If the paraphrasing can be pardoned, to hang or not to hang, that is the question.
The issues of imposing and implementing the death penalty for drug traffickers emerged last week as a hot topic of discussion, following an announcement from President Maithripala Sirisena. The President declared that he was considering implementing capital punishment for those found directing drug trafficking while in prison.
Clearly, it was not an easy decision. The President said that his decision may not be in strict accordance with Buddhism. However, he argued, if he took a decision to reinstate the death penalty for the sake of future generations, he wouldn’t consider it a sin.
There were reports that the President was swayed by a similar campaign in the Philippines which has been hailed as a success. That crusade, spearheaded by the flamboyant Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, has reportedly led to a reduction in drug related offences and crime.
The response to the President’s statement has been swift. The vast majority have been against the introduction of the death penalty while a few have supported it but the debate continues- and so it should be because this is a contentious issue the world over and each country has to revisit the matter in the light of its own circumstances.
As we do so, it is worthwhile recalling that in recent history, the death penalty was abolished by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1956, only to be reintroduced a few years later. The reason for that, tragically and ironically, was the assassination of Bandaranaike himself.
In our country, the death penalty fell into particular disrepute following revelations that the execution of Dedduwa Jayathungalage Siripala, better known as ‘Maru Sira’ was botched when he was given an overdose of medication prior to his execution in 1975. A commission was appointed to inquire into the matter.
Two years later, the newly installed J. R. Jayewardene government, while rewriting the Constitution, put into place regulations that executions should receive the assent of the Attorney General, the Justice Minister and the President. Since then, no President has sanctioned executions.
Given its emotive and religious undertones, the death penalty will always be a controversial issue in this country as it is in many other countries. It is more so in Sri Lanka because of its strong religious influences with both Christianity and Buddhism frowning on the taking of a life.
In assessing the reaction to the President’s announcement, several interesting aspects emerge. The so-called ‘liberal lobby’ with the likes of Amnesty International is predictably against the death penalty. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has also joined in this chorus. Their argument is that the way to deal with drug trafficking is through better law enforcement and not through the execution of offenders.
That is an issue for detailed analysis. It has been argued that the introduction of the death penalty does not always reduce the rate of drug trafficking. However, whether such a hypothesis can be generalised or whether it depends on a country’s specific circumstances is a matter for discussion and debate.
Nevertheless, since President Sirisena made his announcement we have seen countries of the European Union (EU), in a state of agitation requesting that the death penalty should not be introduced, come what may.
To be more accurate, this was not a request but more a threat. That is because there have been informal reports that should Sri Lanka not heed the EU’s advice, the GSP Plus concession granted to the country would be withdrawn. This amounts to political blackmail- and a case of blatant double standards.
It is well known that more than 30 states in the United States of America still enforce and implement the death penalty. Have we ever heard the EU threaten to impose sanctions or withdraw trade concessions to the United States? Of course, not. So, this is about not what is right but a case of might is right.
Another interesting aspect that arose in the discussion was the stance of the Catholic Church. Initially, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith was quoted as saying that when people who have been convicted continue to hurt others in an organised manner, it is fair to punish them- or words to that effect. The impression that was conveyed was that capital punishment was being tacitly approved.
Later however, the Archbishop issued a lengthy clarification where he states that he did not specifically endorse the death penalty. This followed a statement from the Anglican Church which was quite categorical in its opposition to capital punishment.
It is also fascinating that the Buddhist clergy which usually reacts to social issues with alacrity have maintained a deafening silence on this matter. In recent months we recall how a section of the Buddhist clergy wrote to the Justice Minister requesting special dispensation for Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara thera to wear saffron robes in prison instead of the usual ‘jumper’.
Surely, the issue of drug trafficking and the reintroduction of the death penalty is a more serious matter than what attire one person wears in prison? Yet, we have heard naught from the Buddhist clergy on the death penalty.
Obviously, both the Buddhist and Catholic clergies find themselves in unenviable positions- realising that there may be some argument for the death penalty in the current context but restricted by their religious teaching and therefore unable to make a categorical declaration for or against it.
It is also noteworthy that our political parties, which usually issue statements at the drop of a hat, have refrained from commenting, except for one politician from the Joint Opposition, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena stating that the announcement is a gimmick to sweep the Central Bank bond scam.
We are not sure which rock Abeywardena has been sleeping under because the announcement was made by the President who was very keen to probe the bond scam- and despite Abeywardena’s bravado, he doesn’t say whether he or his party is for or against the death penalty.
We can only hope that, in the end, sanity will prevail and a reasonable decision will be arrived at after due consideration of all factors, instead of making capital punishment yet another political issue. That is because, for death penalties, as in the case of governments, what is best administered is best!