End death penalty debate once and for all

The recent sentencing of former Inspector General of Police Pujith Jayasundara and former Defence Ministry Secretary Hemasiri Fernando to death for criminal negligence in connection with the Easter Sunday attacks has inevitably brought the issue back into public debate. The Cardinal’s position, that he and the Catholic Church remain opposed to the death penalty, deserves respect and serious consideration. Justice must be done for the victims of Easter Sunday, but justice cannot mean embracing a punishment that is cruel, irreversible and fundamentally incompatible with a modern system of justice.

The issue has also arisen in another context. A committee examining the narcotics problem has reportedly recommended that the death penalty be enforced for drug-related crimes. This is an especially dangerous proposition. Sri Lanka’s Penal Code already provides the mandatory death penalty for certain offences, including some drug offences. In such cases, a judge may have no discretion over the punishment once guilt has been established.

These are deeply regressive positions. The world has been steadily moving away from capital punishment because experience has demonstrated that executing people does not provide the deterrent effect its supporters claim. What reduces crime is the certainty and effectiveness of detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment, and not the brutality of the ultimate penalty.

There is also a fundamental problem that no justice system can overcome: human beings make mistakes. An innocent person can be convicted. Evidence can be misunderstood, witnesses can lie, investigations can be flawed and judgments can be wrong. A prison sentence can, at least in principle, be corrected. An execution cannot.

This is even more compelling in Sri Lanka, where serious concerns have long existed about the independence, efficiency and effectiveness of State institutions, including the criminal justice system. It would be reckless to give an imperfect system the irreversible power to take a life.

Sri Lanka has not carried out a judicial execution since 1976. For half a century, the country has maintained a de facto moratorium. That reality matters. The State has demonstrated that it can punish serious offenders without executing them and that society does not wish to see this penalty imposed. There is therefore no compelling reason to reopen a door that has remained closed for almost 50 years.

The international direction is equally clear. Over 110 countries have abolished the death penalty in law, while many others have abolished it in practice through moratoriums. The trend is unmistakable while capital punishment is increasingly recognised as incompatible with human rights and the principles of a humane criminal justice system. Lebanon’s recent decision to abolish the death penalty further demonstrates that even countries facing profound security and social challenges can choose a different path.

Sri Lanka should do the same. This does not mean being soft on crime. On the contrary, the country needs a far more robust response to crime,  professional policing, competent investigations, independent prosecutions, speedy trials, effective prisons and meaningful rehabilitation. Drug trafficking, terrorism, corruption and violent crime must be confronted firmly. But firmness does not require killing by a State which, in the case of Sri Lanka, has killed enough during the last 50 years.

The death penalty is not justice. It is an irreversible act by the State based on a system that, like every human institution, is capable of error. The death penalty is a conversation the country should end, not by deciding when and where executions should be carried out, but by deciding, once and for all, that the State should never take a human life as punishment.