ONE of the topics engaging our attention is the issue of capital punishment or what we as a civilised society ought to do with those who kill or commit murder.

This discussion has been in the spotlight for as long as there is life and speaking of life as against death, living and dying. The issue is not dying as a result of natural causes but the situation when one human being takes the life of another.
The question is what should we do when someone takes the life of another? The answer is a simple one – society needs to take the killer’s life because in taking someone else’s life which he did not give he has forfeited his chances of being alive.
I always refer to the good book’s sound advice on this: “He that sheddeth blood by man’s hands his should be shed” (paraphrase).
Barring any other circumstances such as accidental death, a crime of passion or any other factor which in legal circles are considered “mitigating” then it is crystal clear that individual ought to be put to death. It cannot be clearer than that. However, over time our society has become humane; too humane for my liking in that the focus these days is on the accused and not on the victim. The killer is now the centre of this fatal attraction story.
The so called modern thinkers are now obsessed with the killers’ “human rights” and how his life should be preserved. You hear heart stirring appeals as to what constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment; you even hear jocular statements of the hanging of a convict being tantamount to the state committing murder.
Things of this nature take centre stage. The bottom-line to all of this mumbo jumbo is the human being that is dead might as well stay dead, forgotten and rotten but do not take the life of the convict that is murder too.
I have seen this argument time and time again and would shake my head in disgust because no one in his/her right mind would buy that sort of reasoning.
There is no way a decent; law abiding citizen would accept that logic, wherein the killer’s life becomes more precious than their loved one?
The modernists can speak from now until eternity and they are sure to get the stark disapproval of the masses. In fact, this type of reasoning will only stir up anger.

A situation of this nature is engaging the authorities right now where all the prisoners on death row should be freed. The sister of one such murderer wants her brother out because he has spent more than 23 years, which constitutes a death sentence already.

She also contends that her brother is suffering from haemorrhoids and wants him out so that he can get quality care. These are all convincing statements that he should have taken into account when he murdered that man; as if time and sickness would erase the fact that he is a murderer.

And here’s my point she feels for her “loving brother”; the relatives of the slain gentleman does the same, none is greater than the other. If society should only take into account the convicted plea, then why not the plea of the victim(s)? She wants forgiveness for the brother whilst asking us, rather, forcing us, to forget the crime. It does not happen that way?
I then turn my attention to what is written in the law. The law stipulates quite clearly what punishment should accompany those convicted of heinous crimes, that is, hanging until dead. The international UN convention has outlawed this form of punishment and is pressuring all countries to measure up to it. I support the UN on this declaration, not on the notion that it constitutes cruel and inhumane punishment, but on the basis that the vehicle used to get there is not fair.
We are all aware of the fact that once you have money and influence then the arm of the law can be twisted and the criminal walks free. So I am for life imprisonment. However, even at this point criminals are having a field day in that they still can wiggle their way out of punishment, scotch free.
They do this by way of the sentences handed down by some justices in our courts. Some judges know fully-well that the death sentence is no more, yet they keep handing down sentences of this nature. Then there is the Pratt and Morgan law which stipulates that exceeding five years on death row constitutes cruel and inhumane punishment. To take into account trial, conviction and appeals, time in most cases go way beyond the five-year period. So most of them use these avenues to get away with murder. As a consequence, judges ought to issue life sentences which should run consecutively if punishment for heinous crimes ought to be addressed properly.

In all our discussion on capital punishment, there is the idea of prevention as the saying goes, “an ounce of prevention is better than a ton of cure.” The Chinese, Singaporean and Indonesians do it. It is not that persons of a criminal nature do not exist there. Yes, they do, but for the fact that punishment for crimes committed is swift and brutal it causes people to think before they commit themselves, hence the crime rate is way below that of the so called western, civilized world. I am not in agreement with especially the Chinese’s model which involves harvesting of criminals’ organs and the like but I am for life sentencing. Let him die in prison separate from the rest of law abiding citizens. This will send a strong message to would be criminals.