Capital punishment or death penalty, according to Wikipedia,
is a process, backed by law, by which the state puts someone to death as punishment
for a crime committed. Such crimes that demand capital punishment are called
capital crimes or capital offences.
Crimes seen as capital vary from country to country and even
state to state. In countries where Capital punishment is still administered,
violent crimes like murder, rape and kidnapping are the most common capital
crimes; however, non-violent crimes are also seen as capital in some countries.
For instance, China, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Iran and Iraq, amongst others, see
drug trafficking as an offence punishable by death. Counterfeiting of
currencies and human trafficking are capital offences in China; treason remains
capital offence in the United States, Brazil amongst other nations.
Capital offences in
Nigeria
In Nigeria, there are five major crimes which are punishable
by death and they are: murder; armed robbery; directing, controlling or
presiding over an unlawful trial which results to death; treason and treachery.
Due to the spate of Kidnapping in the South-eastern part of the country,
however, Enugu and Abia States have made kidnapping a capital offence.
Furthermore, some states in the Northern part of the country where Sharia law is
in practice also have some other offences such as sexual crimes as punishable
by death.
To be or not to be?
Over the years, worldwide, there have been arguments as to
whether capital punishment should be abolished or retained. This has brought
about 2 groups of countries/states with regards to this issue...the Abolitionists
and the Retentionists. Whereas the Abolitionists like Australia, Canada, Gabon,
France, the United Kingdom and a fraction of the United States of America (17
States and the District of Columbia out of 50 states) are countries/states that
have totally outlawed capital punishment for all offences; the Retentionists
are countries/states that still have it in place. There is also a group of
countries/states that tend to stand in the middle on this issue and have put in
place a moratorium (suspension) on capital punishment with a view to either
abolishing or retaining it eventually...I would call them
"Moratorists". Countries have also been known to drift between being Abolitionists
and Retentionists over time; China and Japan are two of such countries.
As at 2012, according to records released by Amnesty
International, a non-governmental organisation focused on human rights with
over 3 million members/supporters world-wide; 97 countries in the world are
total Abolitionists; 8 countries are Partial-abolitionists (they use it only
under special circumstances); 36 countries are Moratorists and even though they
have people on death row and still sentence people to die, they have not
executed anyone in the last 10 years while 57 countries are Retentionists.
Nigeria, though now one of the Retentionists after the recent execution in Edo
State, has been a Moratorist Country, having not executed anyone since 2006, at
least, legally.
In spite of all
these, it is the wish of the United Nations that there is a universal ban on
capital punishment. Presently, there is a non-binding resolution requesting
that its member states (187 Countries) raise a moratorium on executions with a
view to totally abolishing capital punishment. But the argument still rages on?
Capital Punishment; to be or not to be?
The views of those
against it:
Individuals and organisations world-wide have continued to
speak and fight against capital punishment. Most prominent in this struggle is
Amnesty International. They argue that:
- It is prone to miscarriage of justice: Abolitionists argue that innocent people have been executed in the past and would keep being executed as long as capital punishment is still in practice. This argument is given weight when one considers the fact that the use of DNA is crime detection, especially in the United States, has sickeningly revealed that a number of people sentenced to death and executed were actually innocent. About 15 people who were sentenced to die between 1992 and 2004 had been cleared using DNA evidences. The worrisome part is that this technology is not far-reaching and that in most Retentionist countries, especially the under-developed and developing; people are executed without extensive inquiry and trial which could be aided by DNA evidence. Even in the United States, DNA evidence is used just for a fraction of capital cases.
- It is a violation of Human Rights: They further argue that capital punishment is extremely degrading and violates a person's right to life which is the most important human right. Abolitionists are of the opinion that the condemned are subjected to psychological torture by being made aware, usually of how and when their lives would be taken. They argue that no criminal deserves such torture and eventual death asides the criminal whom had before murdering his victim, incarcerated and informed him of when he shall be killed. They argue that criminals who have committed heinous crimes should be given life in prison without parole.
