I feel obliged to make some comments on the charade currently taking place in our Parliament, whereby our parliamentarians are purporting to have a conscience vote as to whether they should retain or remove the death penalty.

This penalty, which existed prior to Independence, and is entrenched in our Constitution, has been de facto abolished since 1988. I do not recall any vote being taken in support of this de facto abolition. Unfortunately, the same disrespect which our parliamentarians have shown for the law of the land is being replicated by those of our citizens who are creating mayhem by the murder of women, children and their fellow Jamaicans, generally.

I am unclear as to the intention of the conscience vote, as each member of Parliament is there representing a constituency and is not entitled to the luxury of voting according to his own conscience in a matter of national importance. Does it mean, therefore, that if all or a majority of our parliamentarians feel in their own conscience that the death penalty should be removed, then they may vote accordingly, without regard for the wishes of their constituents?

Representational politics

Surely, the principle of representational politics requires that each representative has consultation with his constituents who voted him or her into Parliament and that each votes according to the collective or majority conscience of his or her constituencies.

The only step which our government needs to address in order to carry out the death penalty, is to so update the court system that between conviction and the exhaustion of all appellate procedures, the time used up should fall within five years. Despite the fact that Pratt v Morgan was decided as long ago as 1994, no steps have been taken in this regard, notwithstanding many studies and recommendations for a revision and update of our court system.

For example, one simple measure would be to provide our hard-working judges with modern technology by which they can record evidence in criminal trials, without having to rely on the taking of evidence by hand by the trial judge, whose record is still the only official record or transcript of the trial.

Further delays

As a consequence of this outdated approach, the provision of all notes of a trial for the purpose of appealing to our local court and the Privy Council invariably results in the appellate proceedings exceeding the five years, thereby bringing the case within the Pratt v Morgan principle and making a mockery of our justice system.

I feel obliged to ask whether our parliamentarians have any genuine desire to carry out the law of the land by implementing the death penalty as they are all sensitive to the position taken by donor agencies, such as the European Union, which have pumped millions of dollars into Jamaica, presumably for the benefit of the country, but at the same time, have indicated their desire to see the de jure abolition of the death penalty.

Are we witnessing a sale to these countries of our sovereignty? If so, we should be reminded that these countries which have a different level of socialisation or consciousness, do not experience the level of savagery and brutality which have become commonplace in the Jamaican society, to the point where we now enjoy the unenviable reputation of being the murder capital of the world.

A misleading argument which is often used by human-rights organisations and other opponents of the death penalty, is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. This is, of course, not only misleading, but unsupported by experience in Jamaica. Statistics from one country which has a different type of socialisation can have no bearing in another country with its own indigenous socialisation.

Since 1988, the death penalty has not been carried out in Jamaica and accordingly, the only statistic available to us as Jamaicans is that since the de facto abolition of the death penalty in 1988, our murder rate has increased from year to year and at the moment is clearly out of control.

I really believe there is no serious intention on the part of our parliamentarians of either political persuasion to carry out the death penalty and that at present, they are merely going through the motions to satisfy the out-cry for its implementation from the people who elected them to Parliament. If our parliamentarians really wish to know the conscience of the people, why not decide this question by a referendum?

Be very wary

I think Jamaicans should be very wary of what is happening, as we could be 'politricked' at the end of it all. Any amendments to the entrenched position of the death penalty in our Constitution will open the door to the complete abolition of the death penalty by an ordinary act of legislation thereafter.

In closing, I share a story told about our National Hero Sir Alexander Bustamante who was on his way to Parliament from his Tucker Avenue address, accompanied by Miss Gladys Longbridge, now Lady Bustamante. A group of persons recognised him while the vehicle was stationary and sought audience with him in order to prefer their grouses. While Sir Alexander listened patiently to these complaints, his companion became impatient and said, "Chief, if you continue to listen to them, you will be late for Parliament." In response to which, Sir Alexander replied: "But it is they who put me there in the first place."

I close by reminding our parliamentarians of who put them in Parliament, that they are representatives of these people and that the only conscience they have is the conscience of the people who put them there in the first place.

Norman Wright, QC, is an attorney-at-law. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.