[ad_1]
Enabling the use of the death penalty for serious drug offenses has revived the debate on the death penalty in Sri Lanka. On the surface, the argument in favor of the death penalty is simple. Crimes and the level of violence in Sri Lanka have undoubtedly increased. Therefore, the death penalty is considered a deterrent and, in cases of abuse, rape and drug trafficking, a form worthy of retribution.
There have been and there will always be executions of innocent people. Regardless of the degree of development of a justice system, it will always remain vulnerable to human failure. Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable. In addition, the death penalty is often used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic, political and religious groups. Sri Lanka, with its already overburdened and poorly endowed legal system, would find it extremely difficult to ensure that no innocent party is sentenced to death. Such a legal process would also take a long time and would be expensive, so not necessarily a quicker route to justice.
Perhaps the most telling argument of all is that the death penalty violates the right to life, which is the most fundamental of all human rights. It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, the death penalty undermines the human dignity inherent in every human being.
The death penalty does not have the deterrent effect that its defenders generally refer to. As recently declared the United Nations General Assembly, "there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty" (General Assembly resolution 65/206, para. United Nations). "It is noteworthy that in many retentionist states the effectiveness of the death penalty In order to prevent crime, an ever increasing number of law enforcement professionals are seriously questioning
. Public support for the death penalty does not necessarily mean that the state is killing the life of a human being. There are undisputed historical precedents where gross violations of human rights have received the support of the majority of the people, but which have been vigorously condemned later. It is incumbent on political and political figures to emphasize the incompatibility of the death penalty with human rights and human dignity.
Sri Lanka has abstained from voting on a UN resolution strongly supported by a global moratorium on the death penalty. eventual abolition in December 2012. The resolution was passed by the United Nations General Assembly and the draft was approved with 110 countries voting in favor, while 39, including the United States and India , voted against. Sri Lanka was one of 36 countries that abstained. The death penalty remains in the laws, but implementation has been suspended more than 30 years ago. The current government position on hanging is not clear, but more and more it seems that people are for that.
Yet, it can not be denied that political politicization, lack of resources, outdated laws and massive backlogs create a mockery of justice far more. that the absence of the death penalty. Social attitudes too must change because society is responsible for the creation of criminals, their rehabilitation and their readmission to public life. Tougher laws should certainly be introduced for offenders, but they need to be accompanied by a general review of Sri Lanka's entire justice system. The death penalty itself will do little to reduce crime in the current context.
In 2012, the government was even considering the possibility of allowing death row prisoners to repeal their sentences in perpetuity and hope to one day leave their cell. Now, it seems that pity can be exchanged for the hangman's noose in a decision that could be costly to everyone.
Source link
