Garth Rattray

The Jamaica labour Party promised that should they form the next government, they would resume hanging. The intoxication of politicking might have added glibness to their speeches, but, now that they're in power, they want to fulfil that undertaking. Capital punishment is still on our books but the previous government was unable to execute anyone because, simply put, the Privy Council (our final appellate authority) has placed time limits on executions and specificities regarding a mandatory death penalty. Additionally, there is international pressure for us to place a moratorium on executions.

In preparation for bipartisan agreement on the removal of obstacles to issuing minister of State in the Ministry of National Security, Senator Arthur Williams, death warrants (hanging people), while on a recent tour of the St. Catherine Adult Correctional Centre, reportedly said that Parliament will be asked to vote by conscience (and not by collective responsibility) on the resumption of hanging.

All that sounds simple and straightforward in theory, but I wonder if there can be a genuine conscience vote on such a contentious and vexed, politically charged topic in our current atmosphere of escalating atrocious multiple murders. Can Members of Parliament representing a nation of frightened, angry and frustrated people vote their conscience? Or, will they feel pressured and vote based on popular anecdotal (unscientific) opinions, the need to assuage anxieties and political expediencies?

Many people sanction legal and illegal state killings. Generally, extrajudicial killings are not random occurrences; they are driven by fear and our flawed legal system. Scared citizens surreptitiously inform on their suspected tormentor(s) - gunmen and/or terrorists. Desperate people are, therefore, willing to employ illegal means to get rid of suspected criminals. So, we can fully expect that most will endorse the resumption of hanging.

Not really effective

Those clamouring for the death penalty are sick and tired of murders, worried for their own safety or closely associated with murder victims. However, according to worldwide studies and experiences, executing convicted murderers has not proven effective in reducing murder rates. Interestingly, in the United States of America, (in 2006), the average murder rate among 'death penalty' states was 5.3 per 100,000 population; but for 'non-death penalty' states it was only 2.9 per 100,000 population.

Our Members of Parliament must ask themselves several soul-searching questions before that conscience vote. Is our judicial system so perfect as to ensure that innocents will not be hanged? Will everyone accused of murder receive equal legal representation, or will those that can afford high-powered defence teams have a better chance of acquittal? When we look at the end of our rope, will we not typically see a deprived young man from the inner city who has been given an expensive firearm by someone that will always remain free to inculcate more victims?

Before they vote their conscience, they must ask if our country has done enough to rescue our underprivileged, marginalised young men from the clutches of the greedy, power-hungry individuals that have made victims of us all. Many of our anti-social youngsters have little respect for their lives and for the lives of others because their circumstances have sentenced them to a life of violence, ignorance and frustration. How can we, therefore, teach respect for life by taking it?

A supposedly Christian country such as ours should never consider killing anyone. And, to clarify a point raised by Observer columnist Anthony Gomes (May 9, 2007) the (1992) Roman Catholic Catechism - under item 2266 - condoned capital punishment (as a means of state self-defence), the 1997 definitive edition delegitimised it.