The Editor, Sir:

The vote has come and gone in the House of Representatives on the matter of retaining and applying capital punishment in our criminal justice system. Yet, one has the strange feeling that the matter is somehow left hanging. There is a sense that we have had an unfinished national conversation on this vital issue. Several critical questions remain to be addressed, and greater clarity would have been welcome on the positions of the proponents of either side of the question.

The broad notions of justice, deterrence, retribution, punishment and revenge pervaded the debate in and outside Parliament. Clearly, at a certain level, all are agreed that the concern is with justice. Beyond that, however, it seems that justice, like beauty, is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Because, for some, justice means execution, at least, for premeditated murder after the judicial process shall have established, beyond doubt, the guilt of the accused, while for others capital punishment is entirely unnecessary to the rendering of justice in murder cases.

Each side has used the notion of deterrence to buttress its position. But is it at all clear that the deterrence argument, without more, is conclusive on either side of the question of capital punishment? The proponents of capital punishment hold that execution would deter at least those convicted murderers who can order further murders from inside prison. The anti-capital punishment lobby argues that murderers will murder, with or without capital punishment. However, they cannot say, with certainty, that in jurisdictions which execute convicted murderers, there are no would-be murderers on the margin who are given pause by the mere prospect of execution for murder.

Escalating murder rate

Some opponents of capital punishment also believe there is a causal link between the application of capital punishment and higher-than-normal incidence of murder. If so, why the escalating murder rate in Jamaica during an extended moratorium on capital punishment, and what explains the extremely low murder rate in Singapore which has one of the harshest capital punishment regimes in the world?

In addition to doubts about the deterrent effect of capital punishment, a lot of play has been given to the risk of executing innocent persons. Clearly, these are not matters that can be lightly overlooked. The key question, however, is this: Would the opponents of capital punishment change their position if it were to be established beyond doubt that execution for murder is a deterrent, and if it could be guaranteed that no innocent person would be convicted?

This raises the question whether arguments about deterrence and the risk of executing innocent persons, while important, are not to some extent mere 'noise' clouding the real issue, which, in essence, is our differing fundamental approach to the sanctity of life. To some of us, the sanctity of life means, as a fundamental moral/philosophical matter, that absolutely no one - including the most depraved murderer - should be deprived of life, except perhaps in cases of justified self-defence.

A moral/philosophical matter

To others of us, equally as a fundamental moral/philosophical matter, the sanctity of life means that any person who - at least premeditatedly - wrongfully deprives another person of life forfeits respect for the sanctity of his own life. These two fundamental positions are essentially matters of the heart, with neither being superior nor inferior to the other, and there is no point in either side seeking to demonise the other.

The truth is that the idea of murdering a fellow human being is repugnant to the overwhelming majority of people in society - even in failed or failing states. All told, the country could have benefited from a more nuanced debate on the issue of capital punishment.

More attention could have been addressed, for example, to the different circumstances in which murder is committed, e.g. murder by the criminally insane (where the senseless savagery of certain killings indicates severely diminished mental responsibility); murder of passion in the heat of the moment; coldly and deliberately premeditated murder, whether as a one-off or multiple occurrences, or by a professional hit man. All these concerns should enter into a carefully calibrated regime for bringing justice to duly convicted murderers.

My personal moral bottom line, after all this, is one of opposition to capital punishment, subject to one specific exception. This exception flows from the sanctity of life principle combined with an extension of the principle of justifiable self-defence. It is that where it is deemed highly probable that a duly convicted murderer is, even from the confines of prison, likely to order the murder of innocent persons, the death penalty should apply. It would be a question of choosing between the sanctity of the life of a potential innocent victim and that of a convicted murderer who is believed would occasion further murders. My belief is that all other cases of conviction for murder should be visited with confinement in a mental institution, where warranted, or with imprisonment for terms up to life, provided the prisoner is made to work and earn enough to cover his keep and provide some compensation for the dependants of his victim(s).

Appropriate sentencing guidelines

Clearly, legislation cannot anticipate all the circumstances. There would be a need therefore to provide highly trained judges with appropriate sentencing guidelines, and the authority to exercise discretion in the application of these guidelines.

Needless to say, more effective policing and quantitative and qualitative streng-thening of the justice system are only one side of a required simultaneous 'belt-and-braces' approach to combating crime in Jamaica. The other side involves a wide range of sustained and carefully targeted social interventions, addressing short-, medium-, and long-term needs. This, among other things, would be a vital factor impacting the culture in which crime is embedded.

I am, etc.,

Roderick Rainford

Maryland, St Andrew