisdiction, e.g. when were persons incorrectly executed, and why.

Ineffective deterrent

One of the more oft-quoted arguments against the death penalty, and the one I find most confusing, is that it fails as a deterrent.  The rationale appears to be that since crimes subject to capital punishment continue to occur despite state executions, the death penalty fails to deter others from committing these crimes.

To me, the logic of this argument fails on two bases.  The first is clearly defined in the name: it is called the death penalty, not death deterrent.  This is the ultimate penalty for committing a crime judged to be most heinous by society.  Thus, I don’t understand why we feel that the main purpose of the death penalty is to be a deterrent, and not a punishment.

There are many interventions that happen before a baby with no inherent will to commit murder becomes a killer.  These interventions are the deterrents to committing murder, e.g. instilling family discipline, school/religious teachings, social conventions and peer pressure.  Learning about values, and the behaviours associated with them.  Distinguishing right from wrong.  Developing empathy.

When you wilfully contravene all that is taught by these deterrents and commit murder, then in my view you need to pay a penalty.  Deterrents have failed.

The second basis arises when we extend the argument, if not to logical conclusion then at least along a logical path.  If the death penalty should be banned because it fails to act as a deterrent, then we should ban our whole system of justice, fines and jails.  Why?  After centuries of applying them, we still have crime.  However, governments don’t subscribe to this, because completely removing legal penalties due to lack of deterrent value would lead to a more chaotic society.  Hence, it cannot be a valid argument to ban the death penalty because it has no deterrent value.

Some folks who support retaining the death penalty argue that the death penalty is a deterrent – to the convict, not the potential convict.  They say that it deters the executed convict from repeating their crime.  While true, I don’t think this can be used as an argument for the death penalty since jailing for life also achieves the same result.

It is not man's right to judge - only God should judge

I had a religious upbringing, and try to apply those teachings daily.  I generally choose neither to agree nor disagree with religious arguments because as humans we twist scripture to support any argument (which makes it, ipso facto, useless as supporting arguments).  I make an exception to this for the statement that we should not have the death penalty because it's God's responsibility, not humans'.

If I want a cup of water, I get it or ask someone for it; I would be a fool to sit silently there dying of thirst praying for the Lord to bring a cup for me.  We make judgements of people every day.  If we want to rule out making judgments, then we definitely have to ban our whole justice system.  If we stop taking actions to change our society because of the belief it is some god's duty, that would be a recipe for chaos because, quite frankly, gods' actions aren't as tangible today as humans'.

Too often, I find, folks lazily ascribe responsibilities to their god because they lack the courage themselves to act or own the responsibility.  I think that humans are eminently qualified to adjudicate on executions.

The more reasonable argument is based on personal ethics.  Here, a person concludes that if they are unwilling to be an executioner, then they cannot ask someone to execute on their behalf.  This makes sense.  Thinking that execution is some god’s responsibility based on a pastor’s thousandth-hand information is not reasonable.

To be continued…

• Should T&T retain the death penalty? – Part 2 of 3
• Should T&T retain the death penalty? – Part 3 of 3

Permalink