Leading public figures divided on return of death penalty

Jun 13, 2016 News

---

By Kiana A. Wilburg
There are many things in this society which should be abolished. But is the death penalty one of them? This crucial question is one that has challenged from the court systems to various sections of the political divide. Yet, there is a lack of unanimity on the way forward.
The United Nations has made it clear that the death penalty has no place in the 21st century and even after making a promise to this body that it would be abolished, the death penalty still remains in Guyana’s law books. This form of punishment however has not been used for some years.
With the increase of horrific acts of crime, some opine that perhaps, abolishing the death penalty should be reconsidered.
For Public Security Minister, Khemraj Ramjattan, he is “completely against” the death sentence. Ramjattan even professed that he has the statistics to show that the use of such an extreme form of punishment does nothing to stop crime.
The Public Security Minister was reminded however, of his Government’s stance in the National Assembly when it piloted the amended Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Bill which included the death penalty.
The politician said that while he admits that was the case, he believes that such a form of punishment would “stop a certain set of people who seek to bring terror on a group of persons or a nation.” He insists that in such circumstances he believes that it would work. Ramjattan noted in the same breath that he is personally against the death penalty being used in the criminal justice system.
Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo sought to stay on the fence with regard to this matter. He opined that while he is against the death penalty, he believes that there are some cases where the death penalty is applicable. Jagdeo said that when it comes to certain heinous acts of violence against women and children, the death penalty is warranted.
Jagdeo emphasized however that the coalition administration seems to be speaking from two sides of its mouth when it comes to its stance on the death penalty.
“One time they are saying we are against it, yet, unashamedly, they rush the AML bill through the National Assembly without even giving it a second thought that they might look hypocritical since it has the death penalty included in it as a form of punishment,” the Opposition Leader added.
It must be noted, however, that now a single soul was executed during Jagdeo’s tenure as President, although some of the most heinous crimes were committed during this period, which included the ‘crime wave’ period of wanton killings, including executions and kidnappings.
As for WPA Executive Member, Dr. Hinds, he opined that the death penalty should be abolished for three reasons.
First, the University Professor said that most studies have shown that it does not deter crime. With this in mind, he said, “We cannot use studies to inform other polices but ignore them when it comes to crime. That is hypocritical at best.”
Secondly, Dr. Hinds said that the death penalty and its use, has disproportionately affected poor people who often lack the resources to fight legal battles in the courts. He said that the death penalty has its origins in an ideology that does not value the lives of those at the bottom of the social ladder.
He opined that Guyana cannot continue to perpetuate ideologies that once oppressed it.  On his third reason, Dr. Hinds commented that the death penalty is a primitive form of justice which has no place in a modern civilized society.
The University Professor said that the very prevalence of crime points to the development of barbarism as normative. He said that one does not check barbarism with barbarism.
He asserted that the society has to find ways of dispensing justice that do not increase injustice. And on that note, he added that the death penalty is a tool of injustice and a manifestation of barbarism.
Dr. Hinds said, “I am aware that the rise in crime and the barbaric nature of those crimes would lead many people to call for more frequent use of the death penalty. But I think that its use only expands the web of barbarism; it reflects a society that is too ready to find easy solutions to complex problems.”
The political activist expressed that stemming the tide of crimes require deep thought and deliberate social policies aimed at changing the environment from which crime emanates, improving policing, reintroducing human values into  social institutions and promoting respect for life.
Attorney –at –Law, Christopher Ram is also against the use of the death penalty and believes that it should be abolished. Ram opined that such a form of punishment is cruel, barbaric, degrading and inhuman.
The Chartered Accountant said, too, that he does not believe that there is any evidence in any country where the death penalty has been effective in reducing murders.
In his column, the Conversation Tree, Former House Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran noted that the death penalty has not been carried out in Guyana since 1997. He said that while it is true that there has been a large increase in murders since then, murders have equally soared in countries which have abolished the death penalty like South Africa as well as in countries which have not, like Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.
He said that the latter two and Belize are among the top ten countries for intentional homicide that have the death penalty. Ramkarran said the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent to intentional homicide has long been established.
The columnist said that for this reason, in recent decades, the argument in relation to the death penalty has never been about the statistics, although supporters have disregarded them. At the core, he said that the argument has always been about revenge, “the eye for an eye” philosophy.
Ramkarran expressed that the negative impact of this philosophy on the mentality of succeeding generations of young people ought not to be underestimated.
“But justice must also make sense. Punishment by execution is no punishment at all. It ends when the State exacts the penalty. Punishment of the perpetrator is of limited duration ending with the act of execution. After that, it’s over. The only satisfaction for the relatives of the victim is that the perpetrator no longer has a life to enjoy…,” expressed the lawyer.
He added, “Unless the victim’s relatives believe in a mythical hell where the perpetrator will burn for eternity, the act of execution can provide no relief from the pain of loss. Deprivation of freedom for extended periods is a much more effective penalty. It is among the severest known to humankind.”
Ramkarran recalled that in the Jamaican case of Pratt v Morgan, decided in 1993, the Privy Council ruled that a sentence of death cannot be carried out more than five years after it was imposed. He said that it held that this would be cruel and usual punishment, contrary to the Jamaican Constitution.
He said that the Privy Council later held in 2006 in appeals from the Bahamas by appellants, Forrester Bowe and Trono Davis, that the death penalty was not mandatory.
“The region burned with rage. But in 2010 Guyana nodded at the decision by removing the death penalty for some intentional homicides and retaining it for only the most egregious. However, Guyana has given no recognition to Pratt v Morgan and has not commuted the death sentences of prisoners who have spent more than five years on death row. Many prisoners have been languishing there for decades, next to the gallows, with or without cases pending in court”
The lawyer said that Guyana did not decide to suspend death penalties because of any views leaders may have one way or the other. He said that the nation stumbled upon suspension because as soon as the procedure for execution was set in motion, the prisoner would institute a court case to quash the warrant.
In this regard, he said that the nation’s slow dispensation of justice resulted in these prisoners having had stays of execution for many years now. He emphasized that the Government may well have decided that there is no way around the strategy being employed by prisoners and has accepted defeat.
Ramkarran contended that this situation ought to encourage campaigners to call for, at least ad interim, an official moratorium on the death penalty, which might be more achievable in the short term. He opined that the jury system has virtually collapsed and a conviction and a death sentence are rarities anyway.
The former House Speaker said nonetheless that the case for formal abolition of the death penalty in Guyana must continue to be advocated with vigour.

---

---