Jamaica Gleaner
Published: Wednesday | November 19, 2008
Home : Letters
LETTER OF THE DAY - 'It is wrong to kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong'

The Editor, Sir:

The polls suggest that Jamaicans wish to resume the hanging of convicted murderers notwithstanding the possibility that innocent persons may be subject to the capital punishment. It is acknowledged that frustration may be a natural response to the violence and anarchy in contemporary Jamaica.

However, the debate on resumption of capital punishment is based on the Government's inability to deal competently with crime and violence, rather than the notion that capital punishment is a reasonable, justified and effective means of addressing violent crime.

Objectives of the justice system

The six objectives of the criminal justice system include:

1. Retribution - the notion that the severity of punishment for a crime should be reasonable and proportional to the severity of the infraction;

2. Deterrence - the idea that punishment is a necessary consequence of a crime to deter the individual offender from committing future crimes, as well as influencing others by making examples of specific criminals;

3. Denunciation, which refers to punishment as a symbolic expression of society's disapproval of criminal acts;

4. Incapacitation by way of imprisonment as a means of preventing criminal activity and protecting society;

5. Rehabilitation, which is the restoration and re-socialisation of criminals through therapy and education;

6. Reparation, which refers to the compensation for the crime by the criminal.

Capital punishment either fails to achieve these established goals or unreasonably impairs on civil rights in an attempt to achieve them. Firstly, capital punishment is more based on revenge than retribution, which may seem natural on an individual basis, but is the weakest conceivable foundation of a criminal justice system in a democracy.

State-imposed death of citizens cannot be reasonable considering that violent crime has been effectively addressed in other countries without it.

There is evidence to suggest that the right to life is often arbitrarily and disproportionately infringed upon with regard to economically-disadvantaged individuals.

Second, capital punishment does not allow the opportunity to deter future offences of the offender, while the deterrence of others is questionable because the literature has shown that it is the certainty and celerity, rather than the severity of punishment that discourage criminal activity.

In fact, there is no correlation regarding the implementation of the death penalty and a decrease in the murder rate. Moreover, a prison sentence without release or parole serves as a deterrent, without infringing on the rights of citizens.

Third, capital punishment should be rejected as an unacceptable means of obtaining justice because it is not necessary to address crime. As such, capital punishment unjustifiably impinges on one's constitutional right to life.

Therefore, the other less drastic means of denunciation and incapacitation should be given focus. The lack of creativity, research, competence or even resources of a government cannot justify capital punishment.

Rehabilitation, the only way

Fourth, rehabilitation is the only certain way to permanently protect society from a specific offender, which is clearly denied, along with reparation. This is the priority of developed nations, which should be adopted by the less developed world.

Capital punishment is barbaric. Its implementation necessarily causes psychological and physical suffering. The inevitable and irreversible miscarriages of justice through the execution of wrongfully convicted persons are too high a price, especially in the context of established police corruption to convict citizens.

It undermines current trends of norms and principles of international human rights. It also provides little benefit for the nation. The practice appeals only to the primordial emotion of revenge, which certainly does not outweigh the aforementioned deleterious effects. There must be a more enlightened approach than killing people who kill people to show that killing is wrong.

I am, etc.,

ANTONN BROWN

Hatfield, Manchester

brown.ant@gmail.com

Home | Lead Stories | News | Business | Sport | Commentary | Letters | Entertainment | Profiles in Medicine |