It was probably the most salient electoral promise or, as some saw it, threat.

Indeed, the prospect of reintroducing capital punishment for certain types of crimes, such as drug trafficking, polarized public opinion for several weeks before eventually dying down. Yet, this hugely controversial subject will soon be back in the limelight.

Having won the elections, the Alliance de l’Avenir will now be expected to make good on its commitment. The Presidential address, which is barely a few days away, will give a very clear indication of the course of action the newly elected administration intends to pursue. The stakes, it’s safe to say, are exceptionally high.

Many human rights advocates have naturally taken exception to the possible return of a practice they scathingly call “institutionalized murder.”

Given the highly emotional nature of capital punishment, we spoke to Robin Mardemootoo, managing partner of Mardemootoo Solicitors, the largest firm of solicitors in Mauritius and co-founder of the SpeakHuman Rights Initiative, the first global pro-bono provider of human rights legal services, in order to cast a dispassionate light on an issue that is sure to cause a big stir in the coming weeks, months and, possibly, years.

To begin with, Robin Mardemootoo insists that opposing capital punishment doesn’t mean being soft on crime. “It is vital to grasp the fact that both opponents and proponents of the death penalty want to ensure that acts of serious gravity are condemned and severely punished. Consequently, not only the Prime minister but all citizens, including me, would obviously like to live in a crime-free society. However, let’s be realistic and agree that regardless of the means adopted to combat the high rate of criminality in Mauritius, the implementation or non-implementation of the death penalty, will not completely eradicate crimes of serious gravity.”

Next on the solicitor’s list of misleading impressions that need to be dispelled: the use of statistics to justify capital punishment.

He asserts that the accuracy of such figures cannot be “vouchsafed”. Yet despite the inconclusiveness of such studies, supporters of the death penalty continue to claim that “even if there is a ‘significant possibility’ that it does in effect save a larger number of lives then it is not only permissible, but, according to some, morally obligatory.

Therefore, in their view capital punishment is a necessary evil”.

So basically, they believe that the possibility, however distant, that capital punishment could prevent certain crimes from being committed outweighs the practice’s deep moral ramifications and any risks of judicial error. Such arguments go a long way in illustrating the fractiousness of the issue. Some people find the death penalty abhorrent in any context. Others however, feel that it’s justified, even on the strength of rather flimsy evidence, or “life-life tradeoffs” as they are also called.

In turn, such stances only serve to entrench anti-capital punishment advocates in their position. “The ‘lesser-evil’ argument is pervaded with loopholes and only reaffirms the conviction that the imposition of the death penalty is inherently wrong, irrespective of relentless endeavours to highlight the fact that more lives are being saved than executed”, explains Robin Mardemootoo. He puts the death-penalty-as-a-deterrent argument to bed by saying that the claim that it “prevents the potential commission of future crimes as a counter-argument to the claim that it erodes fundamental human rights is not cogent, precisely owing to the inevitable disregard of the retributive reason”.

He goes on to quotes US Justice Blackmum who averred that “the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake”.

Such observations are unlikely to deter those who firmly insist that the death penalty more than balances the great ledger of life. So be it. But the onus should be on them to prove that the imposition of the death penalty is “unquestionably crucial to prevent more crimes”.

Yet government has been patently unable or unwilling to consider such niceties. Nor has it told the population that it shows a “quasi-disregard for our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.

A potentially more convincing argument for the new administration is the possibility that reintroducing will lead to “an increase in plea bargainings” meaning that many cases won’t even go to trial. Robin Mardemootoo also dismisses the popular argument that capital punishment will save the taxpayers’ money by getting rid of criminals who would otherwise spend decades living it large in penal institutions. “The death penalty is costly!”, he exclaims.

He cites the examples of New York and New Jersey that have stopped enforcing the death penalty simply because it’s too expensive.

“The cost issue in capital cases includes everything: the investigation, the prosecution, the defence, the trial, the appeal, the confinement of the inmate, maintaining the death row and ultimately the execution. The costs are high, the stakes are higher! Lives are at stake! So why are we even contemplating it?”, he asks before remarking that death sentences are in fact relatively rare occurrences. In other words, it’s an expensive process where the outcome is far from guaranteed.

Perhaps the most powerful case against capital punishment however is that it entails violating the rights of other human beings. “Adherence to international human rights is not solely circumscribed to simply fulfilling one’s obligations, but to understand and respect the inescapable fact that we are all born human irrespective of the bestial acts some indulge in and human rights inherent”, says the solicitor.

He concludes by savaging the argument that the death penalty ensures that victims are not denied justice. “At the heart of every healthy legal system, a balance must be struck, the  rights of the victims and defendants must both be upheld without prejudice to either and the death penalty will not provide the required checks and balances.

It’s inherently wrong. It’s not the only option so why not make do without it?”

By addressing most of the arguments usually brought out in favour of capital punishment, Robin Mardemootoo has raised some very serious doubts about its implications and, especially, usefulness.

Government would be well advised to think long and hard about them in the coming day

Nicholas RAINER