The ‘death penalty’ is defined as the deliberate, judicially sanctioned killing of a human for the violation of specific laws. Suddenly, there seems to be a move among some sections to revive the death penalty after decades of its suspension. We urge more reasoned consideration of this proposal in line with the level of civilised decency this country has achieved despite multiple insurgencies and social conflicts.
This country, as with most other societies with long histories, has its own ancient history of such judicial killing. It is a history rooted in older styles of governance more informed by the compulsions of clan and caste dominance and exploitation and systems of administration that lacked the sophistication of modernity and its consequent capacities for civilisational improvement.
While we have little historical information about debates in ancient times over judicial killing, most religious traditions have teachings and narratives that discuss the taking of life and its consequences for the perpetrators and for society at large.
In Islam, for example, even in the case of murder, the original teaching urges the victim’s family and clan to consider favourably the sparing of the life of the perpetrator if there are other ways of obtaining redress, such as compensation and confession. The Vatican City abolished the death penalty in 1969, bringing it in line with other European states.
All religions, in any case, emphasise the sanctity of humanity and human life with most teachings insisting that all forms of life must be protected. In all traditions and sects of Hinduism and Buddhism the doctrine of ‘Ahimsa’ is paramount.
The Mahathma Gandhi is the best known advocate of the practical, modern, political, application of Ahimsa. Indeed, a whole sub-continent of peoples and nations freed itself of the cruel yoke of colonial domination and exploitation inspired by the strategy of ‘non-violence’ adopted by the Mahathma. Our nation, too, benefited from the mighty freedom movement that spread across the South Asian Sub-continent and became the moral, civil, force that dislodged colonialism. Many were the Sri Lankan leaders inspired by the Mahathma’s resistance movement, including some, like the late J. R. Jayewardene who travelled to India to learn from that movement.
To date, even as wars have raged across the Sub-Continent, our region is world renowned for its philosophies of peace and non-violence.
This country, known for long as a ‘Dharma Dveepa’, must take pride in its inherent spiritual resources and let the world know that such a decision as the revival of the death penalty will not be taken without serious national discussion and debate culminating in the most civilised decision possible.
What happens when a person is found guilty of a crime and is sentenced to death? He or she remains in the care of the State – which is the protector of all people under its jurisdiction – until he or she is deliberately and systematically killed by that same State. Whether it is by hanging, or electrocution or lethal injection or lethal gassing or by shooting or any other means, the end result is the deliberate taking of a human life.
Most importantly, once that life is taken, there can be no redress, as in the case of a miscarriage of justice and the wrong person was found guilty or, the degree of guilt was found to be not as severe as warranting the death penalty.Unlike any other form of state-sponsored punishment (unless it is physical maiming, as in cutting off hands), the judicially killed person cannot be brought back to life. There are enough cases throughout the world of executed persons being subsequently found to be not guilty of the crime with which they were charged.
The danger of the miscarriage of justice is perhaps the most powerful argument against the death penalty. A second powerful argument is that of the mental and physical torture that the person condemned to death must undergo while awaiting certain death at a fixed point of time. It is not enough that the guilty person is to be judicially killed. The elaborate preparations and extended waiting period is an added inhuman treatment that no civilised State or society can condone or justify.
The only comparison is with the behaviour of serial killers and other deliberate murderers or criminal torturers. Any argument that the death penalty only matches the treatment that these criminals mete out to their victims is to reduce the State and Society to that same level of barbarity and cruelty.
In terms of ‘deterrence’, no amount of social scientific research has been able to demonstrate that the application of the death penalty has served to reduce crime. Murder for example, is often perpetrated in the heat of the moment, prompted by extreme emotions and mental states. At that point, there is no reasoning or logic at work in the mind of the perpetrator. Likewise, other types of crimes, too, are perpetrated due to compulsions that the perpetrator cannot resolve in any other way. People will commit such crimes in the hope that they can get away with them.
What is critical is that the punishment is experienced as a means of enabling the guilty person to repent and change his or her behaviour.
Today, the vast majority of the 192 nation states in the world have abolished the death penalty having gone through this process of reasoning. The global trend, therefore, is towards civilised management of social behaviour and not towards a return to barbarism.
We look to our social and political leadership to move in the direction of enlightenment rather than spiritual darkness.