Death Penalty— Part III

In Part I of this series I suggested that there are certain issues on the death penalty that need to be discussed. These are: (1) Morality (2) Constitutionality (3) Deterrence (4) Retribution or Revenge (5) Mistakes (6) Income level and/or Race (7) Quality of legal representation. In that article I discussed Morality, Constitutionality and Deterrence and in Part II I discussed Retribution or Revenge and Mistakes. In this article I shall discuss Income Level and/or Race and Quality of Legal Representation together. I shall also make some concluding comments.

Income level and /or Race and

Quality of Legal Representation.

In my view the overwhelming issue in Trinidad and Tobago is income level. There can be little doubt that the vast majority of those who commit murder and therefore are sentenced to death are from lower income households in depressed areas.

Any factors of race or ethnicity are related to urban or rural demographic factors and these are related to the way in which this country became populated.

It is unfortunate that the University of the West Indies (UWI) does not seem to have a strong history of research in the social sciences. Guidance on these matters should come from UWI. There can be little doubt that income level could be related to the ability to obtain the most outstanding defence lawyers. However there is Legal Aid from which there will be supplied very competent lawyers. In addition in this country there are many very able lawyers who are against the death penalty and who will defend condemned persons for free.

Income level is very important in affecting the chances of young people being drawn into circumstances that can eventually lead to them committing murder.

Of the issues that I have discussed in these three articles for me the deciding factor on the death penalty is the moral issue. Constitutionality can be addressed by changes to the Constitution—although these may have to include removal of some of our human rights provisions.

It does not seem to be widely appreciated that if we remove the 1925 legislation and replace it by new death penalty legislation then execution may be challenged on the basis that it is unconstitutional because of other provisions of the Constitution. Locally there seems to be divided legal opinion on this matter but previous Privy Council decisions would seem to suggest that legal challenges would be successful.

The 1925 Act cannot be challenged on such grounds since it was enacted prior to the passing of our Constitution and was "saved" by a clause therein. I am extremely surprised to hear it being said by some persons that this can be solved by removal of the Privy Council and its replacement by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Such a view implies a poor opinion of both the Privy Council and the CCJ. It suggests that these courts are being influenced by their view on the death penalty and not by their interpretation of the Constitution and the law.

The data on deterrence is conflicting and for every source that one can quote that the death penalty is a deterrent there will be another that one can quote that it is not. Reports suggest mistakes have been made in the United States and innocent persons have been executed. For me this puts the discussion again into the area of morality.

The issues of income level and /or race and quality of legal representation also raise moral questions. If faults in the education system (for which we must all take some blame for electing political parties that have not improved the system) have led to products of the system being unemployable and thereby becoming members of "killing" gangs, do we have the moral right to in turn kill such persons? To address this issue I shall quote from Pope John Paul II (July 2000):

"We are still a long way from the time when our conscience can be certain of having done everything possible to prevent crime and to control it effectively, so that it no longer does harm and, at the same time, to offer to those that commit crime a way of redeeming themselves and making a positive return to society.

"If all those in some way involved in the problem tried to develop this line of thought, perhaps humanity as a whole could take a great step forward in creating a more serene and peaceful society."

For me the moral dilemma is: can I at the same time hold that human life is sacred and killing is immoral and support that the state should kill? Killing in war may be justified—but not in all wars. Do we consider that the wars in Vietnam or Iraq, where thousands of people were killed, justified?

I believe that killing for revenge is immoral. I believe that a system that may result in innocent persons being killed by the state is immoral.

I believe that it is the duty of the state to protect citizens but not by itself committing immoral acts. It may also mean that some murderers may have to be jailed for the rest of their natural lives.

There must be in place programmes to help the families of murder victims. Incarcerated murderers should be required to work and any income earned thereby should go to the families of victims.

There must also be substantial social programmes to help our youth (not the present small efforts), a good education system, a strong economy with full employment, social safety nets, good policing to remove guns and the drug trade, and a high detection rate for crimes must all be priority.