Before South Africa brings back the death penalty, it must answer the hard questions

The story of Christa Gail Pike evokes a disturbing sensation. She was convicted of the brutal 1995 torture and murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer in Tennessee, and was 18 years old at the time. Over thirty years have passed since the crime, and Slemmer's family continues to grapple with the trauma. However, the argument against the death penalty does not necessitate sympathy for murderers, nor does it require extending them any undeserved grace.

The focus must remain on the victims and their families, whose pain cannot be overlooked when evaluating the state's methods of punishment.

The tragic events in Tennessee this week raise a different question: what happens when the state is granted the power to deliberately take a human life? Pike was set to be executed by lethal injection on September 30, but just hours before, a divided federal appeals court halted the process. Tennessee then appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately reversed the stay.

The execution was initially set to proceed, only for Pike to survive the ordeal. Witnesses reported that she remained alive and even snored after receiving the drugs. She was subsequently taken to the hospital.

Regardless of the perceived severity of her crime, the process of attempting to execute Pike is deeply unsettling. The psychological distress experienced by all parties involved is immense. From the moment of anticipation to the reversal of the stay, and ultimately the state's effort to reverse the process, it is grotesque. This incident highlights the brutal nature of the execution process itself, rather than merely focusing on the crime that brought Pike to this point.

The brutality of the crime cannot be equated with the moral authority the state should have in taking a life.

In South Africa, where violent crime rates are alarmingly high, the debate surrounding the death penalty has resurfaced. The country grapples with a myriad of horrifying crimes, including murder, femicide, and mass killings. It is understandable that South Africans are enraged and feel the need to express their fury towards certain offenders. However, this sentiment should not lead to the belief that the state should possess the legal right to take lives.

The debate over the death penalty is not about whether murderers deserve kindness. Some undoubtedly do not hold any moral ground for our sympathy. Some crimes are undeniably monstrous, and those who commit them should be subjected to the harshest legal punishment available. The core of the anti-execution argument lies elsewhere: it concerns the powers that a constitutional state should possess, particularly when those powers are irreversible.

South Africa's history with the death penalty is deeply embedded in our national memory. Gallows once stood at Pretoria Central Prison, and countless individuals were executed during the 20th century, including during the apartheid era. The Constitutional Court's landmark decision in S v Makwanyane, delivered in 1995, unanimously declared the death penalty as unconstitutional.

This ruling was not an act of leniency towards murderers but rather a critical examination of retribution, deterrence, dignity, the right to life, arbitrariness, and the possibility of error. The Court recognized the fallibility of criminal justice systems, acknowledging that mistakes can and do occur. Inevitably, the introduction of an irreversible punishment into an inherently fallible system increases the risk of irreversible errors. The question remains: can any justice system guarantee that such mistakes will never happen?