|
gilly@tstt.net.tt
Question
of the death penalty
-
Matter of the retention of the death penalty must be
addressed.
-
Need for system whereby widespread consultation is used
for making public policy.
-
Criminal justice system in dire need of upgrade.
It
may not be the easiest of issues to resolve but we must
address the matter of the retention of the death penalty.
At a time when criminal activity remains the number one
bugbear in the land, it easy to let emotion guide the discussion
but that must not be the approach.
For those who firmly believe that the death penalty is a
critical tool in the fight against crime, then there would
be obvious disappointment with the lack of implementation
of the mandatory sentence for those who have been convicted
of murder and exhausted their appeals within the five-year
time frame as set by the Privy Council.
And while the abolitionists advocate strenuously for the
removal of this cruel and harsh punishment by hanging from
the statute books, no viable alternative has been put forward
for meaningful consideration.
If those who have committed the grievous offence of murder
in the most heinous of circumstances are not to face the
hangman’s noose, then what sentence should be imposed
on such criminals? The longer we delay in addressing the
matter, the greater the display of our inability to enforce
the laws of the land.
Some of us are just sick and tired of the upper hand always
being given to those who break the law in the worst form
and fashion and so we are anxious to formulate the way forward
on this matter.
Degrading punishment
In the decision of Pratt and Morgan delivered by the Privy
Council almost 15 years ago, it was stated by the court:
“If
capital punishment is to be retained it must be carried
out with all possible expedition. Capital appeals must be
expedited and legal aid allocated at an early stage. If
in any case execution is to take place more than five years
after sentence there will be strong grounds for believing
that the delay is such as to constitute inhuman or degrading
punishment or other treatment.”
I wish to state without apology that the inordinate delay
in resolving the issue of the death penalty is cruel, unusual
and harsh to those law-abiding citizens who live in daily
fear of losing their lives at the hands of merciless criminals.
Why have some in authority refused to confront the matter
head on and preferred to pussyfoot about the issue? Would
it not be prudent to engage the population in widespread
consultation in order to better appreciate the views of
the citizenry on this matter of national importance?
What explanation can be given for sweeping such an issue
under the carpet and occasionally lifting the rug when forced
to do so by decisions from the Privy Council?
We need to develop a system whereby widespread consultation
is used as a process for making public policy. Far too often
citizens are encouraged to take sides on important matters
based solely on political affiliation.
In other words, the view of the political entity becomes
the accepted view of all those who support the party. No
room is left for independent or fair-minded decision-making
based on a platform of knowledge.
When the Charles Matthew decision was delivered by the Privy
Council sometime in 2004, the relevant ministry ought to
have explained to the public in the simplest terms the effect
and repercussion of the decision. The Judicial Committee
in the Matthew case stated explicitly:
“The
effect of today’s decision is to overrule the recent
case of the Roodal v State of Trinidad and Tobago (2004)
2 WLR 652. Henceforth the death sentence for the murder
will continue to be man-datory. Bur for reasons which their
Lordships will explain, they do not think it would be fair
to deprive anyone presently under the sentence of death
of the benefit of the Roodal decision. They will accordingly
allow the appeal against sentence and substitute a sentence
of imprisonment for life.”
Precise and clear
The Privy Council which remains the highest court in the
land could not have been any clearer in its terms. To have
waited four years and done nothing in accordance with the
decision is unacceptable and the former Attor- ney General,
the high commissioner to the United Kingdom, John Jeremie,
should be called to account for his apparent inaction in
the matter.
While Mr Jeremie is undoubtedly representing the country
with distinction in his appointed position, we at home are
left to suffer with a criminal justice system in dire need
of upgrade.
I can only hope that Mr Jeremie would have by now consulted
his local colleagues about the embarrassing state of affairs
in which four years after the fact, 52 people on death row
have had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment.
Further, Mr Jeremie must indicate the reason for the delinquency
in this matter, which paints our country in a very poor
light. How ironic that his current appointment is one which
requires that he be a flagship representing our country
in the inter- national arena.
Even worse would be the frowns upon the faces of the Law
Lords who sat in the Matthew case and who undoubtedly would
be wondering what explanation could justify a delay of four
years before effecting the recommendations made.
Moving forward
The work of the current Attorney General is certainly cut
out and one does not envy the position in which she finds
herself because of clumsy and inconsiderate legal baton-passing.
This AG must not be blamed for the inexcusable refusal,
in the years before she was appointed to the position, to
comply with the Matthew decision. If face is to be saved
and integrity to be restored, it is incumbent upon all the
stakeholders to address the matter of the death penalty.
The Ministry of the Attorney General, the Law Association,
the Criminal Bar Association, the Assembly of Southern Lawyers,
and even the academic department at the Hugh Wooding Law
School should become the front runners in educating the
population in the matter and ensuring that there is some
level of consensus as to the way forward.
The question of the death penalty must no longer be left
hanging.
|
