The Editor, Sir:

I am not a lawyer, so I can only offer a lay person's view about capital punishment, a debate that is currently before our parliamentarians for consideration. It is a life-and-death issue that confronts contemporary Jamaicans. My view on capital punishment takes the form of an answer that I recently gave to an eminent lawyer friend.

My lawyer friend posited this argument: "There is not a correlation between the death penalty and reduced crime rates, so a serious argument for supporting the death penalty would have to be couched on a far different set of premises."

I then proceeded to offer my friend a set of premises to predicate the justifiability of capital punishment. First, I preface my premises by saying that the person who kills in the way that I describe, that is, with aforethought, maliciously, premeditatedly, callously, cruelly, and wicked, and is punished according to well-established and well-published principles of law will:

Premise One: Kill no more. For, how often we see that killers, even those in jail for murder, kill again; or, if they escape from prison, murder again? So that's at least one premise in favour of the death penalty. That is, the killer who is executed is not likely to kill again.

Premise Two: Capital punishment can ease the pain of the relatives who suffer loss. Although it cannot bring back their loved ones, and although the victims of the crime do not necessary rejoice in 'so-called state-sanctioned killing', they get some comfort and some justice (revenge - call it that, if one wishes). This feeling of justice is something that we humans see as natural.

Capital punishment

Premise Three: Most of us do not kill another human being. This is because we not only value life, but we fear the consequence of, among other things, the possibility of losing our own life if we are caught. So, capital punishment seems to be a deterrent against murder; but even if it were not a deterrent, it is a disincentive against the malicious and wanton killing of another innocent human being. So, the fear of forfeiting one's own life for killing another person deters the average person from committing murder. But, this is only true if there is the certainty that capital punishment will be administered, and done with judicious haste.

Premise Four: Sadly and unfortunately, in the past, some people were innocently put to death because of prejudice, a faulty defence, and so forth. However, if it can be fairly, justly, legally, (more than probable beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt) be ascertained that the person committing the crime of murder is indeed the murderer, then it cannot be said that the State acts prejudicially, irrationally and unjustly when it defends its citizens from unreasonable and unjustifiable murderous actions by an offender who threatens the people and the State's peaceful existence.

Restrain lawbreakers

The overarching premise then must be this: That pragmatic necessities mean that the State should reserve, and from time to time, exercise its rights and powers to restrain lawbreakers - that is, administer the death penalty, when necessary, to those who would seek to create fear, panic, chaos, death and destruction in society. Society cannot function effectively if it descends into anarchy, and in the case of our society, Jamaica, it seems to be bordering on the state of nature. But unlike Hobbes's State of Nature, which is bellum omnium contra omnes, war of all against all', in the Jamaican context, it is the gunman, murderers and rapists - a minority - who are against the rest of society.

National cohesiveness

Premise Five: The violent minority's rights (or wrongs) cannot take precedence over the majority's natural rights to life, liberty and the exercise of happiness. So, practical and pragmatic imperatives - self-survival, national cohesiveness, collective safety and responsibility that is not only moral, but also commonsense and essential - make it unavoidable and necessary that capital punishment for wrongdoers be implemented. Capital punishment is a necessary evil for those who go beyond the pale of the law and for those who oppose civilised living.

The conscienceless killer voluntarily gives up his or her right to be numbered among those of us who are committed to human dignity and civic values. The merciless killer forfeits his or her place in the community of the living by unilaterally and voluntarily renouncing his or her social and legal obligations to society.

I am, etc.,

GEORGE S. GARWOOD

merleneg@yahoo.com.