Sunday Times 2
Capital punishment goes against the reformative aspects of justice
“The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question of Capital Punishment in this country is, Do we deserve to kill?”
Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption
My Sri Lanka is on the cusp of deciding its course for the future. After a horrific conflict that terrorized the country for over three decades, and as it’s searching for its footing, we were rocked by a spate of deadly bomb attacks on Easter this year.
At this time of reconciliation, however, a disturbing legislation threatens to push us back to antiquity. We have had a 43-year-old Moratorium on capital punishment; one that prevents the State from carrying out murder. Sadly, instead of abolishing capital punishment, we are trying to decide whether this moratorium should be lifted. Specifically, should the killing of citizens convicted of drug offences be authorised?
As a lawyer and a practicing Buddhist, I have believed in the reformative aspects of justice. A perspective based on humanistic values that, when my fellow countryman does wrong, s/he are still Sri Lankan and more importantly, do not cease to be an individual. They are not an obstacle that can be wished away, but one that needs our compassion and support as much as other citizens. Of the 1,300 people on death row, approximately 45 are convicted presently for drug-related offences, and the current debate remains as to whether to enforce the death penalty for the latter. Singling out a particular crime to be deserving of capital punishment not only raises questions on the intentions of this legislation but more importantly goes against our fabric of humanistic laws and principles.
Our country, rich in its culture and diversity, hailing from humble Buddhist beginnings, has been at the forefront of a human revolution. It has spearheaded efforts to advance universal human values and ethics, based on fundamental rights innate to every citizen. Inspired by the teachings of the Buddha, we have striven to further this, not just for our fellow human beings but to every sentient being.
Imposing the death penalty for drug offences would violate Sri Lanka’s International Human Rights obligations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is a member, states, in Article 6 on the Right to Life, that the death penalty “may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” Moreover, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors state compliance with the Covenant, the term “most serious crimes” applies “only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing; that crimes not resulting directly and that intentionally in death, such as drug offences, although serious in nature, can never serve as the basis, within the framework of article 6, for the imposition of the death penalty.”
The case of the Sri Lankan girl Rizana in Saudi Arabia, where her execution was carried out, is an example of one on whose behalf, I had the occasion to make personal appeals. The multiple efforts with the highest authority in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, including the Minister for Interior, and beyond that the King of Saudi Arabia still could not, unfortunately, prevent the ultimate killing of Rizana. The world witnessed the public execution via beheading, covered by social media, and propelled shock waves across the world igniting human condemnation of the death penalty. As an advocate of the Sri Lankan Government, I have pleaded in Appeal for the exoneration of several Sri Lankan Citizens facing capital punishment across international borders. Thus, this contradiction for advocating this action on this sacred soil that we once assertively pleaded against, perplexes as to how irresponsibly close we are to severing solidarity to our ethics, morals and ideals.
It wasn’t too far back in history when the public execution of Ehelepola Kumarihami, along with her children, took place under the last King of Sri Lanka; this remains a scar in Sri Lanka’s history. In-terms of historical and contemporary facts, a reformative action is the only way that can take Sri Lanka forwards.
Howard Zinn, a renowned historian and civil rights activist, once said that capital punishment could not be justified in any society calling itself civilized. Only last year we, Sri Lanka, joined 120 other countries to vote in favour of a resolution for a moratorium on capital punishment. A mere 35 countries voted against it. As the rest of the world is moving towards abolishing capital punishment and all kinds of torture, Sri Lanka is discussing re-introducing capital punishment. At this crucial juncture, we must collectively decide what direction we would like to charter our destiny: the destiny of all Sri Lankans.
While harsh punishments, such as life imprisonment, can be used as deterrents; capital punishment extends to legalise judicial execution. Most studies have concluded that capital punishment doesn’t deter any crime! This torture continues not only to the convicted but extends to their families as well. It tries to exonerate a State that has failed the wrongdoer of a possible chance of reformation. It ignores the circumstances, socio-economic factors and psychological factors and instead oversimplifies the problem by ‘eliminating’ the threat. Capital punishment tries to forget the offender is also our fellow countryman and more importantly, a human.
I had the unique privilege to witness the sentiments of one of the most renowned personalities in the world on the subject of death penalty. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI expressed his thoughts on the issue on numerous occasions. I remember during my meetings with his eminence in the years 2007- 09 he emotionally repeated the hope and desire of the Vatican to have the death penalty removed from our statutes in Sri Lanka. The then president Mahindra Rajapaksa, conveniently mentioned that capital punishment, although part of the statute is not carried out, hence the moratorium.
Such a moratorium, although an important safeguard, is also a reminder of the obsolete and vestigial remnants of our old laws that needs to be reformed. It continues to provoke uncertainty and is an impediment to progress. Now it is time for the wider section of legislators on both sides of the political divide to come together and have this archaic statute completely removed from our legal framework. This will turn a new chapter in Sri Lanka’s political, social and cultural profile.
As a Sri Lankan, and one who respects all faiths, I would like to see my country stand up for human values; especially in the face of adverse laws that infringe our humanistic principles. I envision a state that values human life for all its citizens; those that abide and those that transgress our laws. At no point, and under no circumstances can this “right to life” be infringed by any person or State. We must continue to move forward and not regress into archaic and prehistoric methods of justice that are vengeful and retributive in nature.
We must, together, cleanse the society with great passion and pursuit of wisdom and clarity. A pursuit sprouting a reformist agenda at heart, with an introspective and compassionate approach that needs to be adopted with greater vigour towards wrongdoers. Only such an approach may answer the call for a conscious society that is built on justice. Our government must inspire us to higher ideals of human evolution that value life; and enshrines not hatred and anger but compassion.
Some do evil things out of ignorance
Some react with anger being ignorant
Which of them is faultless …
To whom should error be attributed?
Santideva in his book “Way of Bodhisattva”:
(The writer is an attorney-at-law, and a former Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka)