ECONOMYNEXT – The death penalty is a complex issue that no political party should have a position on and lawmakers must be allowed a free vote of conscience on its implementation should it ever arise, MP Eran Wickramaratne said after his party leader swore to bring back capital punishment.
Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa speaking at a public rally said that a government led by the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), the party he leads, would impose the death penalty on people convicted of terrorism and drug-related offences.
Premadasa acknowledged that the liberal camp — which his party professes to lead – would not condone his views on the matter, but insisted that it was necessary.
“I know that the moment I say this, a section of this country is going to get agitated. They will say it goes against liberal ideology. I say, while you keep doing liberalism, drugs will find their way to every school in this country. In fact, they already have,” he said.
This is not the first time the opposition leader has spoken in support of the death penalty and tough, Singapore-style laws on drug trafficking and terrorism charges. In July, 2021, he told reporters that Singapore issues the “best penalties” for terrorism and drug trafficking.
As he himself predicted, Premadasa’s latest pledge to implement the death penalty, delivered during a comment about the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, was met with severe criticism by civil society activists on social media, with some wondering whether it was the official party line.
Responding to a question on the controversy, SJB MP Wickramaratnhe told EconomyNext said that the party has not had an internal discussion on the matter and does not have an official position on the issue of capital punishment.
He conceded, however, that it is something that needs to be discussed.
“The death penalty is already there, but it has not been practised since the 1970s. [Premadasa’s] personal position is that it probably should be practised,” said Wickramaratne.
Sri Lanka has an ongoing de facto moratorium on capital punishment that goes back 45 years, with the last execution carried out in 1976.Hundreds have been sentenced to death since then, though the punishment has not been carried out in practice.
Plans by former President Maithriapala Sirisena to reinstate capital punishment in June 2019 were met with widespread criticism both locally and internationally.
“Sri Lanka’s plan to resume use of the death penalty is a major setback for human rights,” said Brad Adams, Asia director of the Human Rights Watch in June 30 2019.
President Sirisena ordered the execution of four convicted drug traffickers, but the Supreme Court in October 2019 extended a previous interim order on the death penalty, effectively preventing the then president’s attempt.
Premadasa, who was a prominent minister in Sirisena’s Yahapalana government, though representing the then rival United National Party (UNP), publicly expressed his support for the reinstatement of capital punishment in Sri Lanka.
An Amnesty International factsheet on capital punishment notes that evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime. Citing studies in the USA and Candada, Amnesty International said there is no evidence to support the claim that abolishing the death penalty leads to higher crime rates.
“In 2004 in the USA, the average murder rate for states that used the death penalty was 5.71 per 100,000 of the population as against 4.02 per 100,000 in states that did not use it. In 2003 in Canada, 27 years after the country abolished the death penalty the murder rate had fallen by 44 per cent since 1975, when capital punishment was still enforced. Far from making society safer, the death penalty has been shown to have a brutalizing effect on society. State sanctioned killing only serves to endorse the use of force and to continue the cycle of violence,” the report said.
Another strong argument against the death penalty is miscarriage of justice, and numerous examples exist of people wrongfully convicted for various crimes they did not commit.
MP Wickramaratne agrees, but also believes that the issue is complicated.
“My view is that it’s so complicated that if ever an issue like that comes, I don’t think a party can have a position,” he said.
“These are issues to do with conscience,” he added.
The MP said lawmakers must be given the freedom to vote according to their conscience given the complexity of the issue and the likelihood of wrongful convictions.
However, others might disagree, said Wickramaratne.
“There are so many complications. I buy your argument. Others might argue that the number of lives being lost because of us not imposing it is also great,” he said.
According to the SJB parliamentarian, in the final analysis, statistics won’t matter and people would have to appeal to their representatives’ conscience.
“Some of us will see that there can be a miscarriage of justice and the wrong person can go. On the other hand, there will be others who feel that there are countries that have minimised crime, terrorism and drug use [by implementing the death penalty] and that those societies have prevailed. These people will have a view about that and they too will back it up with statistics,” he said.
“That is why I say there shouldn’t be a party position. MPs should be allowed a free vote if ever an issue like this comes up in parliament,” he added. (Colombo/Mar02/2023)