WE DO NOT BELIEVE that the move by authorities here to give effect to the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that the imposition of a mandatory death sentence is illegal represents a backward step for the country.
At a time when the island is facing a spike in lawless violence, which in too many instances ends in death, we can understand why Barbadians might be concerned about the death penalty shift – but as our world changes there will be times when we have to alter the way we do things.
Certainly, there is nothing in the change, as outlined so far, to suggest that judges can no longer impose the death penalty. What the ruling says is that the death penalty is no longer automatic when a jury returns a guilty verdict. Instead, such trials will now include a sentencing phase that will follow the delivery of the jury’s conclusion.
We do not believe we have to convince any right-thinking person that every killing is not of the same character, which is why in the past murder trials have ended abruptly midway with the charge being “downgraded” to manslaughter. Evidence presented during a trial can change the colour of the hearing.
It is against this background that we see nothing wrong with the introduction of this new sentencing phase. While we do not wish to start an argument over the validity or appropriateness of the “eye for an eye” injunction of The Bible, we maintain that the system is not weakened by the addition of a step that allows for the consideration of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Once the arguments have been advanced, the imposition of a death sentence is still very much open to the court. In every other area of sentencing in criminal trials the possibility or probability of rehabilitation of the offender is considered. Magistrates do it daily in the lower courts and judges as well at the High Court, but a significant number of Barbadians have long operated on the basis that when it comes to a case involving death, the crime is such an anathema on societal values the concept of rehabilitation of the offender is not even to be considered.
The death penalty is still on the statute books of this country and it is still within the province of our judges to use it. We will not quarrel with its imposition therefore, but we are satisfied that introducing a sentencing phase, as has long existed in the American system, is a step in the right direction.
Perhaps there is far more utility is pressing those in charge of the administration of our justice system to speed up the delivery of justice than in insisting on the retention of the mandatory death sentence. The impact of a harsh penalty as a deterrent on other would-be offenders is blunted when a trial starts nearly a decade after the offence, and when the only ones paying attention are the families of the victim and accused.
What’s necessary is for the system to be both firm and swift so that not only the crime registers in the consciousness of members of the community, but the punishment as well.
After much delay we have made good on our commitment to the Inter-American court. We need now to say to the population we are serious about improving our justice system by telling the Caribbean Court of Justice we have heard their repeated criticism and we will treat trials with the alacrity they deserve.
