A small, vocal, wealthy and influential group of people in the First World countries have imposed their will on the majority of their citizens, who have never been consulted, and abolished the death penalty. This is what some call ?enlightened world opinion?. Having done so in the First World countries, based on studies we have never seen, they declare that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder because most homicides are crimes of passion. Perhaps this is so in First World countries. It is not so in Belize. Then they declare that capital punishment is against human rights principles. And now, finally, it is wrong to execute murderers because the act is irreversible.

The leaders of the First World countries who decided, undemocratically, to abolish the death penalty in their own countries, are so sure that it is the right thing to do that they wish to impose their will on those they consider unable to decide the matter for themselves, and bring great pressure to bear on these countries, through their foreign policy initiatives and through powerful international organization like the Human Rights Commission.

Let me deal once again with the arguments for the abolition of the death penalty. I cannot say what happens in England, France, Germany, Italy or in the United States of America. It may be that in these places most homicides are the result of uncontrollable emotion, where the killer does not reflect on the consequences of his action. This is not the case in Belize, where people are killed for trivial things, like an ideal or a dollar chicken, or for no reason at all except that the killer believes that he has the power of life and death. How else can you explain the action of a man who is successful in taking away a grocer?s earnings, and shoots him anyway?

In recent years Belize?s murder rate per capita of population has become one of the highest in the world, and the attitude of the killers seems to be that human life has no value. Their mission seems to be – ?Have gun, will kill?.

If you examine the historical evidence you will note that when the death penalty was in effect, there were very few murders. It has not been in effect in the last twenty years, and the murder rate has been climbing steadily. Based on our own experience in Belize, therefore, the argument that the death penalty does not deter will not hold.

I have seen documentary evidence which shows that the murder rates in the states of Texas and Delaware are the lowest in America. These two states have retained the death penalty. The lowest murder rate in the world belongs to Singapore. This country also has the lowest overall crime rate. Singapore has the death penalty.

What has happened to many Third World countries like Belize, which has the death penalty as the punishment for murder, is that First World countries? pressure has forced them to suspend executing murderers. Then, it can be used as proof that the death penalty, does not deter. It cannot deter because, for all intents and purposes, it does not really exist.

The latest and weakest argument against capital punishment is that it is irreversible. It is somehow a terrible thing that the state, in seeking to give justice to those aggrieved by the murder of a victim who is near and dear to them and to deter other would-be murderers, has decided that death is the appropriate punishment for murder. This argument is based on the possibility that despite all the efforts of the judicial system to ensure that an innocent man is not convicted; despite the fact that these efforts have succeeded in allowing many murderers to go free; despite the fact that the scales of justice are tilted heavily in favour of the accused; despite the fact that defence attorneys are far better paid than prosecutors, consequently the quality of the defence is expected to be superior to the prosecution; despite all this, the possibility still exists, however remote, that an innocent may be convicted. And, because this is so, murderers should not be executed because death is irreversible.

To sum up: The death penalty is wrong because it is irreversible and, therefore, it does not matter whether or not it is the appropriate punishment for murder.

I respond thus: The idea that a murderer should suffer death comes from our innermost being. It comes from the very nature of man and was put there by the Almighty. The desire to put to death the killer of someone we love, is within the heart and soul of every normal human being. This desire is tempered by our religious beliefs and controlled by the fact that we live in a civilized society and are subject to a government and its decrees. The desire to take justice into our own hands is controlled also, because of our confidence that the state will see to it that justice is done.

The way it works, is that the state interposes itself between the persons aggrieved by a murder and says to them: Have confidence in us that we will ensure that the person responsible for your pain and suffering will be punished as befits his crime. And this has not been the case in the past twenty years.

I believe that the foundation of a penal system begins with the most severe penalty for the most reprehensible crime, which is murder. Next to murder in heinousness is rape. In certain particularly terrible cases of rape, life imprisonment or a lesser term with corporal punishment, might be the appropriate punishment. But if life imprisonment is the appropriate punishment for a terrible rape, how can that be the appropriate punishment for murder? I think that the appropriate punishment for murder is death, whether or not it deters, and ninety percent of our population agree.

Is the death penalty a panacea? No, but it will make a big difference to the culture of crime which seems to prevail in Belize. The fact that it is irreversible is as it should be. Once a murderer is executed, no one else can be his victim. If he is imprisoned for life, what assurance do we have that he will not kill again?

I have to ask the question which has never been answered. If life imprisonment is the appropriate punishment for murder, what is the punishment for a murderer who kills again while serving a sentence of life imprisonment? Unless there is a sensible answer to this question, it must be accepted that life imprisonment is not the appropriate penalty for this crime. And, the question cannot be answered by saying that the imprisoned murderer MUST be prevented from killing again. This cannot be assured.

We have to deal effectively with what we call capital punishment, if we hope to have a penal system which strikes fear into the hearts of criminals. Fear is a healthy emotion when it serves the purpose of our law abiding and God fearing citizens. If we do these things, then we can begin to deal effectively with suppressing lesser crimes in the order of heinousness. We can reduce the incidence of rape, and so on downwards.

The great American president, Abraham Lincoln, described democracy as government of, for and by the people. I understand this to mean that the government whose members come from the people, elected to represent and serve the people, govern in accordance with the wish of the majority of the people when that wish can be determined. It is suggested, therefore, that the simple question, ?ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?? asking for a negative or affirmative response, be put on the ballot paper in the upcoming City Council and Town Board elections. Then, the government should act accordingly.