WERE it not for the intervention of Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court, the island state would be set to end its 43-year-old moratorium on capital punishment by hanging four individuals convicted of drug charges. However, the reprieve is temporary, as the apex court has only suspended the sentences till October. Before the court moved in, the Sri Lankan government was all set to go ahead with the resumption of the death penalty, as it had hired two hangmen to carry out this odious task. The events in Sri Lanka offer an opportunity to discuss the demerits of capital punishment, as far from reducing crime and violence, it offers states the placebo of appearing hard on crime without addressing the root causes. Moreover, with creaky justice systems, such as ours, the probability of an unfair trial remains very high, which means states are quite likely to send innocent people to the gallows.

In Sri Lanka’s case, the state should consider extending the moratorium permanently. If the executions of the drug convicts go ahead, there is a strong likelihood that the government may extend it to other crimes. However, as opponents of capital punishment have rightly argued, how much of a deterrent does capital punishment pose? If Pakistan’s own case is to be considered, the answer is that it is hardly a deterrent. While this country’s moratorium was lifted in the aftermath of the APS tragedy, what evidence is there indicating that the return of capital punishment has considerably brought down violence? The fact is Pakistan continues to suffer from militancy — though levels are down, mainly due to numerous military operations — while levels of violent crimes remain high. To deal with crime, an effective police force and criminal justice system are key; this is the formula adopted by those states that enjoy low crime rates. Sri Lanka, Pakistan and other states should realise that simply giving the hangman a licence to kill is not the way to eliminate crime and terrorism from society.

Published in Dawn, July 8th, 2019