The Tribune

By NICOLE BURROWS

I woke the other morning to the news that another armed robbery had occurred in my home city. Another store robbed early in the morning of its cash that many had laboured to earn, because others somehow thought it their entitlement and so they took it by force.

Thankfully, no one was physically harmed in the ordeal, but emotionally there was some harm done. My cousins were there and they experienced the trauma of wondering whether or not they would come face to face with a madman and his gun. After all, you’d have to be a madman, or extremely desperate, to think that someone else’s laboured-for possessions are yours and you should take them by force with a weapon.

While searching for more details of this crime news story, I came across and was reminded of another news story that had replicated itself into sub-stories, you know, in the way that a reporter asks a dozen people he/she interviews in one day for their opinions on the same things … and that all becomes the news.

The main story was a repeat of the Catholic Church’s position on capital punishment. The sub-stories were heartfelt commentaries by Member of Parliament Leslie Miller and Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader Branville McCartney, who were both clear on their favour of the death penalty. Reporters also interviewed Reverend Simeon Hall, who himself declared that he straddled both sides of the fence on the issue.

Essentially, the Catholic Church, via the Catholic Archbishop Patrick Pinder, is calling yet again for the abolition of the death penalty in our country, in our region, in our world. And I wondered why all of a sudden this was news again. Well, it’s partly because the Church uses certain seasons to say certain things, and they also seem to think that politicians in this election season will use their advocacy of capital punishment to win votes … something the Church, of course, abhors.

The Antilles Episcopal Conference (AEC) is still, since making a similar statement in 2000, “urging governments to abolish the death penalty in the region”. The Catholic Church has denounced the death penalty on paper for the past 16 years, at least, and insisted that “a more meaningful method” be used to deter criminals.

They say: “We believe that human life is a gift from God and is sacred” and “We should protect and defend human life in all circumstances”.

It seems the Church is concerned about capital punishment not being a good deterrent and not falling in line with its concepts of “reconciliation, conversion, reform, restitution and forgiveness”.

The Church further iterates that “the death penalty is both cruel and unnecessary”. Well so is murder, no? Unless it is very clearly accidental or committed in obvious self defence. And murder is also irreversible.

The whole of the Church’s statement focuses on capital punishment as a deterrent. It is not meant to be a deterrent. It is not a deterrent. It is a punishment. People who support capital punishment are not trying to reconcile with capital punishment. The purpose of capital punishment is to punish for extreme wrongdoing against another human being. And a would-be murderer who sees that the Church’s - or a government’s - intention is not punishment will seek to more readily perpetrate crime. Hence our current problem in The Bahamas - and the region.

The original statement by the Church/AEC declares “to take away a person’s basic right to immunity from fatal harm is to compromise his/her sacred dignity”. And somehow this applies only to the murderer and not the victim?

The Church is against capital punishment because the criminal/murderer should “have a chance to reform”, but the victim has no chance to live again.

The Church acknowledges that “there are two parties involved in reconciliation: the wrongdoer and the victim”. But the victim cannot reconcile with anyone or anything once dead, so what is the point of that acknowledgement?

Yes, forgiveness is good. But you must still pay the equal cost for your crime, unless of course one person’s eye or tooth is better than someone else’s.

You reform on one end, yes. But you must punish on the other. Without attacking the problem from both ends, it will never diminish.

There is DNA testing in modern forensics that affords an accuracy for conviction unlike before when innocent people may have met their end on account of poor evidence and weak judgments. So, if the religious men/leaders are concerned about this they need not be.

They say themselves that “modern society has a means of protecting itself without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform”. Yes. That is agreeable. And that mechanism is called law and law enforcement. You abide by the law, you don’t get punished. Surely there are laws in the Catholic Church that must be adhered to and, when they are not, repercussions are met.

Of course, all of this argument by the Church is based on the assumption that it is filled with “prophets”, men who fail to accept that someone who commits a crime can repent on his or her own. There is no need for a Church, or priest, or a confession booth to say “I’m sorry, I was wrong.” If we cultivated people to rely on the God within them, the mercy that emanates from that spirit of goodness, then we wouldn’t have a crime problem in the first place. But I suppose that’s the curse of religion; it tells you that your salvation is always in someone else’s hands.

The bottom line is, if you ignore and abolish capital punishment, there is no ultimate penalty for murder. The society will implode from within, as is currently underway.

But why is the Church so concerned about something that isn’t even being used with any regularity? Is it so that the region can officially fall in line with a global view?

It would be more helpful for the Catholic bishops to offer suggestions on real alternative penalties, if they don’t support capital punishment. But they need to give some hard and fast measures, not these notions of suffering and sacrifice that float in the air and you can’t do anything tangible with them when the circumstances call for it. And “socialisation, rehabilitation and reconciliation” don’t count, because they are not punitive. I put to the Church, while you wait for a better society, what exactly will the urgent action on crime be? How is your idea of abolishing the death penalty helpful, other than to keep the Church relevant?

And the Privy Council’s 2011 ruling that “the death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst and the rarest of the rare” is no help either. Putting a grade of one to 10 on how bad a murder is, or how important a victim is, is an abomination against equal justice.

I wonder … what would the Church’s position be, if one of its own was murdered? I guess they would call it ‘God’s will’.

Leslie Miller says “if the bishop and his crew could bring back the dead, okay, then I would say we should abandon capital punishment”.

Miller lost his own son years ago to crime, and while many have debated his son’s involvement in crime and whether or not his lifestyle was conducive to his demise, as people often judge, Miller knows and understands the loss associated with crime, murder in particular. He says “who feels it knows it”. And he asks who will speak for the victims, when the Church is not speaking on their behalf?

Branville McCartney, who lost his brother to crime, murder specifically, says that he totally disagrees with Archbishop Pinder that the death penalty should be completely abolished.

“I find this incredible ... for that comment to be made. Those who take a life, are they entitled to life? My brother was killed on the streets of New Providence because of these criminals. You don’t believe that I’m going to deal with crime? When I become Prime Minister? I’m the one, and the only one, who will deal with crime.” He says “the DNA will fix the law so that the Privy Council can’t wiggle around it”.

If it’s one thing he’ll do, I think you can be assured this is it.

Many people say men like Miller and McCartney are too close to the problem, and, because of their personal experiences they are too impassioned about capital punishment. People believe their experiences create strong prejudices for them. But would you not want someone who was impassioned about a job to do a job, as long as it was done responsibly?

In particular, rather than ridicule McCartney’s comments as too emotive or too feeling, maybe you can appreciate the fact that maybe he is someone who can feel loss … someone who can actually feel … possibly someone with a conscience, and a notion of right and wrong. Unlike the other leaders you have now.

Comments and responses to nburrows@tribunemedia.net