Ghana’s Parliament this year, repealed the death penalty also known as capital punishment from its statute books thereby making Ghana the 29th country to abolish the death penalty in Africa and the 124th globally, according to The Death Penalty Project, a London-based NGO as reported by Reuters.

The bill for the abolishment of the death penalty was initiated by the Member of Parliament (MP) for Madina, Francis-Xavier Sosu, who led the argument that a
life lost through “unlawful execution of penalty” could not be regained.

The proponents also posited people who were executed through it would not have the opportunity to appeal their conviction in case new evidence emerged which might exonerate them. No doubt, these are sound arguments that will win a debate to make a case for repeal of the death penalty.

Even though it was unanimous endorsement by members of parliament, there were some dissenting views in and outside parliament who did not hold back their resentment of the whole idea of scrapping the death penalty.

According to these opponents, apart from opening the “flood gates” for people to murder with impunity, they believed the death penalty as a punishment takes its root from the retributive theory of punishment where the principle of an "eye for an eye and “a tooth for a tooth”, is religiously applied to serve as
deterrence to others.

Thus, if one commits murder, one must be punished in a manner proportionate to the crime of killing another person. Again, why should a murderer take someone else’s life while he lives? Another sound argument that can equally win a debate contest.

The question then is where do we draw the line between whether to repeal or not to repeal so that it will be beneficial to the larger society?

This conundrum of a question brings into focus the objective of this opinion piece. This week graphiconline reported a heinous crime news titled: Robbers Mistake Bread for Cash - Return to Kill Pregnant Woman.

The news reports stated the robbers/murderers and a couple, who had just returned home ostensibly from their workplace, engaged in a fierce struggle for the couple’s possession during which the robbers shot the husband in his right leg and left shoulder, and inflicted a machete wound on his head.

Having the man, the robbers took whatever they wanted and bolted. To their uttermost chagrin, these robbers realised the wrapped parcel they took away
thinking it was a stash of cash, turned out to be a loaf of bread! These robbers returned to the house to shoot to death the pregnant wife of the man while the man was on admission to the hospital.

My question is in a situation like this if it is indeed proven beyond all reasonable doubts that these bandits indeed did what they are alleged to have done, why should they live after this callous act?

They knew what they were doing and understandably carried out to the latter.
This criminally intent act, maliciously delivered should not hide under the clothes of “every life counts”. What about the life they have gruesomely and intentionally taken? Doesn’t it matter?

I think that as a society, we must find a way to determine the “intent” of the murder cases because it appears opponents of the abolishment of the death penalty are vindicated.