EVIDENCE is a powerful thing.
By strict definition, it is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. By practice, it is what we can use to weigh against what people are telling us.
Take today’s Tribune, for example, and let us start with former Cabinet member, who says lawmakers don’t have “the guts” to implement capital punishment.
He said: “We got to bring back capital punishment. Is it going to happen? I don’t see it in my lifetime because they don’t have the guts to do it.”
Capital punishment is on our books, of course, but has not been carried out since 2000, with the Privy Council ruling in 2006 that a mandatory death sentence for murder was unconstitutional. There has been much debate about what constitutes the “worst of the worst” when it comes to cases that might attract such a penalty.
Mr Miller’s argument, while saying “we need to show more love to each other. Why do we have to kill each other?” is that we should execute criminals to deter violent crime.
But does that really work? Evidence is slim that it does, with numerous studies showing no effect on murder rates.
The National Academy of Sciences says research is “uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates”. The National Institute of Justice says “there is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals”. Amnesty International reports that “evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime. Many people have argued that abolishing the death penalty leads to higher crime rates, but studies in the USA and Canada, for instance, do not back this up.”
Amnesty goes on to cite 2004 figures that show states where the death penalty was in use having a higher murder rate than states that did not.
Are those figures wrong? Anyone suggesting that killing people is the way to reduce crime had best state their case with actual evidence.
Evidence is notable in other stories today. Take a look at the speech by pastor TG Morrison where he rails against the danger of illegal immigration to our nation, using phrases such as “cataclysmic” and “existential threat”.
The evidence here is that the Defence Force Commodore, Raymond King, has said that irregular migration from Haiti – and it is Haitians the pastor seems to be meaning – is down by more than a fifth in 2023. Any cataclysmic tidal wave seems to be ebbing.
The pastor also suggests we face an era where children “lift up a certain flag and dare Bahamian students to pass that way because they declare that is their territory”. He provides no evidence of this, and if there were, we have laws to deal with such matters.
Finally, there is Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis seeming to try to explain away PLP chairman Fred Mitchell’s comments on Freedom of Information.
Mr Mitchell said clear as day: “We oppose this Freedom of Information Act idea.”
Now, granted, he went on to say that Mr Davis had said that we’ve got the act and said “we’ll get to it” – but Mr Davis said yesterday that Mr Mitchell did not say what he actually said. He went on to suggest that the PLP had an issue “when the question was being mooted”.
Evidence being what it is, The Tribune got the recording and checked, and no, Mr Mitchell was speaking in the present day, not of the past.
The party, it should be noted, also promised to implement the system in its election Blueprint for Change.
It is clear that the government has no sense of priority for this legislation – but the more it talks itself into a corner, the more pressure there will be for the administration to make it a priority.
Interestingly enough, freedom of information will provide one thing in abundance for Bahamians: Evidence.
Obituaries tomorrow
A note to our readers to round off today’s editorial – for those of you looking for our obituaries section, due to the Majority Rule holiday it will be in tomorrow’s edition instead.
You will also find our religion section there, our Weekend section, clubs and societies and more.
It shall return to its regular Thursday spot next week.
Comments
Sickened 10 months, 2 weeks ago
Is it more humane to lock someone in a prison for the rest of their lives or is it more humane to end their life knowing that they will die in a cage? For animals, especially dogs, we consider it inhumane to keep them in a cage for the majority of their lifetime. We even fight for pigs and chickens to be able to roam free. Obviously we can't let murderers and serial killers roam free, although the church will probably argue this point as well, so what do we do. Lock them up for life or put them out of their misery. Humans need to evolve away from this astoundingly childish belief that all life is sacred. Some people are simply evil and looking up and saying words simply isn't going to transform them into civilized humans.
DWW 10 months, 1 week ago
you assume that all convictions are correct, true and accurate? What about the person who is wrongfully accused and or convicted? If we find you later and want to correct the egregious error but well.... death is not easily reversed. the last man hanged in UK was clearly mentally disabled and not fit for trial. many believe he was scapegoated by his 'friend' who was the one who really did the deed. if you assume that the human operated court and justice system in the Bahamas is completely incapable of making any mistakes then I am actually jealous of your easy world view.
Sign in to comment
OpenID