Helen Zille replies: The political party I lead, the Democratic Alliance, allows a “free vote” on the issue of the death penalty. In other words, our members and public representatives are free to follow their own conscience and make up their own minds on the issue of capital punishment. The majority of DA members would probably support bringing back the death penalty, but I do not. There are many reasons, besides ethical reasons, for my position.
Firstly, no penalty can serve as a deterrent, unless criminals are actually arrested, charged and convicted. Until this happens, they cannot be sentenced. According to the latest SAPS report tabled in Parliament, our conviction rates are pitifully low. (See answer to question 6). We should therefore focus on rebuilding our criminal
justice system so that it can track down criminals, gather evidence that will stand up in court, and secure convictions. The vast majority of murderers and rapists are never brought to trial. In this context the severity of any theoretical penalty is academic.
A second reason for my opposition to the death penalty is the number of cases that come to my attention where people have been wrongly convicted of serious crimes. These cases reinforce my view that the dangers of the death penalty in our dysfunctional criminal justice system would outweigh any deterrent value that capital punishment might have. Just recently I read a horrific account of a gardener, Mr Gibson Rozani, who was sentenced to a long jail term for allegedly raping a child. Mr
Rozani’s employer (a Mrs Hockly), believing in his innocence, embarked on a long and expensive campaign to establish the facts and secure a retrial, where he was found to have been wrongly convicted and sentenced. It turned out that Rozani’s lawyer in the original trial had persuaded him to plead guilty, without explaining the implications to
him. His lawyer had also failed to place the medical report before the court, which established that the alleged victim was still a virgin and that there was no medical indication that a rape had taken place. Furthermore, the prosecutor had failed to submit the medical report to the magistrate. The safeguards supposedly inherent in our criminal justice system were therefore subverted by a single negligent omission
on the part of both an incompetent defence attorney and the prosecution.
Mrs Hockly’s determination to prove her gardener’s innocence reflects unusual dedication. In most other circumstances, people like Mr Rozani (who does not speak English) could expect to spend many years in jail. If the death penalty is imposed in such circumstances, it is obviously irreversible.
You may also recall the recent case where Mr Fred Van der Vyver, the son of a very wealthy farmer, was acquitted on charges of murdering his girlfriend. His father spent R9-million on his son’s defence, which included the testimony of international forensic experts, who established that police investigators had perjured themselves before the court, and allegedly manufactured incriminating evidence against the
accused. Where police investigators are potentially capable of defeating the ends of justice, and especially where the criminal justice system is open to political influence, it is easy to see how the ultimate penalty could be abused.
In the South African context, where there is still such a discrepancy between justice for the rich and justice for the poor, it is also very difficult to justify the death penalty in situations where people may have inadequate legal defence.
I support very tough anti-crime policies, and believe that a life sentence must mean “life”. But the potential for abuse and injustice through the death penalty in our country, leads me to believe that we should not reintroduce it.
NVDL:
I agree with Zille that our Justice System is the real problem, but in the meantime, is there any disincentive to go out and murder and rape?
... Although if I lived on a small island society with my own family and children and had to set up a system of law I would not introduce capital punishment, I believe it is insanity not to make use of the deterrent effect. I think anyone who advocates this is disconnected from reality, and in their own moral cocoon somewhere in suburbia. Is there a way to get our horrible crime stats down - 50 murders each day in South Africa, and some of the most violent crime in the world?
Even if one multiple serial killer/rapist is put to death each year, this will have the impact of put a few seeds of doubt into would-be-perpetrators. Even if our rates of convictions are abysmal isn't it better to have some deterrent than no deterrent?
I also reject the idea of people being wrongfully put to death. I've always said a death penalty should be applied to the most heinous of criminals - not someone who kills once, but dozens of times, and where there is a surfeit of evidence and grief and suffering caused by this person.
I believe it is crazy to give more rights to criminals than to the ordinary, more moral victims of their actions. In much the same way I believe corporal punishment in SA schools are the unfortunate price to pay to get a higher standard of education from children who otherwise don't know how to behave, and those that do are unfairly influenced and their opportunities unfairly maligned by those who don't.
I believe any person who has it in their heads that the death penalty is immoral ought to look around. Of course it is immoral. It's a device, an extreme method, of treating the extremes, the psychopaths and sickos in society. To trust and hope that good will prevail is a faint hope for the fainthearted.
No comments:
Post a Comment