Archives

by Fr. Dalston Forbes OMI

There are reports that Minister John Amaratunga, Minister of the Interior, intends to restore the implementation of the Death Penalty. From July 1976 in Sri Lanka, capital punishment remains in the Statute Books, but is not implemented. Recently the TV news broadcasts showed pictures of the old gallows of the 19th century in Kandy and Welikade prisons and announced the intentions of the Minister.

The reintroduction of the Death Penalty seems unwise and ill advised and a step in the wrong direction.

Most countries have now done away with the implementation of the Death Penalty as inhuman and a degrading and inhuman form of punishment.

The South African Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional in 1995. Amnesty International has campaigned against the implementation of the death penalty. It called the Stockholm Conference in December 1977 which issued the Declaration on the abolition of the death penalty.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights states: Art. 3 "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of persons." Art. No. 5 "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

In December 1971 the General Assembly of the UN affirmed the desirability of abolishing capital punishment in all countries. This was in line with the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights which stated that in countries which had not abolished the death penalty it should be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the laws in force at the time of the commission of such crimes.

Amensty International states in various documents that "it opposes the death penalty and torture or other cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment of all persons without reservation."

The Sri Lankan journalist and one time Editor of the Times Donovan Moldrich has given the history of the death sentence from earliest times. In his book "Hangman, spare that noose" (Committee for abolition of Death Penalty, Colombo 1983), he exposes the cruelty of the death sentence and shows how it fails to deter grave crime. The first part gives a panoramic view of the world situation. In the second he describes the situation in Sri Lanka.

The Christian Churches, though earlier in favour of the death sentence, are now increasingly against it. This is true of the Catholic Church speaking in the person of Pope John Paul II, who in several contexts has opposed the death sentence.

Thus to quote the Encyclical on Human Life, "Evangelium Vitae", No. 56, he writes: 'This is the context in which to place the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and the Civil Society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be completely abolished. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society."

He goes on to refer to the three reasons for the punishment of crime, retributive, deterrent and educational or reformative and then adds "it is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon and ought not to go to the excrement of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity, in other words when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.

Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organisation of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Though the Pope admits the legitimacy of taking the life of an unjust aggressor in the immediate act of aggression, he nonetheless qualifies his statement with various safeguards for life (No. 55).

The Cathechism of the Catholic Church states, No. 2267, "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human life against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person."

The deep philosophical reason why capital punishment is wrong seems to be based on the rights and duties of the State.

As Jacques Maritain wrote in his book "The Person and the Common Good", the human person transcends the State and is not entirely subject to it. The State can control the actions of persons and promote or restrict them but not the substance of the person. Hence to take human life exceeds the power of the State.

It may be argued that the State has the right to order its citizens to war where many may lose their lives. This is a huge question which we cannot enter into here: is the just war possible? Some moral philosophers are not convinced.

In this context it would be unwise and a retrograde step to implement the death sentence. Let other means be found to rid society of grave crime.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager