It was once a grave taboo to take another person’s life.
However, it now seems commonplace for a liSwati to end the life of a fellow citizen.
The death penalty once served to deter such actions by minimising the risks and temptations of taking the law into one’s own hands. It is no longer in use.
The sixth commandment states: “Thou shalt not kill.” This edict is neither issued by His Majesty’s Correctional Services (HMCS) nor the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS), but originates from Almighty God.
Week after week, police reports detail murder cases in a small country, where the population is closely connected by kinship. The homicide rate will not decrease significantly if the nation’s laws remain lenient towards perpetrators. The introduction of a Non-Bailable Offences Act is urgently required to tackle this crisis, as we cannot stand idly, while emaSwati take each other’s lives.
In life, there exists no justifiable cause for murder. I am not referring to ‘killing’ but specifically to ‘murder.’ From my limited understanding, these two terms differ in both meaning and application, thank you very much.
Killing is a general term for ending a life, while murder is a specific legal term for an unlawful, intentional killing of a person with ‘malice aforethought’ (premeditation or intent to cause serious harm).
Experts, I agree with them in that all murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.
One of the strong measures and programmes needed to eradicate homicide is that societies must focus on a public health approach that addresses root causes like poverty and lack of opportunity, alongside targeted interventions for high-risk individuals and communities.
A combination of preventative and intervention strategies is said to be crucial. I disagree with them. There is no poverty that must be accepted in society as the reason for driving people to kill. There are so many people who end human life because they connot control their emotions.
Let us look at their suggested 10 interventions –
Here are 10 majors needed to help reduce the homicide rate, as highlighted by INDEED:
1. Criminology - This field focuses on the nature and causes of crime, criminal behaviour and the criminal justice system. Criminologists collect and analyse data to inform policing strategies and public policies.
2. Sociology - A sociology background provides an understanding of societal dynamics, including how factors like poverty, inequality and community structure contribute to crime.
3. Psychology (especially forensic psychology) - Understanding the motives and behavioural patterns of individuals is crucial for criminal profiling, intervention and rehabilitation efforts.
4. Social Work - Social workers play a vital role in community-based violence intervention programmes, supporting victims, facilitating rehabilitation and connecting individuals with essential services like housing and employment.
5. Public Policy / Public Administration - Professionals with these majors develop and analyse policies related to education spending, welfare and public safety initiatives, which have been shown to impact crime rates.
6. Urban Planning / Urban Design - This major is essential for designing safer communities through environmental changes like improved street lighting, green spaces and public infrastructure, which can decrease the odds of violent crime in specific locations.
7. Criminal Justice - This degree provides a foundation for a wide range of careers in law enforcement, corrections and court administration, focusing on the practical application of laws and justice processes.
8.Data Science / Statistics - Analysing crime data to identify “hot spots,” patterns and trends is a critical, evidence-based approach to targeting police resources and interventions effectively.
9. Public Health - Viewing violence as a public health issue, this major prepares individuals to develop community-wide prevention strategies, often focusing on addressing underlying causes like trauma and lack of access to care.
10. Education - Higher educational achievement has been linked to reduced youth homicide mortality. Professionals in education can help address inequalities in educational access and provide opportunities for at-risk youth to acquire higher-paying jobs and social competency skills
The murders are a global concern such that the United States federal government retains it.
My research shows that there are 23 states and Washington DC have abolished the death penalty, while 27 others, including the federal government and the US military, retain it. In Europe, the death penalty is enforceable only in Belarus. All other European countries have abolished capital punishment in law and practice.
Russia retains the death penalty in its law, but has an indefinite moratorium and has not carried out an execution since 1996. The absolute ban on the death penalty is a prerequisite for membership in both the European Union and the Council of Europe and no executions have taken place in Council of Europe member states since 1999.
I respect their perception about the death penalty, but former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said: “I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live.”
This quote is always attributed to former First Lady of the United States, Nancy Reagan: “I think more people would be alive today if there were a death penalty.”
The Death Penalty Information Centre states that deterrence is probably the most commonly expressed rationale for the death penalty.
According to the centre, the essence of the theory is that the threat of being executed in the future will be sufficient to cause a significant number of people to refrain from committing a heinous crime they had otherwise planned. The centre points to the fact that deterrence is not principally concerned with the prevention of further killing by an already convicted death-penalty defendant as that falls under the topic of incapacitation.
However, it warns that deterrence should not be considered in a vacuum.
The experts say the critical question is not whether potential criminals will be dissuaded from killing because they would face the death penalty rather than no punishment at all.
They emphasise that other punishments such as life without parole might provide equal deterrence at far less costs and without the attendant risk of executing an innocent person.
Whether the death penalty is a proven method of lowering the murder rate has been subjected to many studies over many decades.
Experts mention that it is not enough to compare jurisdictions with the death penalty to those without unless the study controls for the many other variables that could affect the murder rate.
For example, lower unemployment rates correlate with lower crime rates. More police involvement in the local community seems to reduce crime, something which we should be doing in Eswatini.
The death penalty affects only a tiny percentage of even those who commit murder. Its effect is very difficult to pinpoint and the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that past studies have neither proven nor disproven a deterrent effect.
If the death penalty is not a proven deterrent to murder, is it worth the excessive costs, risks of error, uncertainty of completion and other problems that are inherent to its practice? On the political level, I agree with them that the deterrent value of the death penalty is often taken for granted without a careful examination of the research or a consideration of less risky alternatives.
This is especially relevant given that death penalty use has been declining dramatically. Most States are not carrying out any executions each year.
The DPI (Death Penalty Information Centre) says it has collected many of the deterrent studies that have been conducted in the modern era and has summarised their results.
It also provides some of the raw data on which such studies rely, such as the murder case for each State in each year in the modern era, along with the number of executions and death sentences for each State in the same periods.
Our neighbouring Botswana’s argument for the death penalty is that it acts as a deterrent to violent crime. This stance is supported by most of its citizens
I have established that Botswana has executed an average of one person per year since 2019, with the specific number of executions varying by year. However, international human rights groups criticise this practice, but Gaborone maintains that it is ideal for its people.
According to the Patriot on Sunday, notwithstanding growing international criticism, an overwhelming majority of Batswana support the continued use of the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. This was revealed in a new Afrobarometer survey.
The publication reported that the findings from the Afrobarometer survey sparked renewed dialogue on the future of capital punishment in Botswana, with policymakers facing increased pressure from both local constituents and international human rights advocates. The survey outcomes indicated that public sentiment remained firmly in favour of capital punishment, with a significant portion of respondents expressing strong approval for its retention.
I must say that human rights organisations and international bodies increasingly call for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.
The revival of the death penalty in Eswatini could mark a firm stance against the rising tide of violent crime, particularly murder, which continues to cast a shadow over our nation. Evidence from countries such as Singapore and Japan, where the death penalty remains in effect, shows notable declines in homicide rates, suggesting that capital punishment can serve as a powerful deterrent. While the international community often condemns this measure as inhumane, I align myself with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s firm conviction that a murderer irrevocably forfeits their own right to live.
In a society faced with escalating lawlessness, restoring the death penalty is not merely a punitive act, but a necessary deterrent to protect innocent lives and uphold justice. It will underline Eswatini’s commitment to securing safety for all citizens, reinforcing that the gravest crimes warrant the gravest consequences. I thank you.
The death penalty once served to deter such actions by minimising the risks and temptations of taking the law into one’s own hands. It is no longer in use. (Pic: Patrons legal)