The Editor, Sir:

The ongoing debate on whether to retain or rescind the death penalty in our laws has been quite revealing. It has exposed that many of our representatives are either ignorant of the principles of democracy or are grossly contemptuous of them.

Should it not be obvious that any vote in the legislature on a law as important as this should reflect the wishes of the people?

If the matter was not an issue which was put to the people as intended policy to be pursued after the election, then the next best approach would be to conduct public fora where the people would be informed of the different views on the matter and by a method of polling ascertain their wishes. The representatives would then speak in Parliament on the strength of the people's mandate on the subject matter.

An insult

The suggestion that vote on this important matter should be a 'conscience vote' is an insult to the principle of representative politics. While a representative is entitled to the freedom of expression of his or her conscience, on accepting the job of representative of the people his or her personal position on any issue must be subordinated to the wishes of the majority of his constituents, providing those wishes are in keeping with the laws and constitution.

Where there is a conflict between personal views and those of the majority, the answer is that the representative should step aside and allow some one else who is comfortable with the people's views to take on the mantle of representation.

Any purported 'conscience vote' is an abuse of the privilege of representation. To impose upon the people, personal preferences that are not in keeping with the people's view is contrary to the principles of democracy and is more consistent with dictatorship. Elections do not create democracies, if the elected acts on his or her will rather than the will of the majority.

If the principles outlined above are known by our representatives, why is this entire charade about 'conscience vote'?

If these principles are not known by our representatives, then they ought to be taught them. Neither through ignorance nor contempt should this matter be continued under the label of conscience.

Reflecting people's will

The vote in Parliament should be reflective of the people's will, not the conscience of the individual representative or that of his party.

I trust someone will bring some sanity to this matter by informing or reminding the MPs that their function is to represent the wishes of the majority of the people whom they represent.

If it is any consolation to the abolitionists, a vote to retain the death penalty will not cause even one convict to be executed. For those who have forgotten, Parliament legislates and courts adjudicate. The final court in our judicial process is opposed to the death penalty and so are the other international tribunals that we permit to review our courts' decisions on these matters.

Frustrate our efforts

We are more than naive to expect people who have abolished the death penalty to uphold the death penalty to satisfy our laws. They will do what they have been doing for many years - frustrate our effort to carry out that aspect of our laws.

If there is no step to disengage or terminate the supervisory position of the foreign courts and tribunals, the performances that are going on about rescuing or retaining the death penalty is a sham to impress the uninformed, while changing nothing. A Caribbean Court of Justice will change nothing.

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

1 Tankerville Avenue

Kingston 6