Mauritius Message Board: DEATH PENALTY DEBATE- Part I

[ Post a Response | Mauritius Message Board ]

We cannot be held responsible for all messages posted on this board as we have no control over entries. If there is any concern regarding any posting(s), please advise mailto:mauritius@cjp.net and we will take appropriate action.

DEATH PENALTY DEBATE- Part I

Posted by Bashir E Khan on 27/3/2008, 6:28 pm
89.243.179.167

THE DEATH PENALTY- Deterrent or Retribution?

Death penalty debate evokes passions and emotions of the highest order. It cuts across two main camps. There are those who believe that murderers should be executed for retributive reasons for taking life under the theory of “just deserts”, that is, “an eye for eye”, and that the death penalty ensures a general deterrent to criminal homicide. The other camp takes the view that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent at all. They argue, invoking the “brutalization hypothesis” that the death penalty devalue human life and send a message to citizens that (the State) killing people under some circumstances is acceptable.

Emotional-beliefs and feelings of victim’s families not-withstanding and, the death penalty raise the following profound questions:

1. Is it the right “just deserts” that is, “an eye for an eye”, administered to convicted criminals by the State on behalf of society?

[A quick answer would be that although all views are helpful and worthy of debate, there are neither scientific studies nor a societal consensus that can tell us what criminals exactly deserve or not].

2. Has the death penalty got a discernible deterrent effect, on future murder rates, on other crimes of violence, and on crime rate is general, which validates beyond reasonable doubts its application?

3. Bearing in mind that capital punishment (execution) is an irreversible process, and that Criminal Justice processes are imperfect in all countries, can it therefore be safely applied that will ensure no miscarriages of justice? Is it possible to send the wrong person to the gallows?

4. Not-withstanding the multifarious ethnic landscape of the country, can the CJS especially under its current indictment, apply death penalty in an irreproachable equitable manner that will not impact negatively on the ever fragile social cohesion and stability of the island. Would one community feel hard done by or another community using all tricks of the book such as economic or political muscle to secure “exemption” or special treatment?

Before answering the above 4 questions, and because life, be it, that of the victim or the murderer, is sacred in all societies of all religious persuasions, it will be both useful and interesting to quickly tour the Globe to get an insight of the international trends.

According to Amnesty International, as of November 2001, some 110 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, a big increase from 1980 when only 62 countries had abolished it. 85 countries retained it. In 2007, 135 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. 62 countries retain and use the death penalty, most often as a punishment for people convicted of murder. It is correct to state that the world trend is moving towards getting rid of capital punishment.

The four questions raised above have direct relevance to all the 62 countries which are still practicing capital punishment. Although all of these countries justified their use of the capital punishment as an instrument of the criminal Justice system, it is well documented that some countries used it for repressive reasons against people their government wants to eliminate. It is also very clear that if we were to compare answers to the above four questions from countries which practiced the death penalty, no unified and /or consistent approach will emerge. In fact in most such countries except one, information about executed criminals or about forthcoming executions is very limited, if not non-existent completely.

One country exceptionally stands out among all countries practicing the death penalty. This is the United States of America. Currently the only advanced democratic and economically powerful nations using the death penalty are the United States and Japan. These two countries together with Kyrgyzstan (former Soviet republic) are the only countries that use the death penalty on the mentally retarded.

Whereas European countries as a whole have abolished the death penalty, in the United States, 38 States jurisdictions together with the Federal Government and the Military practiced the death penalty. 12 States jurisdictions and the District of Columbia have abolished it. This overt selectivity among the US jurisdictions on such a fundamental question as life and death raises yet another fundamental question on the principle of Universalistic and fair application of law across the same country.

The disparity on the death penalty among US jurisdictions together with its Civil Rights history makes the US the ideal country to turn to for answers to the four above questions.

THE DETERRENCE QUESTION?

In addition to a belief that the death penalty is legitimate under the premise of “just desserts”, in most countries much of the public and political support for capital punishment rests on its presumed value as a general deterrent.

Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers (1) conducted a survey of expert opinions, by surveying 67 of the 70 current and former presidents of three professional criminology organizations: The American Society of Criminology, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and Law and Society Association. These three associations are all interdisciplinary and publish what are among the most respected scholarly journals in criminology and criminal justice: Criminology (ASC), Justice Quarterly (ACJS), and Law and Society Review (L&SA). Their results clearly show that “there is a wide consensus among America’s top criminologists that the death penalty does, or can do, LITTLE to reduce rates of criminal violence in our society. Other researches such as Clear and Cole (2), and Sellin (3) arrived at similar conclusions.

The National Policy Committee of the American Society of Criminology on their part conducted a review of available scientific literature and observed “little evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on violent crimes. A comparison of homicide rates both pre- and post-death penalty eras has not shown a deterrent effect, either within a single state or between states”.

It must be stated that there are other research reports although less in number that reach the opposite conclusion but overall the current state of research suggests that political debates about how to reduce criminal violence in America should shift away from debates about the death penalty. ( To Be continued)