The Editor, Sir:

With the rising levels of crime, there are new calls for the death penalty. Last year, then Attorney General, A. J. Nicholson, was accused and criticised by then Shadow Minister on National Security Derrick Smith as being a coward (he and his administration) for not executing the death penalty. Now that the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) administration is in the 'hot seat' the question is asked, 'Is the present administration a bunch of cowards?'

So, what about their tough talk? Or was it just political posturing? Or are the JLP administration a set of cowards? Or is it that they now realise that we are all a bunch of cowards?

In their well-written manifesto, they made it seem as if there was a magic-wand solution(s) or silver bullet to curtailing the crime rate by carrying out the death penalty. Reality check! They have now relegated the matter to a conscience vote. This business of conscience vote is grandstanding.

Human rights

What they ignore or fail to realise is that the death penalty touches on moral, scribal, and human rights sensibilities. Is it, for example, the right of the state to commit murder? Does man have the moral authority to take life, since it is a gift from God? Or does it reflect society's desire for fairness and justice?

Also, the rulings of the Privy Council, our final court of appeal and an appendage of the European Union's anti-death penalty stance, in the cases of Pratt and Morgan (1995), Neville Lewis (2001), and Lambert Watson (2004) present again major roadblocks. In the first case, the court presumed that after five years a condemned convict could not be executed. In the second case this presumption became rule.

Cruel treatment

The Privy Council also ruled that there should be allowance of appeals from relevant human rights bodies. In the latter case, the Privy Council ruled that the mandatory nature of the death penalty contravened the Constitution of Jamaica and was therefore unconstitutional, since it was subsequent to Indepen-dence. They further ruled that the mandatory nature was also tantamount to inhuman and cruel treatment since the offender did not get the opportunity of persuading the court that the punishment was inappropriate and disproportionate in his case.

The JLP should not reduce to unduly simplistic assertions matters concerning the death penalty.

I am, etc.,

ROBIN CLARKE

clarkerobin2002@yahoo.com.