The gunning down of a 70-year-old Hillcrest grandmother has touched a chord even among the crime-inured residents of this province.
When Mrs. Greener was shot in cold blood in Hillcrest on October 11, most of us were outraged. Many of us still are. A million signature campaign is now under way to re-institute the death penalty from those of us who have said "enough's enough".
Now make no mistake. Had I been present at the time and been able to blow the bastard's brains out to save Mrs. Greener's life, I would have done so without hesitation. Every human being should take every reasonable step to protect life and limb, and killing to avert a murder is perfectly justifiable.
I'm also completely against the death penalty.
There are many popular arguments as to why one should not keep the death penalty on the statute books. Primary among these is the belief that the death penalty is not a deterrent; that the murderer never expects to get caught. Then there are objections towards "cruel and unusual punishment" (as though murder in itself is "kind and usual"). These arguments have merit to varying degrees depending on circumstance and so I generally avoid debating their value.
We all draw up rules by which we live our lives. Some of us dogmatically espouse the dictates of religion. Others are governed by their conscience. Most of us are probably in between.
For my own part, most of the moral constraints I apply to my life are drawn by a process of reasoning. Ask a question. Argue all sides of the issue. Form an opinion. Test the opinion. If it holds, hang on to it until it breaks.
Question: When is it justifiable to take another's life?
There is only one answer for me. Self-defence or the defence of the lives of others when all other avenues that could guarantee the safety of those lives have been exhausted.
This is because I'm not in the revenge business. Nor do I believe that any civil society should be.
Up until the time that FW de Klerk announced the suspension of the death penalty along with the unbanning of the ANC and others, South Africa was a world leader in at least one respect. We were number one per capita among countries that executed their own citizens.
Now that we are no longer playing that game, that dubious honour has fallen to the United States.
There have been many innocents executed in the name of justice in this country. And therein lies the problem. It serves society no good to discover five years after an execution that the conviction was wrong. There is no possibility of correcting the error.
Is there a way to guarantee that a conviction will not be wrongful? No. Key witnesses can lie and later recant. Evidence may be unavailable for years and suddenly surface. Cases can be framed. Witnesses can be bought.
Should an innocent be hanged so that a thousand guilty be punished? No. Should a thousand guilty not hang because of the possibility that one may be innocent? Absolutely. Because our society and our system of justice should be geared towards protection of the rights of the innocent more so than punishment of the guilty.
If any person spends 27 years in jail because the system of justice has made a mistake, there is still time for society to correct the mistake. If that person had been hanged, what then?
The rules for convicted murderers should be simple. They have proved that they are a threat to society, and should be removed permanently from society. This means that life sentences should be just that; no possibility of parole, no contact with the rest of society. Their only possibility of release should be if the courts set aside a wrongful conviction.
That aside, we in this country should be particularly careful about turning over to the state the right to eliminate our fellow citizens.
Fortunes are made and broken in changing societies, and witchhunts are often the consequence. State-sponsored executions following trials for supposedly treasonous offences have always been an effective way of silencing political opposition.
If the death penalty is on the statute books, politicians will inevitably find a way to use it.
The National Party which so vehemently campaigns for the death penalty today should be particularly wary of the possibility that this weapon may be used against them tomorrow should the spirit of national reconciliation not hold.