By: Paul Sarran
May 20, 2025
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s renewed call to reintroduce the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago has sparked a national conversation rooted in law, morality, and religion. The country is grappling with a murder rate that has reached crisis levels, shocking the conscience of the nation and leaving citizens desperate for solutions. In such an environment, the idea of hanging as a deterrent might seem reasonable. Yet it also raises deep questions about our values, sense of justice, and the society we hope to build.
Many citizens, worn down by violence, see the return of the death penalty as necessary. The logic is that if murderers face execution, they may be less likely to commit the crime. From this view, Persad-Bissessar’s stance reflects the state’s moral duty to protect its people. Some religious groups see capital punishment as a form of divine justice. “An eye for an eye” is often quoted to justify the ultimate penalty. For grieving families, execution might feel like the only way justice can truly be served.
However, others argue that morality should not be built on revenge. They point to deeper spiritual principles compassion, forgiveness, and the sacredness of life. Christian teachings emphasize mercy: “turn the other cheek” and “blessed are the merciful.” These values seem incompatible with the brutality of execution. Hindu and Buddhist teachings also promote non-violence and the idea that all life is valuable. In this light, the state has a duty to rise above vengeance and set a humane example.
One major concern is the risk of wrongful execution. No legal system is perfect. One mistake a false conviction could lead to an irreversible injustice. This alone is enough for some to reject the death penalty. True morality, they argue, lies not in harshness, but in safeguarding every person’s right to a fair trial and the possibility of redemption.
In addition, many challenge the assumption that the death penalty actually deters crime. While the Prime Minister referred to data supporting this claim, international studies offer no clear proof that it reduces murder more effectively than life sentences. So if the evidence is inconclusive, is it worth reviving such a controversial practice? Perhaps the energy would be better spent on reforming the police service, fixing the courts, and tackling poverty and education areas that strike at the root causes of crime.
Still, others argue that the symbolic power of hanging cannot be overlooked. It sends a message: the state will not tolerate lawlessness. In a country where people often feel abandoned by law enforcement, where justice moves slowly and criminals act with impunity, the death penalty seems like the only remaining deterrent. For some, not bringing it back is a moral failure in itself a sign that the government lacks the will to defend its people.
But this view walks a fine line between justice and mob rule. The pressure to show results can lead to rushed investigations, flawed prosecutions, and ultimately, wrongful deaths. If the state kills in the name of justice, it must do so with absolute certaintysomething no system can guarantee. The question then becomes not only whether hanging is effective, but whether it is ethical for a modern democracy.
Religion, though often invoked to support the death penalty, can also be used to argue against it. If we quote scripture to justify execution, we must also consider scripture’s call to mercy and grace. Some argue that even murderers can change, and that society should offer the chance for rehabilitation, not just punishment. If we believe in redemption, then we must also believe in justice systems that offer hope, not finality.
There are also legal and international challenges. The last time the government brought the “hanging bill” to Parliament in 2011, it failed. Opposition support may still be lacking. Internationally, reintroducing capital punishment could damage Trinidad and Tobago’s human rights reputation, strain foreign relations, and even affect aid or investment. The country is bound by international treaties and obligations that discourage or outright oppose the death penalty. Moving forward with hangings could provoke serious diplomatic fallout.
Beyond the courtroom and Parliament, this is a test of our national values. Are we a country that answers violence with more violence, or one that holds to principles of dignity, restraint, and justice? Is the measure of our strength found in the gallows, or in our ability to choose another path?
This is not an easy debate. The pain of those affected by crime is real and raw. But lasting solutions must be grounded in evidence, guided by principle, and reflective of the society we want to be. We can all agree that crime must be dealt with decisively. But whether hanging is the right path remains a question not just of politics, but of conscience.
In the end, the decision to bring back the death penalty should not be driven by fear or anger alone. It must be shaped by a careful balancing of safety, justice, and humanity. Trinidad and Tobago faces a difficult choice but it is one that must be made with both head and heart.
(The author Paul Sarran is a Political Science Student at The University of the West Indies Global Campus in St Augustine.)
Email your opinions, letters and commentaries to: letters@caribmagplus.com