The Sunday Mail
In his installation in the Sunday Fort Worth Star-Telegram titled “Time to End the Death Penalty’s Cycle of Violence”, Ronald Carlson once wrote: “Our justice system should not be dictated by vengeance.”
He asked: “As a society, shouldn’t we be more civilised than the murderers we condemn?”
Carlson’s argument was that society should not be involved in the practice of killing people who would have committed murder.
In fact, most religions teach that this, in essence, should be the basic fundamentals by which all humans ought to live by, for “an eye for an eye makes the world turn blind,” as one musician once sang.
Now, as the debate on the abolition of the death sentence reared its ugly head recently, human rights organisations are said to have petitioned the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Cde Emmerson Mnangagwa, to abolish the death penalty.
During the celebrations of the world anti-death penalty campaign, local human rights groups such as Padare, Amnesty International and Zimbabwe Lawyers’ Association argued that most modern day countries have done away with capital punishment, hence it was imperative that the country also follows suit.
“No human being regardless of gender should suffer the death penalty,” said Padare director Mr Calvin Hazangwe.
And this was just one of the arguments that have been bought fourth against capital punishment.
However, all the fine and dandy talk on the subject have been coming from the different stakeholders while little or no time has been taken to hear from the aggrieved.
Having noted this, The Sunday Mail Extra made the great trek across the country in search of the families and friends of the murder victims.
As it turned out, while all of them want the rule of law to reign and have the perpetrators punished, they, too, are divided on the issue of capital punishment, just like other stakeholders.
Eshem Huku (26) was allegedly murdered in Chakadii Village under Chief Nenguwo’s jurisdiction in Mahusekwa by a police special constabulary detail identified as Manhokwe over a beerhall misunderstanding.
His relatives said death sentence should remain in order to act as a deterrent for those who wantonly take other people’s lives.
Gura Kahovo (63), who is the late Eshem’s uncle, said anything outside the capital punishment will be a travesty of justice.
“The deceased had two children and a youthful wife whose future has now been jeopardised, as Eshem, who was the sole breadwinner, was ruthlessly killed,” he said.
“The possibility of the perpetrator killing again if released from custody is high. What initially urged him to take a life can do so again, history has got a tendency of repeating itself,” he argued.
Headmen Herbert Masesa of Masesa Village in whose jurisdiction the late Eshem lived concurred that ‘‘an eye for an eye’’ should be the name of the game.
“We would like to see a situation where those who wantonly kill our loved ones suffer the same fate, so that the sanctity of life will be respected.
“It is the ‘just’ way and will not only act as a deterrent for others but it will also ease the pain being endured by the bereaved,” he said.
Headmen Masesa said the law of the jungle, where the powerful do as they please at any given time, should not be allowed to subsist in a civilised society.
Another family in Rusape still mourns the loss of a family member who was grisly murdered by their kith and kin.
Kizito Munyanyi Befa (59) was stabbed in the abdomen with a spear by his own brother, Frederick Jefres Befa.
Another brother to the deceased, Charles Munyanyi Befa (56), spoke strongly against the death sentence, saying no one should be allowed to judge or kill.
“The death penalty has a corrosive effect on the family tree as it divides the same which it is suppose to build at the very time they (family) need each other the most,” he said.
“It (the death penalty) does not serve the victim’s family needs and God.
“No one person should have the ultimate say pertaining to judgments on those who harm or injure others.”
He said the death penalty was an outrageous way to penalise perpetrators of murder. He is of the opinion that it is better to condemn murderers to life imprisonment rather than to give them capital punishment.
The deceased’s widow, Catherine Chibaya (54), however, said the gallows should remain well oiled to deal with murder perpetrators.
“Capital punishment must remain operational as the society has no place for humans who perform barbaric acts on others,” she said.
She argued that the State could channel the huge sums of money it uses in taking care of condemned prisoners to developmental projects.
“When one is convicted of murder, they should immediately be sent to the gallows,” she said.
In Chivhu, Chris Tendekayi, who had his grandmother’s body dismembered before it was buried in a shallow grave in their garden by his grandfather, argued that some degrees of callousness in the murder cases make it unfit for the perpetrator to live.
“The sooner that individual is taken off the face of the earth, the earlier the victim’s family forgets,” said Tendekayi, who is still evidently trying to come to grips with the loss of his grandmother.
However, while recently delivering sentence on the case of Jonathan Mutsinze, who had been languishing in remand prison awaiting sentence for the past decade, High Court judge Justice Charles Hungwe refused to condemn the accused arguing that Section 48 of the new Constitution brings in a new legal terrain, which recognises everyone’s right to life, including prisoners.
Mutsinze was finally sentenced after the Constitutional Court dismissed his application for stay of prosecution.
He was convicted of murder with actual intent, which usually attracts the death penalty, but the loophole saved him and he was slapped with a life sentence.
“Section 48 (2) of the Constitution permits death penalty to be imposed on a person convicted of murder committed with aggravated circumstances and that the law must allow the court a discretion on whether or not to impose the penalty,” said Justice Hungwe in his judgment.
Justice Hungwe interpreted the situation to mean that Zimbabwe was moving away from the death penalty.
“I interpret the legal position to be that in keeping with its international obligations and best practices, Zimbabwe intends to move away from death penalty,” he said.
Therefore, the nation patiently awaits for the ultimate decision on whether to retain or discard capital punishment.
Support for it (death penalty) has been largely premised on the emotional side and just punishment.
Advocates have been arguing that the death penalty came about as a result of passionate anger and loss, and that by some very reasonable connection in logic, the perpetrator must also experience the same fate as a way of appeasing the victim’s families.
However, reformists argue that capital punishment has become not only an unacceptable approach to justice but also an immoral approach to humanity.
Nevertheless, in most Islamic states that practise Sharia law, it is permissible to slay the murderer the same way he slew his victim, or punish the aggressor the same way he violated his victim.
They often base their argument on the dictates of Prophet Muhammad who said “The prescribed Law of Allah (God) is the equality in punishment.
