‘Blood money’ instead of death penalty

THE EDITOR: Every Parliamentarian, in his oath, swears that he “will uphold the Constitution and the law.” The very first resolution of this important document begins as follows: “Whereas the People of Trinidad and Tobago (a) have affirmed that the Nation of Trinidad and Tobago is founded upon the principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God.”

1: (a) God is not a “rubber stamp” for the actions of the Parliament, nor should He be taken for granted. The upholders of the Constitution should implement His Laws that are common and acceptable to all religions. One such law is the death penalty for willful and premeditated murder. I have shown in a previous article that in the majority of the religions found in Trinidad and Tobago, the death penalty is prescribed for this offence. It is time that all the people involved in upholding the constitution put aside their personal preferences and carry out this law, not only because it is divinely prescribed but also it is supported by the constitution itself. One of the “rights” enshrined in the constitution is “the right of the individual to . . . security of person.” 4: (a) It is therefore obligatory on the State to give redress to anyone who was deprived of this right.

Many families are suffering, due to the fact that an inconsiderate person unjustly took away the life of the only breadwinner from them through a willful act of murder. Such an act deprives the family, in some cases minors, to the “right to life” as the victims are not taken care of by the state, nor do they receive compensation. As a matter of fact, the accused is fed and protected by the State, while the victims suffer. In addition to all these sufferings the victims have to bear the trauma of long delays in trials and unjust forms of punishments where the murderer ultimately walks free. While it can be argued that the death penalty is a “cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” 5: (2) (b), one must bear in mind that the victim was denied the “right to life” because of a “cruel and unusual act,” and therefore the bereaved family must benefit from the Constitution’s guarantee of “equality of treatment.”

4: (d) Murder is a cruel act and the punishment has to be carried out even though it may appear to be cruel. Perhaps, the State can consider an amendment to constitution by introducing payment of “blood money.” This means that the “guilty” can save himself from the death penalty by paying the bereaved family a sum of money that is enough to compensate for the loss. If the makers of the law think that this can be a practical and acceptable way of finding an alternative that is acceptable to all, then they may take help in drafting the amendment from the Islamic Law Books as this is one of the Islamic prescriptions for murder.

DR WAFFIE MOHAMMED
Claxton Bay