The State’s authority

Proponents of the death penalty normally avow that the measure is required to deter others from committing crimes. However, this argument has been problematic because some studies suggest capital punishment does not deter. Yet, these studies are limited to specific times and locations outside of Trinidad and Tobago. A comprehensive study of the possible impact of hanging needs to be conducted locally so that policy can be tailored to suit national conditions .

However, assuming the death penalty does not deter, the issue need not end there. For there is a serious reason why the State may want to appear to be implementing the law as it stands when it comes to punishment .

The perception is that the country is undergoing an endless spate of murders. Many of these murders remain unsolved. However, anecdotal patterns have emerged. In some cases, one person is murdered, and the week later a suspect in that murder is himself murdered. Recently, it has been claimed that people believed to be tied to a high-profile killing were themselves targeted in revenge attacks. It seems retribution is being enacted in the streets .

It is hard to ascertain if these accounts are true in the absence of judicial resolution of individual cases .

Yet, the palpable fact of the subsequent murders involved is incontrovertible .

And they have a chilling effect .

The effect of this perception of the reach of extra-judicial killing is this: it acts as a direct challenge to the authority of the State. It sends a signal that vigilante justice is the modus operandi. It opens the door to anarchy, weakening the State’s ability to organise and administer itself .

The dangers of such a situation – which we appear to be in – cannot be underestimated. The very idea of a society under law and order is being affronted .

In this context, an argument may be advanced stating that the State must abide by its own laws and must act as a counter to the informal system of rule by violence which has taken grip. To not implement hanging in a situation where vigilantes are taking the matter into their own hands allows them to take primacy in communities, already plagued by fear .

Some may argue, however, that the genie is already out of the bottle and there is little the State can now do to reassert its authority. Yet, we feel the State has little choice .

However, if this argument is accepted, it must be conditional upon far-ranging legal reforms and protections .

In the first place, the law as currently formulated is far too archaic to be regarded as relevant to a post-millennium society. Hanging itself is an outdated, some would say barbaric, method of capital punishment .

In nations where capital punishment is administered, it is done using techniques that are far more humane, such as through lethal injection .

Secondly, if the State does feel compelled to implement the death penalty, it must move with speed to distinguish between offences of varying severity. Categories of murder must be devised so that the death penalty is reserved in only the most serious of cases .

For now, as this debate ensues, we do not say definitively that the death penalty is the answer to the country’s crime problems. In fact, we lament the lack of adequate information and surveys on the attitude of the population on the deterrent impact (if any). However, we feel the discussion must examine the delicate matter of the State’s authority and the need for it to be preserved. It may well be that, when all things can be considered, the State may want to avoid the death penalty precisely in service of that authority