DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the following article are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Daily Revelation
An eye for eye is a commandment found in the Book of Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of reciprocal justice measure for measure.
In the Roman civilization, the law of retaliation bears the same principle that a person who has injured another person is to be penalized in the similar degree by the injured party.
Both the Roman and the Greek civilizations have had strong persuasion in the manner the Bible, especially the Old Testament was couched and so are some of the principles such as a tooth for a tooth.
Zambia is a Christian nation as stated in her preamble of the constitution and therefore her moral persuasion is predicated on the Christian values and morals.
The debate on the death penalty is not only an embarrassment to the declaration of what its political leadership chose as the guiding principle of Zambia’s democracy but also what Christianity stands for in the New Testament.
Despite that it may be embarrassing, the current national debate on capital punishment should be encouraged and the Ministry of justice should take the lead and help to provide statistics on how many people have been hanged after been handed down death penalty decrees. This is important as it will help Zambians make informed decisions whether to support the abolishing of capital punishment or not.
Whilst Zambians unanimously spoke in the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission on the death penalty, it is not an exercise in futility to allow Zambians make a fresh go on the matter to rest the whole discussion for good.
Zambia adopted the death penalty based on the British common laws highly influenced by Biblical teachings of the Old Testament of the Bible that punishment must be reciprocal however the Zambian government chose the principle of reciprocity only when one kills another person.
The Zambian grundnorm under Article 12(1) provides that a person shall not be deprived of his life intentionally except in execution of a sentence of a court in respect of criminal offence under the law in force in Zambia of which he has been convicted.
Zambia is a signatory to international protocols on Civil and Political rights however did put up a reservation on the Optional Protocol in line with her domestic laws and moral persuasion on the death penalty.
Paradoxically, capital punishment in Zambia is applied only for three offences vis: murder (s.201) of the penal code, aggravated armed robbery where a firearm is used (s.294(2)) of the penal code, and treason (s.48) of the penal code.
Any other causative to one’s death, an accused is given custodial sentence if not manslaughter which is a misdemeanor, and an accused may be only fined and set free.
Generally, nations that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rate for murder and similarly nations were capital punishment has been abolished show no significant changes in crime or murder rates.
Zambia has had capital punishment law in place since she was ‘’birthed’’ and despite that there is dearth of data on convicts who may have been hanged because no decrees were signed by the Presidents.
Perhaps, the sentences are just falling shot of been referred to as life imprisonment because the death sentences have not been executed despite courts making such decrees.
Whilst, generally, the threat of one being executed in the future act as a deterrent from committing heinous crimes, capital punishments have not stopped one from committing crimes that call for death penalty as alluded to above.
It is less likely that during any criminal act or planning those criminals ever think of being caught but rather more of being ‘’successful’’ and therefore capital punishment has remained highly debatable that it deters would be offenders.
It is against this backdrop that Zambia should rethink again and perhaps abolish the death penalty. Capital punishment is highly degrading and inhuman to anybody, even to a criminal. This does not suggest that the victims’ party require no compassion but rather that ‘’official’’ killing handed down by the courts is as worse off as the criminal who kills another person deliberately.
The country has witnessed and experienced in the past political leadership pardoning convicts and sentences commuted to life sentences during commemoration of national days and this reflects that it is possible to hand down life sentences when heinous crimes are committed by the offenders, though presumably could be more punishing for individuals not to benefit from any parole whatever maybe the case in the future.
Through the Christian lenses, the Bible provides for an alternative to an eye for eye, the ‘’turning the other cheek’’ through the Gospel of Mathew 5:39 which suggest possibly that the principle of reciprocal is a bad law or principle.
Turning the other cheek is a Christian doctrine from the sermon on the Mount that teaches Christians responding to injury without revenge.
The Christian values promotes forgiveness despite how bad the situation maybe and this principle helps to promote reconciliation.
In Zambia, the Bible is highly persuasive on both the values and morals. The preamble in the Zambian Constitution gives generally a guide on how the citizens ought to treat one another.
Rethinking of abolishing death penalty will be resisted by many, but it is necessary for the country to come out of the ’official’ position of taking an accused’s life through decrees.
Let’s change the law, death penalty is degrading and inhuman!
Francisco Mumba
The Author is a Peace and Conflict Expert specializing in human rights governance and conflict Resolution.
+260975561968
