Why hanging is dotish
By KEVIN BALDEOSINGH
I SOMETIMES think that Trinidad and Tobago needs a law which bans anything that foolish people really, really want. If such a law existed, pitbulls, yellow three-piece suits, and hanging would already be illegal. In today's column, I shall look at the common arguments which have been advanced in favour of hanging and show why they are all dotish. (You'll have to wait for my thoughts on the yellow three-piece suits.) Hanging is morally right. On the contrary, anyone who supports the death penalty is no more moral than Dole Chadee. This doesn't mean you aren't a very nice or fairly decent person. You just can't claim to be a morally superior one. You see, the argument for morality does not hinge on whether you, unlike Chadee, would kill an entire family because one member owed you money. The question is, given the right circumstances, would you also kill from motives of vengeance? For Chadee, the right circumstances had to do with his own background and lack of morality. For people in Trinidad and Tobago, the UNC regime's anxiety to resume hangings has provided the right circumstances to kill by proxy and, lo and behold! the vast majority are just as anxious to kill Chadee and his gang as the gang was to kill the Baboolal family. God has sanctioned the death penalty. Indeed He has. However, if as a Christian you accept the decree of Genesis 9:6, you must logically also support the death penalty for acts such as blasphemy (Leviticus 24:15), adultery (Lev. 20:10), male homosexual acts (Lev. 20:14), and a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:21). Allah also supports the death penalty in surahs 2:178 and 5:45, but Muslim spokespersons have carefully refrained from quoting the second parts of both those verses, which state, respectively, "For him who is forgiven somewhat by his injured brother, prosecute according to usage and pay unto him in kindness" and "whoso foregoes it in charity, it shall be expiation for him". Only true Hindus cannot support the death penalty since it contradicts the fundamental principles of ahimsa (non-violence) and daya bhutesu (compassion for all creatures). Oh, but I forgot: Sat Maharaj recently expunged ahimsa from Hinduism in Trinidad. What about sympathy for the victims? This is the argument which has been parroted most frequently over the past few weeks, so it is not surprising that it is the most stupid point raised. First of all, it confuses adherence to principle with sympathy for murderers. Secondly, expressions of sympathy can only be directed to the living. (Even if the argument is extended to "families of the victims", it is still a peculiar mentality which views hanging people as an expression of sympathy.) But some letter-writers have even castigated the abolitionist lawyers for not preventing the deaths of the Baboolals yet, strangely, Yesenia Gonzalves has escaped these same writers' censure. Finally, there is the "rights of the victims" twist. The reply is, dead people have no rights. The victims are dead because their right to life was taken away. But taking away the life of the murderer does not restore that right, unless the letter-writers know some sort of obeah I don't. Hanging is a deterrent. There is no evidence from any society in the world that this is so. One could argue, of course, that what is true for other countries may not be true for us. But, if hanging did deter anyone, shouldn't the illegal hanging of Glen Ashby in 1995 have led to some drop in violent crime? Even Dana Seetahal, who is supposed to be a lawyer, spouts the old and foolish argument that "It permanently deters the individual who has been executed." So, of course, does a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. But Seetahal, trying to conceal her bloodthirstiness behind a facade of apparent logic, ignores this. (A common digression from this argument is: "Why should my tax dollars pay to feed and clothe a murderer?" The answer is, you have a collective responsibility, since it is your society which produced said murderer.) Another question you can ask yourself is this: "If the resumption of hangings does not lead to a drop in crime, will I then oppose the death penalty?" If your answer is "No", then you don't believe in the deterrence argument in the first place. In fact, one letter-writer has already said that the death penalty need not be anything but a penalty: in other words, that in his opinion the primary purpose of law is not the creation of a just and ordered society, but revenge. (Refer to section above on morality.) Those are my arguments. If anyone can pick holes in them - logically, I mean - I'd be fascinated to hear them. But I doubt that is possible: interestingly, all the people intelligent enough to refute my points are also opposed to capital punishment.
|