Capital Punishment in St. Kitts-Nevis as we know it is hanging by neck until death. What’s set this punishment apart from all other punishment is its quality of irrevocability. This type of punishment leaves no way to correct a mistake. Some people in St. Kitts-Nevis believed that no man or system should have the power to inflict capital punishment, because there is no way that guarantee mistakes won't be made. Some doesn’t really care, while others shout “hang them”.
The major ethical positions that can support the death penalty are utilitarianism and retributivism. Because of controversy over the factual issues, involved, utilitarian arguments are used both to defend and condemn capital punishment. If we believe, as do retentionists, that capital punishment is just because it deters people, then we must show proof that it does indeed deter. The abolitionists present evidence that it does not.
Some people in St. Kitts-Nevis argued that for the retention of the death penalty include considerations of social utility. Considerations of justice involve the retributive, deontological view that the moral order is upset by the commission of the offence of murder, and the disorder can only be rectified by punishment equal in intensity to the seriousness of the offence. Utilitarians view the evil of capital punishment as far outweighed by the future benefits that will accrue to society. Hanging, for example might lead to such socially desirable effects as protection from the violent criminal and deterrence of other potential criminals. On the contrary on the question of deterrence some persons do not support for the proposition that hanging is a useful deterrent.
Abolitionists emphasize the inherent worth and dignity of each individuals. The taking of a human life is judged a morally unacceptable practice and is believed to be nothing more vengeance. Utilitarianism may also support the idea that executions create a net negative effect on society, because although criminals receive what they deserve, society is negatively affected by the horrific image of hanging. This view is consistent with the idea that violence begets violence, and far from showing society intolerance towards murder, capital punishment is seen as actually cheapening human life and encouraging bloodthirstiness.
Religious ethics have been used to support and condemn capital punishment. Old Testament law supporting the taking of “an eye for an eye” is used by the retentionists, while the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is used by the abolitionists. The ethical justification of capital punishment presents serious and probably irresolvable problems. It is a telling story that for as long as society has used capital punishment to punish wrongdoing, critics have defined it as immoral.
Some people raise the questions about the methods and procedures use when hanging. How much money is paid to the “Hangman”? Does the “Hangman” spend a night at Her Majesty’s Prison? Should all murderers be subjected to capital punishment, or are some murderers more “justified” than others? Should we allow defenses of age, mental state, or reason?
Unless our High Court or maybe the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) revises its current position the legality of hanging in our country is not in question even though the procedures used to arrive at the decision to hang are still being challenged. Using moral and ethical rather than legal analysis, one might examine recent High Court cases that hold that statistical differences in the use of hangings do not violate the disproportionality test that offenders who are simply crime partners rather than perpetrators of murder deserve hanging and that the mental retardation can be used only as a mitigating factor in the decision to hang. The morality of capital punishment in general is still very much a topic of debate in St. Kitts-Nevis and elicits strong feelings on the part of many.
