THE EDITOR, Sir:

JUSTICE IS served when the punishment fits the crime. Indeed, it is a little bit more than that. Our topical crime is murder and the topical penalty is death. Given our existing policy framework, it would appear that the overwhelming majority is in agreement with and has accepted that the death penalty is adequate.

Whereas the arguments without any explicit principles for 'not terminating any life' are at best emotive, there seems to be equally good arguments for and against exactly how the death penalty ought to be executed.

For an issue that is so critical to our nation and our development, there should be no doubt whatsoever as to the underlying principle being invoked when any citizen, in or outside Parliament, chooses to associate with or against the death penalty or its mode of execution.

Not solving the problem

It is these principles, if they foster and nurture equality for all Jamaicans and our guests, that should create and direct the right mechanisms to execute any just penalty.

To lose sight of the underlying principles could allow our emotions, deliberately or otherwise, to dilute the effectiveness of any informed decision-making process. The net result is that we continue to say what we think will not solve the problem while, at the same time, not being explicit in exactly what will solve the problem. And, while all ponder, our law-abiding people and our law-abiding guests continue to suffer.

If a policy is not working, terminate it immediately, and simultaneously implement something that is more realistic and practical, thereafter continuously monitor and work assiduously to make certain that the operation of the new policy affords equality to all.

My guiding principle is that if you have deliberately refused another person's right to life, then the principle of equality dictates the simultaneous termination of your right to life. The choice of the word 'refused' is deliberate and it raises the matter of absolute authority, as well as individual and/or collective responsibility.

Modernise the law

My guiding principle is that if you have deliberately refused another person's right to life, the manner in which the entire conception, planning, organising and/or execution was done shall direct and reward the extremity of the mode of punishment. A deliberate extreme crime merits an extreme penalty. This is my interpretation of an "eye for an eye" or "a tooth for a tooth".

Other things may have worked in other countries and involving a different culture. We all know what is happening in Jamaica now. I have no problem with modernising any law, and they all need to be modernised, but until our law changes, the extreme penalty is "death by hanging".

What are we going to do until our laws are modernised? Are we being timely and effective while our law-abiding citizens and guests continue to suffer physically and mentally?

I am, etc.,

CALVIN R. GRAY

calvinrgray@hotmail.com

Kingston