An “Eye for an Eye” will not leave the world blind

Aug 16, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

In responding to Mr. Mohammed’s letter ‘Guyana should abandon the Death Penalty’ (Knews Sunday August 07, 2016), I must say that he offers nothing extraordinary as to why Guyana (or even the world at large ) should abandon the death penalty. He presents a weak argument which is essentially a rant against a flawed legal system and corrupt public servants which allows for wrongful convictions. It follows then that if the system is not flawed and public servants were not corrupt, then he would not have any objections to the death penalty.
What ought to be borne in mind is that the flag bearers against the death penalty are mostly of ‘European’ persuasion. History has taught us that we should be aware of such people bearing gifts because those gifts are always the precursor of an ulterior motive. In Canada, the penal system is perhaps the single largest employer. It stands to reason then that the politicians, despite of what they may say, have no reason to reduce the prison population. By doing so they would then have to grapple with the unemployment and other social issues caused by doing that. It is to their advantage that prisons are kept full.
Another thing is that unlike us, they have the resources to deal with crime and its social implications. By adopting their position, we end up spending a massive chunk of our national budget on crime and related issues; monies which could’ve been spent in other crucial areas needed for development. We are then unwittingly kept in perpetual poverty and social turmoil much to the glee of the West.
As a Muslim, I believe in the death penalty for premeditate murder and other despicable offences (such as rape). President Granger, Mr. Mohamed and other like- minded ‘crusaders for life’ who feel that life is sacred and should not be taken under any circumstances, must look into their hearts and with all honesty proclaim that if such were to happen to their loved ones, they would ‘forgive’. When the shoe is on the other foot, the song is usually different. Mr Trotman rightfully said that when a single ‘terrorist’ kill or even attempt to kill a single citizen of certain countries , the Government of those countries do not hesitate to rain down fire and brimstone on the entire country from where the ‘terrorist’ belong, killing hundreds and displacing thousands in retaliation.
A person who commits deliberate murder has no respect for the sacredness of life. He can kill again and again without hesitation. A learned Judge once said that freedom of movement does not entitle you to walk on my property. You cannot disrespect the rights of others and then expect others to respect those very same rights of yours. On what moral grounds must we respect the murderer’s right to life? If we kill the murderer then all we have done is treat him the exact way he had treated his victim. What is morally wrong about that? If we let him live because of some warped logic about the sacredness of life and he murders again, then we are morally responsible for his victim(s).
Contrary to being brainwashed about the whole world becoming blind if the ‘eye for an eye’ law is applied, the world will in fact become a better place if this law is applied. The Creator is well aware of the sacredness of life and this is why he gave this Law so that His creations may appreciate the sacredness of life and so does not take it.
Another ‘brainwasher’ used by the opponents of the death penalty is to say that ‘two wrongs do not make a right’. In other words by killing the murderer you are also guilty of a crime i.e. murder. It is saying that to punish someone for committing a crime is also a crime.
To say that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent is false. All Muslim countries which have this as a punishment for murder and other heinous crimes have shown a low occurrence of such crimes. In Guyana, the reintroduction of the death penalty by Desmond Hoyte and the resulting effect this had on the occurrence of banditry is enough as an example. There is no need to listen to the statistics of others. Crimes will always exist and the death penalty is not a solution to crimes but rather a fitting and deservedly punishment for certain crimes.
Indeed, the justice system argues that ‘the punishment must fit the crime’ (which is actually the same as ‘an eye for an eye’) and this is the basis whereby a convict is sentenced to either one week or one year imprisonment. So what type of punishment will fit the crime for a murderer or rapist? If he is given life imprisonment and he commits murder again while incarcerated or upon escape, what would be his punishment then? Another life sentence? There is nothing to prevent him from committing murder again because he has already been given the maximum sentence.
The criminals themselves when faced with the reality of death, spend millions (if they have it) fighting to have that commuted to life. This shows their fear of death and so if death penalty was certain and swift as in some Muslim countries, then less murders would definitely occur. The death penalty opponents also argue that due to the ‘horrific’ nature of death, it is uncivilized to place another human being in that situation. But this is the point, if death is such a ‘horrible thing’ that it deters us from executing the murderer then would it not deter a potential murderer from committing the act if he knows for sure that this ‘horrible’ punishment is awaiting him?
Sheik Mustapha

---

---