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

November 1, 2009 by Edmund Gall

Continued from:

• Should T&T retain the death penalty? – Part 1 of 3
• Should T&T retain the death penalty? – Part 2 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.

Folks can change, or are victims of circumstance

Applying the death penalty removes the belief that folks who kill cannot be reformed to become law-abiding, decent citizens.  It removes, with no opportunity to reverse, the chance for killers to express remorse and change.  Also, some killers are victims of circumstance, such as living in poor financial circumstances or having a temporary lack of sanity.

I agree.  I think it’s possible for convicts to kill because they didn't know about available options, or how to pursue those options, or are just incapable of seeing those options.  The analogy I use is that of aggressive animals.  If a dog has killed a child or adult, some countries allow the police to kill the dog. In the UK, if a dog threatens the lives of a farmer's livestock, he has the right to kill the dog (which is why dog owners are encouraged to train their dogs properly so they don't face the risk of being shot while walking in the countryside).

With my love for animals, I don't agree with killing a dog just because he wasn't trained to do otherwise. It's why I don't support a carte-blanche banning on certain breeds of dogs, for it misplaces the responsibility on the dog, when it should be on the owner.  If I equate these dogs with the convict who lived in such harsh circumstances that he didn't know better, then it stands to reason that that convict shouldn't be executed.

Jail-time affords the opportunity to change to those able and willing to become law-abiding citizens.  It would be great if all convicts were so.  Perhaps the death penalty can be given to first time murderers as a suspended sentence, i.e. serve 20-25 years in jail to allow rehabilitation (including making meaningful reparations to their victims’ families).  If they commit any further crime after being released, the death sentence is carried out.

Society, i.e. private organisations and government, have a duty to address underlying social conditions that help create murderers.  However, I am a firm believer in personal choice.  While social conditions are significant factors necessary to create murderers, they are not sufficient.  A person must still choose to commit murder.

For killers unwilling/unable to be rehabilitated, who repeatedly choose to kill, either by killing multiple persons in a single crime or during separate events, or fail to express remorse for their actions, I see no purpose in society keeping them alive.  However, I can understand why others can accept jailing such persons for life in the knowledge that they're forced to face the reasons for their predicament daily.  To my mind, though, this is only effective to those killers who develop a conscience - if they have none, they'll just think of jail as a hotel.

It is unethical to have state-sanctioned executions

This argument is based on the view that the state should never seek to harm its citizens.

I use a basic ethical methodology to shape my views, which in short examines the net balance of who benefits and who is harmed by a decision.

In my relative's case, who benefitted from jailing the killers?  The kidnappers (opportunity to live and change), their families/friends.

Who was harmed? The killers lost social freedoms, our family members’ taxes continue to support convicted killer who've shown no remorse, and have suffered health impact from the perceived lack of justice.

Comparatively, if the alleged killers were executed, who benefits? Our family perceives justice being served, less tax spent to support unremorseful killers.

Who is harmed by their execution? The killers lose their lives and their families/friends lose loved ones.

When added to the benefits/harms resulting from the killing of my relative, the ethical balance is in favour of implementing the death penalty, because we are left with a net benefit.

Note: I did not state any benefits to society relating to the deterrent value of the death penalty, because I don't think there are any.

In another case, for example where the wrong person is convicted or this is the first offence, the ethical balance is not in favour of the death penalty.  Thus, for it to be ethically valid, the court cases and conviction must be sound.  If there is doubt, the death penalty should not be used.  Since the ethics surrounding application of the death penalty varies from case to case, I believe that it should not be a mandatory penalty for all cases of capital crime.

While in general it is wrong to kill and we cannot state in all cases that death is an appropriate penalty for murder, there are cases where it is right on ethical grounds.

Summary

In summary, I think T&T should retain the death penalty, and continue to strengthen the existing legal process to reduce the risk of it being misapplied, such as through advances in detection, evidence gathering and case management.  The cases where it can be applied should be limited, and judges should have the option to apply life imprisonment or suspended death sentences instead, based on the ethical circumstances.

If evidence from proper local research into our past cases show the death penalty to be misapplied due to failures in process, and nothing exists in our process to prevent such failures occurring in the future, then the death penalty should be suspended until sufficient controls can be implemented to address these failures.  If such controls cannot be implemented, or T&T reaches a state of cultural advancement where compliance with the law is valued much higher generally than it is today (as measured by the level of crime and fear of crime), then abolish the death penalty.

Permalink