Sunday Times 2
Justifying death penalty by exception
View(s):I read with interest several articles and statements issued by human rights defenders, civil organisations and some Western nations on the death penalty. The controversy appears to have disturbed a hornet’s nest both locally and internationally in the wake of the President’s decision to reactivate death penalty.
Driug criminals are serial killers: Death penalty is justified
Almost all of them have tried to justify the abolition of death penalty on the following grounds:
- a) Absence of evidence to prove the deterrent effect of imposing death penalty
- b) Prevailing loopholes and delays in the existing legal systems
- c) Deemed unethical practice of the state robbing the right to life of human beings
- d) Mistakes of judgment by the judiciary in regard to individuals involved in homicide triggered by personal conflicts.
Let me deal with a few points raised in an article. One article first states, “The media quoted Prison officials as saying most on the death row were stressed, not eating and feeling faint,” proving that even for convicted prisoners, the death penalty clearly operates as a deterrent. Then, later it states, “There is no evidence in Sri Lanka or any part of the world that the death penalty has prevented or reduced crimes.”
This claim is a generalised stock statement made by almost all human rights defenders. In the first place, I doubt whether strong empirical evidence is available to support this statement, which obviously contradicts the former statement. Besides, one can never find concrete statistical evidence to prove the point beyond doubt, as the deterrent effect of the death penalty at the outset operates in the minds of hundreds and thousands of potential killers who surely would have been compelled to give up their devious plans to kill human beings. A net increase in murders can happen due to demographic reasons.
Also, it further states, “All those on the death row, and all of their families, must be in agony and trauma, not knowing whether they or their loved ones are amongst the first four to be executed or when their turn might come.” What about the agony and trauma of those numerous families whose innocent members were summarily robbed of their right to life by the anti-social, extremist killers as in the case of the brutal Easter Sunday attack and the 30-year war?
In such a context, those who are involved in suicide bombings and serial killers, who rob the right to life of several innocents, should not be allowed the right of life as, like a malignant cancer, they pose a serious threat to society’s peace at large. In our view, those charged with drug-related crimes are also de facto ‘serial killers’. Years ago, it was the international community that marketed the death penalty for drug traffickers. The human rights defenders have conveniently sidelined the latter three categories.
Behaviour of international
community
We meekly accept the fact that big powers such as the United States, Russia, Japan, India and most of the oil rich Middle-East countries continue to have the death penalty in their law books. What kinds of embargoes are imposed on them? It is grossly unfair for developed countries to link economic support schemes such as GSP + in developing countries to issues such as the death penalty. It is an accepted global dictum that every rule can have exceptions. It is more so in social sciences. Therefore, we see no harm in resorting to the exceptions in the practice for brazenly premeditated murder by serial killers, suicide bombers and drug criminals who, by their existence, pose a continuing threat to humanity.
Isn’t it fair to assume that such individuals, by their repeated mass killings, have themselves renounced their own right to life? Their convictions in any court of law would be easy to establish and can safely be regarded as irreversible. If mass murderer Prabhakaran was apprehended live, what would have been his plight? In this context, it is relevant to recognise that the death penalty in the law books will greatly reduce extrajudicial killings such as those that happened during the 1971 and 1989 insurrections as well as state-driven terrorism in Sri Lanka. We cannot overlook global examples in the extrajudicial killings of Bin Laden and Muammar Gaddafi.
Alternative solution
Taking these points into consideration, I believe the following strategic steps will resolve the current death penalty conundrum.
1) Continue the existing moratorium on the death penalty.
2) Until further notice, exceptions to the existing moratorium to be struck on death sentences to be passed on a specified future date in regard to the following categories.
a) Those who aided and
abetted mass suicide
bombings,
b) Big-time drug-traffickers (A definition has to be evolved to exempt small-time culprits)
c) Serial killers.
(This means all those presently on death row will continue to enjoy the moratorium.)
3) Concurrence of the concerned international community should be obtained for the above exceptions, the currency of which can be reviewed annually with a view to annulling them as early as possible.
In short, the proposal shall operate as a temporary measure to create a deterrent impact (however small), on the aforesaid categories of killers.
- Bernard Fernando
Moratuwa