Report revives death penalty debate

A REPORT released on Tuesday by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) has once again sparked strong discussion among law experts on the long-debated topic of whether South Africa execute its most violent criminals.

In the paper, the IRR argued the need to reintroduce the death penalty against the context of rising levels of serious crimes.

‘Almost 500 000 people have been murdered by violent criminals since 1994,’ said IRR security analyst Kerwin Lebone.

‘Many more have been maimed, otherwise injured or traumatised.

‘It must be expected that society might ask questions about the wisdom of having abandoned the death penalty.’

IRR CEO Dr Frans Cronjé highlighted the Rhode Park case, for which three men are currently on trial, accused of raping two women and murdering their husbands in October last year.

‘These are crimes characterised by gratuitous violence in which victims are tortured, family members raped or executed in front of their loved ones or children harmed.

‘South Africa has far too many examples of such crimes,’ said Cronje.

‘The examples are frightening – women tortured by having kettles of boiling water thrown over them; people burned with irons or on stove tops; and families executed.

‘These are crimes where the perpetrator goes well beyond the violence needed to execute the robbery or whatever motivated the crime in the first place.’

IRR considered five objections to the death penalty in its research, namely ‘that it is cruel and unusual’, ‘that it is a form of retribution’, ‘that it is arbitrary’, ‘that the penalty is not a deterrent to crime’ and ‘that an irreversible error can be made’.

The institute found it was able to overcome the first four objections.

‘IRR found that the death penalty is not necessarily cruel and unusual. Society is entitled to a measure of retribution.

‘The arbitrariness is not unique to that form of punishment.

‘The international evidence is mixed, but in South Africa’s unique circumstances, the death penalty could well be a deterrent to the commission of the most cruel and violent of crimes.

‘The most compelling argument against the punishment was the possibility of error – particularly in the case of the South African criminal justice system.’

Fairness for all
In response to the report, acting head of the Law Department at the University of Zululand, Kanagie Naidoo said the death penalty was declared unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the right to life, the right to human dignity and that it amounted to inhumane, cruel and degrading punishment.

‘The question that begs an answer is why is the perpetrator’s right to life and human dignity more important than that of the victim?

‘The argument based on an error in judgement will always be levelled against the death penalty.

‘The burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is actually a mechanism that can be used to eliminate the possibility of error.

‘Taking the matter on appeal or review allows another court to assess the substantive and procedural correctness and fairness of the proceedings in the court.

‘I submit that the punishment options available currently are of a dosage and strength that is so weak that it fails to achieve the purposes of punishment which is deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation and prevention.

‘Perhaps the revival of the death penalty will give true effect, implementation and application to the ethos of the Bill of Rights entrenched in the Constitution, which is to promote human rights while ensuring equality, fairness and justice to all who are entitled to its protection.’

HAVE YOUR SAY

Like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter.

For news straight to your phone invite us:

WhatsApp – 072 069 4169

Instagram – zululand_observer