Garth RattrayAS OUR criminal elements continue their unrestrained murderous rampage, some politicians have advocated enforcing capital punishment even though widespread contradictory evidence regarding its efficacy as a homicide deterrent exists.
Several high-profile US Presidents have come to power with more than a minimal contribution from their practice of sanctioning capital punishment. Former President Bill Clinton lost an Arkansas gubernatorial election in 1980 in part because he wasn't strong enough on capital punishment so he corrected his 'mistake' and the rest is history. On his way to the US Presidency, then Texas Governor George W. Bush enjoyed the popular support in a state legendary for its number of executions.
Recent news reports stated that the leader of the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) advocated capital punishment for crimes involving drug trafficking and terrorism. Being the consummate politician, it seems to me that he let the misinterpretation ride just in case it was accepted and effected positive political returns. It did not, and it was only then that his proposal was withdrawn.
The term 'capital punishment' is an oxymoron. There can be no punishment in death. Pieces of us begin to die soon after we are conceived (that's how our fingers separate from each other) and after birth we all begin the inevitable journey towards what we call death. Punishment is designed to teach but the dead can learn nothing! If you really want to punish people keep them alive and have them atone for their sins the rest of their natural lives by working for the betterment of the ones they have wronged. That would be a far more powerful deterrent than the barbaric hanging of our misguided fellow human beings.
Some people argue in favour of capital punishment by focusing on the ancient, defunct 'eye for an eye' principle of requital. If this argument had any merit then convicted murderers would be executed by the same means that they killed their victims but even our vengeful rancour enjoys civilised parameters.
Despite facts to the contrary, deterrence remains the strongest argument in favour of capital punishment. John McAdams from the Marquette University/-Department of Political Science said, "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former." Deterrence, the unemotional justification for capital punishment, seeks to circumvent the issue of vengeance, after all, God said that vengeance must be left up to Him.
Excerpts published in the Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty state that recently updated findings by the United Nations (in 1996) concluded that, "Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis." Interestingly, recent crime figures from abolitionist countries (like Canada) did not show that abolition of capital punishment has harmful effects. The homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975 (the year before abolition) to 1.76 in 1999. That is a 43 per cent fall in the 25 years following abolition.
Essayist on matters of religion, church, politics and ecology, Kenneth Cauthen, writes dichotomously making strong cases for and against capital punishment. He explains that the argument in favour states that "Those who commit vicious crimes destroy the basis on which a moral community rests and forfeit their rights to citizenship and even to life itself." Arguing against capital punishment he states that, in an ideal community "forgiveness and the hope for redemption are guiding aims. Protection of the innocent requires that criminals be isolated, perhaps permanently. Just punishment is appropriate, but love never gives up even on those who show no love."
Statisticians have pointed to the disproportionate infliction of the death penalty on the poor and uneducated and a failure to take into account the destructive life histories of criminals that may have damaged their humanity to the point that it is unfair to hold them fully accountable for their wrongdoing. In other words society should accept some culpability.
Although we know that life imprisonment without parole is just as good a deterrent as capital punishment, the strongest argument against executions is its irrevocability and the risk of killing an innocent person. The Governor of the US State of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000.
EXONERATION
His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed.
Our murder rates continue to accelerate towards seemingly limitless boundaries setting new records every day and the state of our economy reflects an inverse relationship with the crime rate. The cumulative effect of all this is an unofficial grumbling suggesting that the vox populi favours the death penalty. But public opinion is often uninformed and sometimes perfidious. Case in point: In California a Field Institute survey carried out in 1990 showed that 82 per cent approved of the death penalty. However, when asked to choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment plus restitution, only a small minority, 26 per cent, continued to favour executions.
It is evidentially and spiritually wrong to execute anyone. I believe that elected public officials must disregard political designs and lead by moral example. After all, we are a Christian nation.
Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice.
