The Court must be satisfied that the offence committed was the “worst of the worst” or “the rarest of the rarest.” Additionally, if the offender has no reasonable prospect of reform, and the object of punishment could not be achieved by any other means, only then should the Court consider imposing the death penalty. Section 115 of The Bahamas Penal Code lists the punishments which may be imposed on an offender under the Code. These include death, imprisonment, fines, payment of costs, and payment of compensation. However, there are only two offences contained in the Penal Code whereby a sentence of death can be imposed. These are murder and treason.
According to Amnesty International, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, Grenada, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago continue to support the retention of the death penalty. Executions, however, are rare in these countries. The last executions in this region were in St. Kitts and Nevis in December 2008, The Bahamas in 2000, and Trinidad and Tobago in 1999. Grenada has not carried out any executions since 1978 and no one has been executed in Barbados, Dominica, or Jamaica since the 1980s.
In a 2017 Tribune Article, National Security Minister, Marvin Dames stated that the Minnis administration would push to enforce the death penalty in The Bahamas in an effort to reduce rising crime levels in the country. Citizens for Justice Chairman Bishop Walter Hanchell, in an October 2020 article with EyeWitness News renewed his previous calls for the reimplementation of capital punishment in The Bahamas due to rising murder and violent crime rates. Bishop Hanchell noted that death sentences are commuted by the Privy Council due to their philosophical objection to capital punishment. However, he states that thugs will continue to take innocent lives, knowing that there are no real consequences for their actions.
While it has been suggested by proponents of the death penalty, the question stands as to whether the enforcement of the death penalty deters violent crime. The basis of deterrence 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.
According to the National Research Council in 2012, it was determined that studies conducted claiming that the death penalty affected the murder rates in various states (in the United States of America) were fundamentally flawed, as they failed to consider the effect of non-capital punishments and used incomplete or implausible methods. Additionally, they found that for potential offenders, the threat of execution at some future date was not on their minds, especially if they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, in a rage, committing another crime (e.g. robbery), or experiencing mental illness.
In the United States of America states that have death penalty laws have not seen a reduction in their crime and murder rates. Moreover, states that have abolished their death penalty laws have not seen any change in their crime and murder rates. Therefore, there has been no credible evidence that has shown that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long term imprisonment.
Although proponents in support of the death penalty’s return have lobbied that it will deter future crime, they fail to consider the damaging effects of those convicted who may be innocent of the crime. Miscarriages of justice are not a new phenomenon. There have been many cases around the world where innocent persons have been convicted of crimes to which they were not guilty of. The term “miscarriage of justice” refers to when a person is convicted of a crime but later, either by reopening their case or the emergence of new evidence, their conviction is found to be “unsafe.” In many instances, the reopening of a case may be done years after a conviction, possibly close to the time in which the offender may be executed or even after the execution.
In 2010 the Former President of The Bahamas Court of Appeal, Justice Dame Joan Sawyer, referenced her opposition of the death penalty “to kill one innocent man for a crime he didn’t commit is so serious a crime that I wouldn’t want to be party to it.” Considering that the justice system itself is not infallible, as it is run by humans who are apt to mistake and error, the finality of an execution following the imposition of a death sentence is too great a risk to take.
The case of the return of the death penalty is a weak case. Considering the various gaps and inefficiencies with criminal investigations (i.e., pressured or coerced confession statements, lack of sufficient evidence, absence of legal counsel) and a judicial system fraught with weaknesses, many persons are convicted solely as a result of these inefficiencies and not because they are the one who committed the crime. For me, the risk is far too great, especially when considering that potential offenders will not be deterred by the return of the death penalty, along with the possibility of an innocent person being executed in the process.