Seeing the gallows in a new light

A few months back during our Criminal Law tutorial, we had a discussion about our stands on death penalty. We presented arguments, some against it, some for it. Towards the end of the discussion, many who were in support of it were swayed. When the lecturer asked, ‘who’s still for death penalty?’ at the end of the discussion, mine was one of the very few hands raised, one third of the number of hands raised compared to at the beginning of the discussion, firmly believing that death penalty is the answer.

Then, I picked up Jodi Picoult’s lastest book, Change of Heart, about a death row inmate who was convicted of killing a little girl and her stepfather who was a police officer. The inmate, Shay, was a carpenter working for the family. On the day of the murders, he was found at the crime scene with a gun and blood of the two victims on him, in addition of the little girl’s panties in his pocket.

11 years after the judgement, he is still waiting for his execution – waiting to die. The fact alone in itself, is inhumane enough. Top that with “what if the court has got it all wrong”. There is a reason why criminal cases need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt – regardless of what was thought in text books and what was written in law reports; it’s as simple as this - because of the severity of the punishment if one is convicted. In other words, if you were to punish what someone did by killing him, you want to be dead sure that he deserves to be killed. The accused made a bad mistake, but the justice system will be damned if they make a bigger mistake with a wrongful conviction. But, can there ever be a 100% beyond reasonable doubt; and who are we or who are the justice system, to determine who deserves to die or other wise.

There can never be a fair trial - there may be in due process, but nothing more beyond that. Because, even though the judiciary is a separate branch of government, it is still made up of people. The judges, the counsels, and the jury. Who’d you believe, the prosecution channeling the voice of a police officer who was a loving family man, or the carpenter who was bounced in and out of foster care system? Wouldn't your opinion be biased?  

Many have said that death penalty is not so much as to seek justice for victims, because you can't bring back the dead. But it's more for the family which were left behind. It’s not revenge, it’s justice, or so they say. And it’s a closure, for them to let go completely. But the truth is, the slate can never be wiped clean, you don’t get over loss like that, you get through it, quoting the author. And after 11 years of wishing that Shay is nothing but dead, sitting in the front row of the witness seats, after everything, June Nealon closed her eyes, when Shay was executed. She didn’t even watch him die. And she might never know this, but Shay saved her twice, saved her then unborn daughter twice. His miracle was told to 2 people, they listened, because he started performing miracles like Jesus did. And yet that doesn’t change the outcome.

How many death row inmates like Shay do we have in the justice system with death penalty around the world? And do they need to start performing miracles like God to get us to listen to them?

Deterrence and rehabilitation, how do we balance it? Does death penalty even serve the purpose of deterrence? What about those who had their time well served before the execution date? But, that brings us back to the question, who are we to determine who to die.

So, is death penalty really the answer? I am not so sure anymore. If I am back in the tutorial discussion, this much I know – I won’t raise my hand in support of the sentence. After all, when is ‘an eye for an eye’ ever the answer?

Mayyie xxx