- It is discriminatory against the poor of society and minorities: They argue that capital punishment must be abolished since most legal systems around the world do not have the courage to administer such on the high and mighty. It has been noticed that many of the condemned are the poor and lowly of society who cannot muscle their way to freedom through sheer nepotism nor afford the cost of proper legal representation. It has also been noticed, especially in societies with mixed races, that people of the minority race tend to be more at the receiving end of capital punishments.
The Views of those
supporting it:
People have, on the other hand, supported the retention of
capital punishment and have even written petitions to countries that have
become Abolitionists to revert towards being Retentionists. Their argument is
that:
- It deters crime: They suggest that if one is aware that being convicted of certain crimes would result to his death; he would keep away from such crimes than he would to crimes that would fetch him life in prison.
- It is a justifiable penalty to certain atrocious crimes: They argue that certain crimes deserve nothing less than death as penalty. They see no reason why a murderer who tortures his victim till he dies should have a claim to his own life; they see no reason why someone who rapes an infant to death should have a claim to his own life or why someone who brutally kills another should be spared his own life.
The Oracle's View:
Yes, there have been and there would still be innocent
people who have been executed due to miscarriage of justice; yes there is the perceived
discrimination against the poor and minority of society with regards capital
punishment but I do disagree that it is "extremely degrading" and
should be seen as "violation of human rights" especially for certain
crimes.
Think of an assassin who gets paid to take the life of
another whom he had, hitherto, never met; whom had neither provoked nor done
him any harm...yet he murders him in cold blood. Think of ritualists who
kidnap, kill and mutilate their victims for money making purposes; think of the
Boko-Haramists who enter a Church and try to methodically kill every member of
the congregation for reasons best known to them. Think of miscreants who invade
villages killing defenceless people especially children, women and the aged. Think
of serial killers who enjoy killing, see it as a game and do it without
remorse. Think of men who rape vulnerable women, insert dangerous items in their
privates and murder them. Think of armed robbers who after robbery, get
trigger-happy and kill their victims....I can go on and on. Can you visualise
each of these? Now tell me...do you not think that such criminals as you may
have imagined, denied their victims their right to life? So do they have a
valid claim to their own right to live?
Besides, freedom is also human right...if such criminals
should be sentenced to life in prison without parole, and going by the argument
that capital punishment violates a person's right to life...does life in prison
not also violate their right to freedom? Maybe we should let them go scot free
since their human rights must be respected.
Again, I don’t see as valid the argument that capital
punishment subjects the condemned to psychological torture and is not fair
unless the condemned had done same to his victim. It is punitive in nature and
should be more painful when compared to the crime. The victim here is the
person who had been murdered and not the murderer/criminal.
Ihukwa Ogbu mmadu ndu n'agu (talk of a murderer to whom life
is precious)...If I had my way, Great One, certain criminals would not be given
the luxury of instant death…I would subject them to very slow and excruciating
death…
It is simple psychology that the weight of the punishment a
crime bears serves as deterrent. If allowed to choose, murderers would prefer
life in prison to capital punishment...it is easy to understand. Humans value
their own lives unless they have gone suicidal. People would usually stay away
from crimes that would result to their death than they would to those that
would lead to their incarceration. A case in point would be the rate at which
Nigerian drug-peddlers tend to avoid countries where drug peddling is capital
crime. It is also clear when one considers how criminals in the United States
try as much as possible not to kill a cop...It is a sure road to death. Heinous
crimes can obviously be discouraged by being assigned a capital status; this is
not to say that such crimes would still not be committed.
Nigeria, as it is today, is a jungle with people committing
different heinous and capital crimes with impunity. It would be counterproductive
to water-down on the punishment reserved for such crimes and criminals
especially at this moment. If someone or a group of people can go ahead; in
Nigeria or elsewhere; to wantonly kill others knowing fully well that the
punishment for such a crime is death; what do you think the person(s) would do
if the punishment was watered-down to incarceration? Repent?
Nigeria is hardly a crime preventing nation; she is not
proactive in crime fighting...she is reactionary. The major score this nation
has against crime is the punishment reserved for caught criminals and it is my
opinion that it should be used extensively till the time when proactive crime
prevention becomes a part of us and the country becomes more civilized and less
of a jungle.
