With the spate of homicides, highway robberies, rape and other grave crime taking place in the country, it is wholly reasonable for the lay public to request the government to forthwith enforce the implementation of the death penalty. Such sentence is passed by the respective law courts only after minutely and extensively weighing the pros and cons of the action of the alleged convict through the process of serious examination and cross examination of the offender and witnesses together with productions involved for the purpose of arriving at a 100 per cent accurate decision with no doubts whatsoever. It stands as the final verdict. If such verdict is not quashed in the Supreme Court after an appeal.

To describe this penalty, sometimes as Capital, punishment is quite stupid, for, if it is a punishment the condemned man should be able to reform himself, after the so called punishment. Therefore, it should be viewed as a deterrant to would-be-murders as they will be compelled to have second thoughts before getting involved in grave crime or for that matter any crime which eventually leads to homicide. It will serve as the sword hung by a hair over the head of damocles.

To realise the full benefit of this deterrent - as in the case of wrong doers flouting the law of certain Middle East countries getting whipped and killed even for lesser offences in public - the self imposed trauma haunting the condemned man while in his stay in the death row till up to the end of his voyage therefrom to the scaffold for his date with the hangman, should be aired over TV that sight will have a telling effect as a deterrent.

A mere rigorous imprisonment in our prisons which now provide all necessary facilities to prisoners will have no effect as a deterrent as the prison to them is now a better place than their homes which lack such facilities.

The various religious dignitaries and other third parties who sermonise against the use of the noose on condemned men would be better advised to leave this question in the hands of the judiciary who pronounce judgement based on findings, and engage themselves, instead, in educating the illiterate unruly people on the morals of good conduct based on their religious doctrines which do not advocate interference with the judiciary.

Nalaka Wijesoma
Boralesgamuwa