Eye for an eye

Re: “Death penalty no solution to crime”, ( BP, May 8)

This commentary against the use of the death penalty in Thailand makes a couple of sensible points. But it ignores the principle for having such a punishment: the need for justice to be seen to be done and for the punishment to fit the crime, which is the principle of proportionality in judicial terms. A life for a life satisfies society’s desire for justice when first degree murder has been committed — a desire that was expressed in the call for the death penalty for the young men who killed a disabled Thai person recently. True, such a call may be over-emotional, but it still represents the desire for justice in society. It is not an “easy solution”.

The idea that the death penalty deters crime is merely a practical consideration. It should not be used as an argument for having the punishment, as it may or may not work in this way in a given society. The central argument — one that won’t go away — is the need for justice, and logically, the death penalty is the only punishment that provides this. How can mere imprisonment compensate for the loss of a precious human life? A life sentence is never that in practice, and murderers are often freed after a few years. Where is the justice for the victim in this? And how many killings does it take before the death penalty is merited — 10, a hundred, a million? Apparently, there is no limit, as imprisonment is often the only available punishment. This is clearly an absurd situation.

Of course, there are problems with the death penalty, just as there are problems with “life” imprisonment, as I have mentioned. However, I would argue that these problems are essentially practical ones and should not lead one to override what represents an essential principle of justice.

BOB GOSLING