Advice to Amnesty
International and other Abolitionists
Therefore, to the Abolitionists, especially Amnesty
International...though I do understand your reservations with regards retaining
capital punishment; I suggest you do not try to generalise its outright
abolition; all countries are not the same and certainly would not need same
strategy. It would be wiser to look at the prevalent atmosphere in the given
state or country with respect to the frequency of the capital crimes committed
and the ability to prevent such crimes. In an environment where such crimes can
be prevented and/or where such crimes are not common; it may make sense to
preach against abolition of capital punishment. But in an environment which
seemingly cannot control the everyday occurrence of capital crimes that threaten
to decimate its people; let capital punishment run its course.
Furthermore, it would make more sense if you pay more
attention to ensuring that the convicted get fair trials and that the use of
DNA technology in crime fighting and DNA evidence in trials become widespread;
this would help reduce the likelihood that the innocent get convicted and
executed for crimes they never committed while ensuring that the guilty are
duly punished. This would make more sense than campaigning blindly for the abolition
of capital punishment in toto.
Yes Great one! One does not throw the baby out with the bath
water...
Advice to Nigeria and
other Retentionists
Life is precious and as long as someone has done nothing to
intentionally take away the life of another; s/he should be spared the capital
punishment. I am aware that due to the re-occurrence of certain crimes and the
stubborn and unrepentant nature of those perpetuating them; capital punishment
has been prescribed even to non-violent crimes like currency counterfeiting,
drug peddling, etc. I would,however, suggest that a milder punishment be
prescribed for such crimes as it is totally unfair to punish, for instance, a
drug peddler just the same way you would a murderer.
I would also advice that capital crimes be investigated
critically, extensively and conclusively before judgement is passed. The use of
modern technology which mines DNA information from crime scenes and processes
them have helped solve countless crimes and even helped ensure that the innocent
are not punished; such technology should be adopted and DNA evidence should be
made essential in trials relating to capital crimes.
Again, capital punishment in not for the poor of society; it
is for capital criminals. If it must be retained, then it should be dished to all who
deserve it, no matter how highly placed...whatever is good for the goose, is
good for the gander.
Prevention, they say, is better than cure...Nigeria should
change from being reactionary to crime fighting to being proactive. One of the
major reasons why criminals have a field day in Nigeria is the near-devastating
rate of unemployment. Nigerian youth, who are supposed to be preserved and
groomed towards being responsible as leaders of the country in no distant time,
are left without jobs, benefits and quality education...they are left to fend
for themselves in a cruel, cruel world and this has pushed a number of them
into crimes including capital crimes. I daresay that the rate of unemployment
in a given country is directly proportional to the crime rate in that same
country...the more the unemployment rate; the more the crime rate. If Nigeria
is to become near-crime-free society, jobs should be made available to the
teeming Nigerian youth.
I would also want to point out that every unsolved crime is an incentive and invitation for more of those crimes to be committed. In Nigeria the amount of
solved crimes are very minute when compared to the unsolved ones especially the
capital crimes. People have been assassinated without their murderers being
caught, people have been kidnapped now and again without the kidnappers being
caught, robbers have attacked banks and Nigerians and have walked away scot
free...the list goes on and on. All these encourage and fuel the bravery of
these criminals and the criminal-minded to go on with or join the crime world.
Well, Nigeria's is a multi-faceted problem...and till we
start addressing them, I urge the President, Goodluck Jonathan, not to allow
himself to be bullied by Amnesty International or other Abolitionists into
abolishing the Country's major line of defence against heinous crimes. Capital
Punishment should be retained until such a time that Nigerians would shy away
from crime for the sake that it is morally wrong and unproductive rather than because
of the possible punishment following such a crime. Even the United States, as
developed as they are, still make use of capital punishment as deterrent to
certain crimes.
Finally, Capital punishment is just PUNISHMENT...it goes to
say that if the associated crimes are not committed, nobody gets punished,
simple! Laws are meant to guide and to be obeyed not to maim or be disobeyed.
Ukpara okpoko gburu...nti chiri ya.
The Oracle Has Spoken!!
Comments
Post a Comment