To hang or not to hang

Jan 31, 2016 Editorial, Features / Columnists

To have or not to have the death penalty is once more a raging discussion. The European countries have done away with the death penalty largely because there is the fear that an innocent person could be sent to the death chamber. The view is that so many things could go wrong, from the point of the arrest for a crime to the imposing of the sentence.
These past two decades the United States has been releasing people who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms on a flawed trial and conviction. Some of them barely lived long enough to enjoy freedom. Some of them were so messed up that they simply could not cope with life in the free world and did stupid things to live a life of confinement.
However, those countries that institute the death penalty say that they exercise every precaution to ensure that the person sentenced to death is the person who must pay the penalty for the crime. In any case, such a penalty is only imposed for the most heinous crimes. In Guyana, not every murderer gets the death penalty.
During his tenure as President, the late Desmond Hoyte made it known that he would not sanction the death penalty for people who commit crimes of passion. And indeed, when a woman did the unthinkable—she killed her two children because her paramour did not like children—the then President Dr. Cheddi Jagan, even before the trial began, said that the woman would not get the death penalty.
The last execution was carried out in Guyana in 1997, nearly two decades ago simply because two lawyers moved to the courts on a constitutional motion to halt the execution of two men, one of whom paid to have his brother killed.
Until a few years ago, death sentences were handed down but were not carried out. Under pressure from the European Union the government removed the mandatory death sentence pronouncement by a Judge on a conviction of murder. The law allowed the Judge’s discretion. So it was that very lengthy prison sentences were handed down to people who committed violent murder.
People who were considered menace to the society have been effectively removed. Many of them would never walk in the society again unless there is some administrative intervention. But there is the consideration of overcrowded cinemas. There is also the need for a deterrent to some crimes.
Many still hold firmly to the view that the death penalty was a severe deterrent. Indeed it halted a crime spree that had become prevalent. It also exposed the thinking of convicted people, particularly murderers. One convicted murderer demonstrated his utter disregard for the justice system and for the sentencing policy. He actually told Justice Cecil Kennard who was about to pass sentence, “Man, don’t worry wid all that long talk. Seh wha you got fuh seh and leh me go long me way.”
This outburst so stunned the nation that one would have been hard pressed to find anyone who did not think that this person should be executed. He was hanged.
Now we have a spate of gun crimes and young criminals who know that it would not be long before they are back on the streets to continue along their criminal path. One young multiple murderer actually said as much to his relatives as he was leaving the court.
Two days ago two gunmen attacked a poultry dealer in broad daylight in the heart of the city without fear of being apprehended. And just before that some of them attacked a commercial bank, regardless of the security cameras.
And to show just how prevalent gun crimes are, every week the police would apprehend an individual walking on the streets with an unlicensed gun.
Would the reintroduction of hanging change this? Many in the region think so because they too are calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty.