By Catherine Komuhangi
Research Associate
His
Holiness Pope Francis is scheduled to visit Uganda in November 2015. One thing
most Ugandans do not know about him is that he supports the abolition of the
death penalty. On 20th March 2015, His Holiness wrote a letter to the
International Commission against the Death Penalty (ICDP) on the matter. As an
individual who supports the abolition of the death penalty, I wanted to
highlight some of the arguments His Holiness put forward in the letter.
In
his letter to the ICDP, His Holiness argued that the death penalty undermines
the purpose of punishment. Punishment has five purposes namely: retribution,
deterrence, rehabilitation, reconciliation and restorative justice. The death
penalty solely serves a purpose of retribution as vengeance for the crime that
was committed and undermines the wholesome purpose of punishment. As His
Holiness rightly states, “It does not
render justice to the victims, but rather foments revenge”. If the death
penalty is replaced with long-term imprisonment, the offender is able to appreciate
the wholesome purpose of punishment by participating in the rehabilitative,
reconciliation and restorative aspect. With regard to the second purpose –
deterrence – proponents of the death penalty have often argued that the death
penalty deters crime. There has, however, been no empirical evidence to support
this argument. In 2009, Micheal L. Radelet and Traci L. Lacock published the
results of their study that revealed; 88% of leading criminologists believed
that the death penalty does not have a greater deterrent effect than long-term
imprisonment. Our lawmakers should, therefore, consider replacing the death
penalty with long-term imprisonment. Imposition of the death penalty negates
the other three purposes of punishment – rehabilitation, reconciliation and
restorative justice. Indeed, punishment in Uganda has traditionally focused on
retribution and deterrence. More emphasis should be put on rehabilitation,
reconciliation and restorative justice. Rehabilitation is aimed at reforming the
offender to prevent recidivism. Interactions with the Uganda Prisons Service
have revealed that the rate of recidivism is very low especially for capital
offenders. Article 126 (2) (d) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda,
1995 promotes reconciliation between parties in both civil and criminal cases,
which would be curtailed by the death penalty. The aim of reconciliation and
restorative justice is to bring the offender and victim together to foster
healing.
His
Holiness further argued in his letter to the ICDP that “the death penalty loses all legitimacy due to the defective selectivity
of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial
error.” This is true because policing and judicial systems around the world
are not infallible. For instance, on 17th December 2004, the High
Court of Nakawa sentenced Patrick Lwanga Zizinga to death for the murder of his
alleged wife. Yet in fact, his wife at the time, Annet Nakibuuka, was still
alive and Zizinga had no connection to the deceased, Annet Nakiwala. During
Zizinga’s mitigation hearing in 2013, the court held that there was no evidence
that he participated in the murder and it remained questionable as to who
committed the murder. Zizinga was therefore released, but not after spending 11
years and 3 months in prison with 8 and a half on death row. If Uganda actively
executed people like China or Iraq, an innocent man would have been killed. As
the His Holiness rightly argued in his letter to the ICDP, “human justice is imperfect and the failure
to recognise its fallibility can transform it into a source of injustice.”
In
conclusion, the validity of the death penalty in our penal laws needs to be
re-examined. This is not only because it has the potential to affect innocent
people, but it also undermines the purpose of punishment. Instead, efforts
should be geared to ensure that our prisons are rehabilitative and foster full
re-integration of offenders into society.
No comments:
Post a Comment