17 June 1999, 821 words
To me, the second most amazing aspect of the death penalty debate is that the pro-hanging side has no valid arguments. Not one. There is no moral, empirical, logical, ethical or even legal argument in favour of capital punishment. So the first most amazing aspect to me is that people portraying themselves as intellectuals continue to argue the case.
Take Hamid Ghany. If anyone calls him a political scientist, they'll be lying in their teeth. A scientist is a person who, within his field of expertise, makes logical conclusions from available evidence. Ghany instead makes conclusions purely from his own bias. "Once they stay alive on Death Row, convicted killers can always look forward to a pardon for Independence, an organized jail break or some new Constitutional motion," he writes. That Ghany has to use such rare (How many Death Row prisoners have ever escaped?) and unlikely (What President in his right mind would have pardoned Brian Wallen or Dole Chadee?) possibilities to bolster his case, plus his implication that using the highest law of the land is illegitimate, lays bare the impotence of his arguments. But of course that is exactly why he has to use emotive rhetoric, rather than fact or logic.
Then there's Guardian editor-in-chief Lennox Grant. Comparing the NATO airstrikes in Kosovo to the hangings, Grant writes, "For both sets events to happen, large amounts of 'belly' were called for." This comparison is absurd. For one thing, NATO has been continually criticized for lacking "belly" because of its reluctance to commit ground troops, which would have been a more effective deterrent against the Serbs' ethnic cleansing. For another, hanging criminals does not help prevent the killing of ordinary citizens. Airstrikes, in a genocidal war, can. Nor can I fathom Grant's belief that it takes "belly" for a politician to do exactly what the majority of the electorate wants. Obviously, the exact opposite is the case.
Lawyer Dana Seetahal's stance on capital punishment is purely speculative, but untenable even within that context. Seetahal's argument is that the hangings have shown that "our criminal justice system is functioning efficiently and effectively again." This is nonsense: people have faith in a justice system when they believe it applies to all equally. But cases like the Brad Boyce verdict, the pat-on-the-wrist sentence for businessman Amoroso Centeno, the curious arrest procedures for retired policeman superintendent Dennis Richardson after he killed Joseph O' Brady, as well as the cases of contracts fraud documented in the Auditor-General's report for which no one is charged - all these show that the legal system has fundamental flaws. Hangings don't change that.
What has restored some effectiveness to the system over the past few years are measures taken by Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide to speed up the process, a law introduced by Attorney General Ramesh Maharaj which allows the State to appeal not-guilty verdicts, and the pro-active stance of DPP Mark Mohammed. Seetahal, however, probably plans to get into politics: she clearly believes that perception is more important than reality.
The most specious arguments of all, though, have come from people speaking from a metaphysical perspective. Columnist Wayne Brown, describing Trinidad as a battlefield between Good and Evil, resurrects a150-year-old polemic by John Stuart Mill to argue that capital punishment is correct in itself, but wrong when the UNC implements it. Very profound. Marianne Pouchet, a Catholic UWI student, writes, "The argument for capital punishment is in fact very simple. All actions have consequences. Evil actions have evil consequences in direct proportion to the action." Ms. Pouchet obviously thinks being simplistic is the same as being simple. First, she makes an unjustified leap from a physical law to a moral precept. She then contradicts herself by writing that if Chadee and his gang repent they would receive eternal life - so much, then, for evil actions having consequences.
Hindus, who of all the religious groups could most sincerely oppose capital punishment on the moral principles of ahimsa (non-violence) and daya bhutesu (compassion for all), have chosen not to do so. Instead, they argue that karma justifies capital punishment. It is a bogus argument, because one could just as well assert that murderers should be given life imprisonment instead of death so as to improve their karma by learning about religion. After all, the evidence clearly shows that the most effective way to convert a man is to send him to prison.
Now intellectuals are distinguished from the average person by their willingness to be swayed by reason rather than emotion. Obviously, then, this country suffers from a serious dearth of true scholars. You see, despite what Hannibal Lecter may have led you to believe, it isn't possible to be both bloodthirsty and rational. And anyone who hasn't realized that by now is never going to. So me, I done talk.
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Baldeosingh