By Dennis McKoy,
Contributor
YEARS AGO, the late professor of Political Science at the University of the West Indies, Dr. Carl Stone, conducted a poll which revealed that 83 per cent of the Jamaican population is in favour of the retention of the death penalty. Judging from the reaction of the police to the escalation in the wave of violent crimes, which have claimed the lives of many, including an unprecedented number from its own ranks, the feeling has not changed.
In fact, I would not be surprised if since the time the late Professor Stone did his poll, opinions on the upholding and execution of the death penalty have increased. Yet, a few individuals, like the Reverend Peter Espeut, are seeking to have it abolished on the humanitarian and deterministic grounds that man is intrinsically good, but a victim of environmental conditions.
Strangely, the very arguments of environmental conditioning and poor socialisation have their early beginnings in the theories of psychologists, like B.F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud, respectively both of whom are against the concept of the natural goodness of mankind. In fact, like Calvin, Skinner's behaviourism is predicated on the a priori notion that man is inherently "Corrupt, sinful, and given to wilfulness and idleness". It is for this reason that discipline and punishment, as well as proper control and management of the individual's environment are recommended. It is for this reason, too, that psychologists, psychiatrists, guidance counsellors and others of the helping professions, who take their cue from Skinner and Freud, follow a more directive, than non-directive approach to counselling and guidance of others. Of course, none of this lands very well with those who support "the intrinsic goodness of man" espoused by the Rev. Espeut in his article in The Gleaner of January 10, 2001.
And what of his views concerning the biblical teaching on capital punishment? Certainly, no one can deny the Roman Catholics the right to hold and promulgate their views on the subject. It is their constitutional right. Nor should anyone in a multi-faith society be denied of his or her constitutional right to take issue with their views, especially when they enlist the Bible in support of such views. For when one examines the Bible, one finds that the concept of human goodness that is being put forward by Rev. Espeut and, according to him, "the 22 Roman Catholics of the Antilles" as the reason for opposing capital punishment can only be safely defended, if one is thinking of the human person before the Fall.
Also, beginning with the Old Testament, if one disagrees with those scholars who regard capital punishment as allowable under appropriate circumstances, how does one interpret Genesis 9:6? And if one interprets it as an all-embracing statement that includes the life of an assailant as well as his or her victim, how does one explain the provision of "cities of refuge" for those who killed unwittingly, but none for the murderer?
When one turns to the New Testament, to accommodate those Jamaicans who are not Old Testament "Christians", how does one explain the teaching in Romans 13:4 that rulers do "not bear the sword for nothing", other than their right to impose the death penalty if the circumstances warrant it? And since Rev. Espeut uses the story of one of the thieves on the cross to support his case against capital punishment, what does he make of the statement made by the same thief that, We are punished justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds. But this man has done nothing wrong? (Luke 23:4 emphasis added). Or how does he explain Paul's defence before Festus, If I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die...? (Acts 25:11 emphasis added).
We must also be careful how we use Jesus' teaching about non-retaliation and loving our enemies, to support arguments against capital punishment. For, as the Anglican scholar John R.W. Stott, opines in his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was dealing with personal revenge, not laying down legislation for the state.
Those who are pushing for the abrogation of capital punishment would do well to ponder carefully a statement made by Sir Norman Anderson, one-time director of the Institute of Legal Studies and lecturer in Semitic and Islamic law. In one of his lectures, published in Issues of Life and Death (1978), he argues persuasively against mandatory implementation of the death penalty in Britain. In concluding the lecture, he points out that it was right, in the circumstances, that the death penalty for murder should have been abolished.... and that it should not be brought back unless this seems to be the only way in which murderous attacks on the police or prison warders, or wanton killing in the course of terrorism, can be restrained (emphasis added).
Only the callous would deny that there is more than enough murderous attacks on the police over the past few years or so, to warrant the retention of the death sentence. Why, then, should a Minister of Religion, who should be acting in the interest of justice and order, be supporting the campaign for the abolition of capital punishment in a climate of unprecedented reprisal killings, attacks on the police and on peaceful, law-abiding citizens? For as the late C.S. Lewis, who was himself a professed Anglican layman, trenchantly pointed on this same subject, "mercy detached from justice, grows unmerciful".
Here are some questions for the Reverend Mr. Espeut, and those who share his views to answer. It is often glibly argued that there is no evidence that the imposition of the death penalty is an effective deterrent to violent crimes, what is the proof for this, locally? What evidence is there to demonstrate that its abolition will produce any better result? For many years the law regarding the death penalty has not been applied, and what is the statistics on crime and violence like? Who it is that is committing many of the heinous murders in our communities?
As I have pointed out in an article which was published in this newspaper, on Sunday, April 30, 1989, instead of creating a society in which the wicked get the punishment that their deeds deserve, we are more and more treating our penal institutions as psychiatric wards, where we tend the mentally sick. Psychotherapy is being put in the place of justice, desert, and answerability. Little wonder the Minister of Justice and the police are having so much difficulty managing murderous crimes. For, if the state refuses to swiftly impose what the majority of the society regards as appropriate sanctions for crimes against the person, the people will either do it themselves or find someone else to do it. And Mr. Delroy Chuck's plea for "a safe, responsible society", which appeared in the same issue of The Gleaner, in which Rev. Espeut's appeared, will only be an echo in the forest. What he shouts out is all, regrettably, he and all of us will hear.
Dennis McKoy is lecturer in religion, psychology and research methods at the Mico Teacher's College. E-mail: dennismc@nova.edu.
