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

October 31, 2009 by Edmund Gall

Continued from:

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

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 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.

State executions desensitises the public

Here the view is that if the state assumes the right to kill someone as a penalty for wrong-doing, then the average citizen should have the same right.  In time, society degenerates through a desensitised value of human life.

I disagree that state sanctioned executions have led our society to conclude it's okay to kill.  I think if T&T is currently desensitised, it is more because of the high frequency of murders and low frequency of adequate justice being meted out to the perpetrators. 

I cannot think that, when it comes to state executions, the rationale citizen will apply ‘monkey see, monkey do’.  When a fellow citizen is executed after conviction in our courts, I don't feel it is okay for me to go out and kill someone I witness committing murder.  I still leave it to the courts to review the circumstances and assign a penalty.

So arguments that claim state killings somehow have some karmic effect to sustain a cycle of violence in society have no basis, in my opinion.  Such a drastic penalty, to me, reinforces the view that it's wrong to commit the crime for which it was assigned.  I don't think judges, lawyers and prison officers who participate in these cases, and execute such convicts, ever do so lightly.

Other more 'developed' countries have banned it

The next argument forwarded is that the more ‘developed’ countries have banned the death penalty.  Hence, if &T wishes to become a ‘developed’ country, we need to follow suit.

I believe T&T should not blindly follow another country/region, e.g. Europe, in some lemming-like fashion.  Different countries have different cultural maturity levels.  For example, in the UK people generally have a greater sense of social responsibility and, possibly as a result of that, are more law abiding.  Hence, some of the penalties handed down in the UK seem ridiculous when compared to T&T’s, but one must be aware of how UK citizens perceive the punitive value of these penalties.

For example, the penalty for adult rape in T&T is life imprisonment; in the UK, it starts at 5 years imprisonment.  It's almost as if there is an exchange rate for jail-time, like 1 year of UK jail-time is felt to be as punitive to UK citizens as 5 years of jail-time in T&T is felt by Trinbagonians.  The UK also has open jails, where convicts are able to walk out if they wish but are trusted not to do so.  Can you imagine that being implemented in T&T?  It would be an empty place, and any government who proposes that would be ripped by the public.

Hence, I think folks in the UK can afford to remove the harsher penalties for crime, such as the death penalty, because they have such a developed sense of personal responsibility to be decent members of society.  I don't think T&T is socially developed enough today to follow Europe.

Maybe we once were: in the times of my parents and grand-parents, when it was acceptable for the village to raise a child, we were more neighbourly.  These days, based on how we treat each other on the roads, seek profit from others’ generosity and our puerile approach to politics, we appear to be socially regressing rather than progressing.

Revenge doesn't bring closure

The death penalty is equated with revenge: a killing for a killing.  The argument here is two-fold.  First, revenge should never be a basis for action in a humane society.  Second, revenge never brings closure to the victims’ surviving family members and friends, and closure can never really be achieved because the victims are never brought back to life.  I agree with the first part of this argument.

On the topic of closure, there are differing views amongst surviving relatives of murder victims.  For example, ex-Independent Senator Angela Cropper, whom I respect hugely, lost 2-3 family members due to murder but supports abolishing the death penalty, and disagreed openly when those convicted of her relatives' killings were sentenced to death.

Closure, in my view is a personal thing.  I don’t think that closure is linked to the impossibility of the victims returning to life.  I think closure is more related to the surviving family members and friends perceiving justice to be served when our legal system calls the killers to account.  My view is formed based on personal experience: a close relative of mine was killed in Trinidad during the kidnapping scourge.

I think if those who killed my relative were executed, I would have more closure than if they weren't, because instead of just dealing with the periodic reminder that my relative is not around, I have to be angry that the ones who did this continue to live with no remorse.  Inadequate justice leaves me with open sores.  Specifically in my case, the alleged killers made several choices to kidnap and had several chances to choose not to kill my relative (and others).  They consistently chose to kidnap/kill.  I thus cannot accept that serving time in jail, even if it was for the rest of their lives, is a justified penalty for their choices.  My closure is related to the open issue of lack of adequate justice, not the irrecoverable loss of my relative.

However, I accept that others, like Mrs Cropper, think there is no justice in executing such killers.  For them it is beyond adequate justice and so not justified.

To be continued…

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

Permalink