July 27, 2021
BY MOHAMED M. SESAY (LUCKY)
Sierra Leone joining the bandwagon for the abolition of the death penalty as prescribed and in tandem with best practices captured in International Human Rights conventions has gained public commendation.
The draconian law which many people dubbed as barbaric was unanimously repealed and expunged by Honorable Members of the Fifth Parliament of the second republic of Sierra Leone on the 23rd of July 2021.
The bill was passed amidst some mix feelings among Sierra Leoneans on the elimination of the death penalty.
Whilst majority of Sierra Leoneans hailed and chanted praises on Members of Parliament for expunging what they described as one of the most inhumane laws in our 1991 constitution. The eradication of the rigid and arbitrary law has gained worldwide acclamation, with some world leaders describing the event as a big win for the country’s Human Rights and Democracy. The abolition of the death penalty however has some modicum opponents who largely premised their arguments on morality grounds coupled with religious phenomenology, Utilitarian approach and on practical argumentative grounds.
The courier would have loved to really maintain the balance by sitting on the fence despite the fact that I might be tempted to shun proponents of the abolition of the death penalty, and wholehearted lean on the postulations made by opponents for the just expunged death penalty, taking into cognizance my religious credo and doctrine.
I have also heard another fragmented murmuring mostly by party loyalists of the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party giving a colossal and meritorious quantum of praises to the first gentle man of the land President Julius Maada Bio for his respectability for Human Rights and quest for promoting democracy. They can never be wronged in appropriating such avant-garde on the president for the abolishment of the death penalty in our 1991 constitution. Some described the president as God fearing who has tremendous respect for right to life as enshrined in our constitution, whilst others asserted that the abolishment of the death penalty is part of President Bio`s “TOK EN DO” (promised and delivered) manifesto promise to the nation when he was running for the presidency of which he has delivered.
I will discuss in detail the attribution of the president to the abolition of the death penalty in my next edition but for now, let me go into the philosophical and religious debate on the death penalty proper.
Capital punishment otherwise known as the death penalty has long engendered considerable debate about both its morality and its effect on criminal behavior. As per Contemporary arguments for and against capital punishment, the Courier will therefore catalogue this debate under the following perspectives which are Morality, Religion, Utilitarian, practical and Human Rights perspectives.
Moral arguments mainly from supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they have taken the life of another person, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe capital punishment is a just form of retribution, expressing and reinforcing the moral indignation not only for the victim’s relatives but for law-abiding citizens in general. By contrast, opponents of capital punishment, following the writings of ‘Cesare Beccaria’ (in particular On Crimes and Punishments [1764]), argue that, by legitimizing the very behavior that the law seeks to repress “killing” capital punishment is counterproductive in the moral message it conveys.
Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser crimes, capital punishment is immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done. Abolitionists also claim that capital punishment violates the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhuman and degrading. I am equally tempted to ask whether the popular aphorism that “ar go kill u en go run d jail” (I will kill and go and run the prison term) could be part of the moral arguments put forward by opponents of the abolition of death penalty describing it as disproportionate to the crime itself.
Utilitarian arguments who are also considered to be Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint.
Opponents, however, point to a research that generally demonstrated that the death penalty is not a mere effective deterrent than the alternative sanction of life or long-term imprisonment.
In tandem with the Human Rights perspective, Amnesty International holds the believe that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular right to life, and the right to live free without torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Amnesty International considers both rights to be protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the United Nations in 1948.
Reasons were put forward by Amnesty International for the abolition of the death penalty noting that it does not deter crimes meaning the claim that death penalty deter crimes has been discredited.
They also justified their argument on the grounds that the death penalty is always used within a skewed justice systems; it is also used as a political tool to eliminate opponents critical of a ruling government. They concluded their argument by citing that the death penalty is disproportionally implemented on those with disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds or on those belonging to racial, ethnic or religious minorities.
Moreover, people with practical argumentative lenses may assert that there are disputes about whether capital punishment can be administered in a manner consistent with justice. Meaning, those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and procedures that ensured only those who are really deserving of death are executed. By contrast, opponents of the death penalty maintain that the historical application of capital punishment shows that any attempt to single out certain kinds of crime as deserving of death will inevitably be arbitrary and discriminatory. They also point to other factors that they think preclude the possibility that capital punishment can be fairly applied, arguing that the poor, ethnic and religious minorities often do not have access to good legal assistance.
They also noted that racial prejudice motivates predominantly white juries in capital cases to convict black and other nonwhite defendants in disproportionate numbers, and that, because errors are inevitable even in a well-run criminal justice system, some people will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Finally, they argue that, because the appeals process for death sentences is protracted, those condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainty about their fate.
On the Religious perspectives, the major world religions have taken varied positions on the morality of capital punishment and as such, they have historically impacted the way in which Governments handle such punishment practices. Although the viewpoints of some religions have changed over time, their influence on capital punishment generally depends on the existence of a religious moral code and how closely religion influences the government. Religious moral codes are often based on a body of teachings, such as the Old Testament or the holy Qur’an.
Many Islamic nations have governments that are directly run by the code of Sharia law. The Qur’an explicitly states that the taking of a life results in the taking of one’s own. There is another verse in the Quran which states that taking one life will be considered as if you have taken the lives in the entire universe. There are certain actions in Islam, such as adultery, that are recognized to result in the death penalty. However, not all Islamic nations have the death penalty, for example Djibouti is an Islamic abolitionist nation. Tazir is an Islamic principle whereby the courts and the rulers can apply discretion in the way a certain crime is punished.
On the other side of the pendulum, Christianity has changed its perspective on the death penalty over time and different Christian denominations have different teachings on death penalty. Many early Christians were strongly opposed to the death penalty and magistrates who enforced it could be excommunicated. Attitudes gradually began to relax in the fifth century. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas argued that capital punishment was a form of “lawful slaying”, which became the standard Catholic teaching on the issue for centuries. During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin defended the death penalty, but Quakers, Brethren, and Mennonites have opposed it since their founding. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church has generally opposed the death penalty and, in August 2018, Pope Francis revised the Catechism of the Catholic Church to explicitly condemn it in all cases as an inadmissible attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.
Thus, despite the various philosophical, Moral and religious argument either for or against the abolition of the death penalty, it is good that Sierra Leone has join in the bandwagon for the abolition of the death penalty. However, the Courier is very concerned as to what other punitive measures that will be placed on people who premeditatedly kill another citizen. Intentional and well-orchestrated killings of innocent citizens whether by bandits attacking people at night, or police officers shooting and killing civilians in a peaceful protest has become as easier and common as eating ripe banana in the morning. The sloganeering among notorious killers are “ar go kill you en go run d jail” (I will kill you and go run the prison term) has been like music in the ears of Sierra Leoneans. Therefore, tougher measures should replace the abolition of the death penalty especially for intentional killings.