The death penalty cannot heal what murder breaks
Presidential aspirant Talib Ahmed Bensouda said emphatically, even swore in one of his recent rallies that he would invoke the death penalty in cases of murder should he elected in December. Talib veered here into politically perilous territory with an unchecked remark that was an offhand and imprudent public declaration by a presidential candidate in a major political rally in an emerging democracy like the Gambia in circa 2026. Talib comes from a prominent and highly respected family of lawyers, and he should have known and indeed be on the front-line of Gambian elites in the advocacy and public education for the rest of us that world-wide, there’s an abundance of academic and professional research and vast amounts of evidence-based data suggest that the death penalty cannot heal what murder breaks.
Murder inflicts an irreparable loss on families, communities, and the state, so the instinct to demand the harshest possible punishment is understandable; The capital punishment framework in nations where it is widely practiced, most notably Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Egypt, and the United States, rests on complex legal theories, systemic analysis of its implementation, and a continuous debate over its policy justifications and structural challenges. In legal and philosophical theory, the foundational basis for the death penalty vary significantly by jurisdiction, primarily splitting between religious law and state-centric retributive models. The US, out of all the other death penalty practicing countries, the one with which the Gambia shares similar democratic aspirations, roots its framework in a constitutional retributive model constrained by procedural checks (the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”). In a theoretical framework, globally acclaimed assessments, reviews, analysis and conclusions documented in the Death Penalty Research Unit, University of Oxford, the Cornell Centre on Death Penalty Worldwide and the professional and legal research outputs of human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and the Death Penalty Information Center have advised that the death penalty is not a reliable deterrent, it is risks irreversible injustice, imposes enormous costs, and often fails to bring victims’ families the peace it promises.
Indeed, it must be emphasised that no argument for abolition of the death penalty in the constitution can minimise the anguish of a parent who has buried a child, a spouse left without a partner, or a community shaken by a brutal killing. Affected families always deserve justice, answers, protection, and meaningful recognition of their suffering. That is why a better response to the trauma and devastation of murder prescribed to governments in democratic countries is a rigorous system of life imprisonment, victim-centered support, restitution, and carefully safeguarded restorative justice. But in the framework of human rights advocacy and practice, restorative justice and victim centered legal reform, justice is measured by how accurate, fair, humane, and helpful to survivors it is in rebuilding their lives, not merely by whether it satisfies the immediate demand for retribution. Research on homicide survivors finds that closure is not a psychological certainty delivered by an execution; grief is complex, and survivors’ needs often include information, participation, acknowledgement, safety, and long-term
In the US, the death penalty is currently legal in 27 states as well as at the federal level and for the military but it is totally banned in 23 states and in Washington DC. Where it is still maintained, they claim that it deters murder, but consistent authoritative review of the evidence in legal literature does not support this claim. The United States National Research Council concluded in a 2012 report that existing studies conducted are “not informative” on whether the death penalty decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. It further warned that such studies should not be used by governments and public policy advocates because they rely on unverifiable assumptions and often fail to compare capital punishment with alternative punishments such as life imprisonment without parole. This does not prove of course that executions have zero deterrent effect but still it means something more important for lawmakers, which is that, there is no sound evidentiary basis for telling the public that the death penalty will reduce murder. On this argument, it is il-advised of Talib to advocate the principle of irreversible punishment on Gambians if we vote him into power, Criminal justice systems everywhere are imperfect. Witnesses can make mistakes, confessions can be false, forensic evidence can be misapplied, and poor defendants may receive inadequate legal representation. In a murder case, these failures can condemn an innocent person to death.
In the US, at least 200 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. A widely cited 2014 study estimated that at least 4 percent of people sentenced to death are likely innocent. The Innocence Project also reports that, out of 375 DNA exonerations it documented, 21 people had previously been sentenced to death; most of who had been wrongly convicted of murder. These cases demonstrate that wrongful convictions are not theoretical. An execution cannot be corrected, a wrongful life sentence is a catastrophic injustice, but it can at least be remedied when new evidence emerges. The death penalty removes that possibility completely. Supporters of capital punishment say that it gives victims’ families “closure.” The research does not bear this out. A University of Minnesota study found that only 2.5 percent of family members and close friends of murder victims reported achieving closure after the perpetrator’s execution, while 20.1 percent said the execution did not help them heal. Survivors also described emptiness because an execution could not restore the person they had lost.
Capital cases also tend to involve lengthy trials, appeals, resentencing proceedings, and media attention. Rather than ending grief, this prolonged process can keep families tied to the traumatic event for years or decades. Research summarised by the Death Penalty Information Centre finds that the death penalty may interfere with healing rather than promote it. This is not an argument that victims’ families should be denied a voice. It is an argument that the state should not make survivors bear the moral and emotional burden of asking for, witnessing, or living with an execution, a costly and unequal punishment. Capital punishment consumes scarce public resources that could be used for homicide prevention, investigations, forensic capacity, victim support, and rehabilitation. Cost studies cited in policy testimony have found capital cases to be more expensive than comparable murder cases resulting in life imprisonment, largely because of longer trials, more experts, enhanced appeals, and death-row incarceration. The death penalty also raises serious equality concerns. The Innocence Project describes it as racially and socio-economically biased, noting that those with fewer resources may be less able to mount an effective defense. Even where bias is not intentional, an irreversible punishment should not depend on whether an accused person can afford competent counsel, expert witnesses, and a sustained. What should replace it Abolition must not mean impunity. The state should respond to murder with punishments and institutions that protect the public, uphold accountability, and respect victims.
By Alhaji Kemo Conteh
