The learned legal counsels have issued “A Reply” to Amandala’s editorial of Tuesday, June 18, 2024, titled “Sacrifice – the death penalty option,” in which they state that they “disagree with this argument and offer a different perspective”; and they go on to list “the … reasons” that they believe the editorial’s suggestion, “Far from being a deterrent, … would be wasteful, pointless and retrograde to attempt to return to the executions …” They used a whole page of The Reporter newspaper to explain their disagreement and perspective, and it would surely take us quite a bit more than that to fully ventilate the issue and flesh out our rebuttal. Briefly, we shall try here to address the main reasons they have posed for their disagreement with our editorial.
First of all, let it be clear: Amandala has never advocated for the death penalty under the current system, which presents a legal minefield that favors the rich and the connected. But the system is failing us, and it is now up to the people, in this year of Constitutional reform, to consider possible changes to our laws that might prove a deterrent to the unacceptable murder rate; and Amandala’s suggestion was along those lines, for the people to consider “an option”, rather than maintain the status quo under which large numbers of our brothers would either be sent to the gallows, or as advocated by the learned attorneys, would be guaranteed “life” as a worst case scenario, regardless of the circumstances or severity of their crimes.
Amandala doesn’t advocate for the death penalty as a solution to crime and violence, and especially murder in our community. Any death brings sorrow and emotional pain to family members, relatives and a wider circle of friends and members of the deceased. Even the death of a dog brings grief and pain to the owners, because the pet is loved as a part of the family, and its life is a part of God’s creation. All life is precious in the old tradition of so-called primitive peoples.
Lawyers have a job to do, and their profession sees things within the scope of the law as it is written. We the people are most concerned about peace and justice, and if the current system seems unable to bring about peace and justice, then the people have the right and the power to change the system, through their elected representatives—to change the law, if needs be, to try and achieve peace and justice in our community.
They argue that, “the death penalty is in fact already an option in Belize”, and that our suggestion “is a non-starter because in Belize, sentencing is a judicial function, reserved for judges, not juries.” But they admit that the death penalty was last carried out in Belize 40 years ago, and no one in Belize has been sentenced to death in the past 20 years; and if such a sentence was not sought in the recent Ranguy case, which they regard as “one of the worst of the worst cases in Belize,” “it is pointless, indeed idle, to call for or encourage hope that judges will impose the death penalty.” Again, our editorial proposed the idea that the people, not the judge, have the final say; and that currently, although it is on paper for the judges, there is no real “option” available to the people in the face of a situation where cold-blooded murderers continue to operate with impunity.
They next argue that it has been proven worldwide that the death penalty is not a deterrent because, “Many murders in Belize are crimes of passion or committed by very young offenders, often manipulated by other more powerful people, who engage in no such analysis prior to committing crime.” However, those studies may be flawed, because, if all the murders are put together, indeed, there may not appear to be a proven deterrent. We propose that it is not the crimes of passion, or provoked anger, or individual derangement due to drugs or personality disorders, that are a threat to the authority of the state, or the perceived safety and well-being of ordinary citizens, causing them to live in a state of terror, and often necessitating the declaration of States of Emergency. Even in their so-called “worst of the worst” case, Jared Ranguy has never issued a threat to any witness or agent of the state; and moreover, however horrendous the crime he committed, he has confessed his guilt, and the system worked. But there are “behind the scenes” individuals in Belize who are functionally bigger than the judges, bigger than the courts, bigger than the government, because they secretly issue orders for executions (their own death penalty) and other serious crimes; and their agents, some quite young, follow orders, and dutifully “take the rap” and refuse to “snitch” if caught, confident that they will be sprung free with fearful witnesses being unwilling to testify. And even if incarcerated, they still won’t speak, again for fear of death. Who says they are not afraid of the “death penalty”? Not at the hands of the state, they aren’t. But if given an option: either the truth or the gallows, who knows how many dons and gang leaders will be answering to charges for abetment to murder?
Amandala means “power to the people”, and the suggestion was that the people be engaged, not the judge, in this critical step. Change the laws if necessary to “get the attention” of our wayward youth who have seemingly lost their way, and to maintain “an option” whereby the people will decide if and when a single death penalty may be proposed “as a sacrifice”. There was no large-scale carnage suggested, as interpreted by the lawyers.
There are no saintly or revolutionary persons on death row at the Belize prison who could compare to the person of the Messiah, and thus be considered worthy of the term “sacrifice”. But they all have family members and friends who still love them, however heinous may have been the crimes for which they were convicted. There need be no further death penalty execution if the approach of “sacrifice” hereby proposed is pursued, or the plea bargain method is implemented to reach the “big fish” at the top of criminal organizations and crime: the truth needs to be told, so the option should then by default rest with the convicted to either sacrifice his own life to keep secret the identity of his accomplice/s or the one who gave the order, or to sacrifice his so-called “creds” for the sake of peace and justice in his community.
It is not the murders triggered by passion or anger, or personal confrontations that are terrorizing our communities, leading to SOEs; it is the calculated executions by organized criminal groups who cover their agents of crime and killing by instilling fear in potential witnesses. There is no soft-touch tactic that can break the secrecy of command in such groups. But if the people have an option in hand to possibly capture just one “big fish”, it could be the beginning of the dismantling of the organizations that are leading the youth astray.
Our present legal system seems satisfied with catching the “small fish”. There are too many loose ends left dangling, resulting in a tangled mess of closed but unsolved cases, where the real orchestrators of crime remain untouchable, and continue to spread fear and death in the communities they control. The law does not seem to care: Who hired the killer of Therese Blake? Who hired Erlin White? Who gave that 13-year-old boy a gun? And the nightly gunshot madness continues in parts of Southside. Even diaspora retirees are becoming fearful of settling in remote areas of the country because of the reported cases of home invasion and murder. It won’t end until discipline and respect for law and the people return to the Land of the Free.
Without an “option”, the status quo remains, and there is no discussion or consideration that could at least give the assigned gang member a second thought when planning a surprise “hit” on an “enemy” or targeted individual, because there is no such concern about his own execution in a system that has “unofficially” already taken the death penalty off the table, so to speak.
The lawyers see things their way. The people need to join the discussion and come up with ideas in this time of Constitutional review, because what we have is not working. And, where our religious have apparently failed to reach the minds and hearts of our daring young men in gangs, it is left to “the people” to make them “get the sense”. Power to the people!