12th december 1999

Death penalty: a clash of values

The hangings apparently were even open to the public and the media, a practice long discontinued.

As a prisoner was about to be hanged in the state of Louisiana in the 1950s, the Sheriff asked the customary question: "Any last word?." "No", retorted the condemned man.

But the governor, who was also present at the hanging, wanted to extract some political mileage on his tough-on-crime policy, and chipped in: "May I then use your time to make a speech?", he asked the prisoner.

"Hang me first," said the condemned man, "Make your speech later."

Although the moral of the story is that some people may rather die than listen to a politician's drivel - and not necessarily only at election time - it also points to the fact that the US is one of the few countries in the Western world that has continued to enforce capital punishment with a vengeance.

Last month, the 15-member European Union (EU), backed mostly by Latin American countries, was forced to withdraw a proposed UN resolution seeking a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty and its eventual abolition.

The US, which is a traditional political ally of the EU, switched loyalties when it stood firmly with most African, Middle Eastern, Caribbean and Asian nations, including Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, who were unwilling to compromise on the issue of the death penalty.

In the US, Texas alone has executed some 195 people since capital punishment was resumed in 1977.

The advocates of capital punishment argued that the EU's attempt to ban the death penalty worldwide was a challenge to the sovereign right of nation states.

There is nothing in the UN Charter that authorises the world body to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.

The EU, which has long banned capital punishment, clearly has the right to choose its legal systems, and enact its legislation in accordance with its value systems. But it had no right to force its moral, legal, political, or social values on others.

Singapore, which has some of the world's toughest laws against crime, emerged as the strongest defender of the death penalty.

"We can debate endlessly the merits of the death penalty," says Ambassador Kishore Mahbubani of Singapore.

"But the key issue here is not the death penalty. The key issue is whether a small group of societies from one continent should be allowed to impose their values on the rest of the world."

Mr. Mahbubani argued that while the EU could advocate the abolition of the death penalty today, "tomorrow, they could advocate the legalisation of drugs" (which already has happened in some European countries).

"The day after tomorrow they could advocate the legislation of prostitution (which also is the case in some European societies).

Where and when will it stop?," he asked.

Mr. Mahbubani conceded that the West had won the great political and economic debates: the victory of democracy over communism and free-market economies over centrally-planned economies. But the verdict on the great social debate is far from clear, he argued.

Being plagued with problems relating to high crime, personal insecurity, high divorce rates, growing single-parent families and rising drug usage, the West has still not found the right answers to key social questions.

The unfortunate problem that the developing countries (which make up 85 percent of mankind now) faces is that they are being subject to a great export of social and personal values from the developed societies, including values that may not have worked well in the developed societies themselves.

Mr. Mahbubani also argued that it was unwise to abolish capital punishment because the EU has failed to explain why the issue of the death penalty is a human rights rather than a criminal justice issue.

"We all cherish the right to life. Nobody likes to be killed. "But to abolish capital punishment without abolishing murders clearly indicates that the right of killers is defended more than the right to life of innocent victims," he said.

Realising that it may not be able to muster the necessary votes, the EU sheepishly withdrew its resolution. But is still planning to resume the fight at a later date.