PEOPLE generally view justice on the side of emotion, rather than the side of reason, and hold strongly to the position that persons who commit a wrong must be ‘appropriately’ dealt with.

In the dispensation of justice, there is some form of punishment, and rightly so, since it serves as a deterrent to a recurrence of the crime committed. Important in all of this is the need for reform — to get perpetrators to understand their wrong. With this in mind, the extent of the punishment, mainly the application of capital punishment, was questioned by the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) at a recent forum here.

Both have called for the abolition of the death penalty in Guyana, as well as in other Caribbean states which still have it on their statute books. Guyana inherited the death penalty law on gaining Independence from Britain in 1966, and has since kept it. However, about five years ago, Guyana made some efforts at reform by amending the Criminal Law Offences Act, removing the death penalty as a punishment for murder.

Guyana last utilised the law in 1997, and has ever since adopted an unwritten moratorium on the death penalty. One suspects that the administration might be interested in a gradual abolition; but even if it intends to go this route, it will most likely be met with opposition from the masses. And there is more to this. The crime situation has been a cause of much unease, and any move to abolish the death penalty would likely be seen as the governing coalition, which enjoys a slim majority over the opposition, bowing to foreign pressure. Such a development now will provide the Opposition, which appears to still be in elections mode, much fodder to go after the government, as it has before accused members of the government of sheltering criminals.

But these issues aside, there is a mountain of evidence to prove that the death penalty does not deter murder, and there is ample evidence to show that countries which have the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than countries which have abolished it. The argument has been advanced that, every time a murder has been committed, the death penalty fails, but some have disagreed with this preposition.

The counter agreement put forward is that if this is so, when a murder has not been committed, capital punishment passes with flying colours. And if a comparison is made of the failures and passes, the passes will, without a shadow of doubt, prevail hands down.

This sort of argument is an alluring one, but needs to be examined with broad considerations. The question that one has to ask is what is expected of society? And what does society hold to be norm? Certainly, society expects its citizens to behave in a rational manner, not to steal, not to abuse, and not to commit murder. So the argument that when a murder is not committed the death penalty law passes does not reflect the totality of the situation, since members of society are not expected to commit such an act in the first place; because, naturally, it is not a norm of society.

On a different note, in any justice system, there are cases wherein convictions, when thoroughly examined, were found to be unfair.

But, more importantly, the majority of condemned convicts are people of the lower strata of society, some of whom were paid to commit their heinous crimes. But those with money seem slippery to the net of justice. And it does not end here. Recent sentences handed down by local magistrates and judges — which range from 50 to 100 years — have brought into question the relevance of the death penalty. These are matters which should be considered by politicians and be widely discussed with their constituents. But aside from this, and perhaps equally important, the element of prison reform has to be an integral part of the conversations for a progressive justice system.