Professor Ba Samba Njol Drammeh, a Gambian academic based in Atlanta, United States, has spoken out against the revival of capital punishment in The Gambia. His comments come amid renewed public debate in the West African nation over whether the state should reintroduce the death penalty as a response to violent crime. Professor Drammeh warned that wrongful convictions remain a serious risk in any justice system. "For that reason, I do not support the death penalty," he stated. "I prefer life imprisonment because an innocent person could be executed for a crime they did not commit." He also stated that the country should not return to enforcing capital punishment in response to rising public concern over murder cases.
Arguments Against Capital Punishment
Professor Ba Samba Njol Drammeh argued that the death penalty has not proven to be an effective deterrent to crime. He dismissed the assertion that executions reduce violent crime, citing the United States as an example where capital punishment remains in force in some states, yet murder continues. Professor Drammeh maintained that the mere existence of the death penalty does not automatically translate into improved public safety, justice, or a reduction in crime rates. He emphasized that the death penalty has failed to prove itself as an effective deterrent, pointing to ongoing violent crime even in jurisdictions where it is applied.
Professor Drammeh also raised concerns about fairness within the justice system, stating that it is not equally accessible to all suspects. He noted that wealthier defendants often have the means to secure stronger legal representation, while financially disadvantaged accused individuals typically rely on weaker defense services. This disparity, he argued, creates a significant imbalance in legal proceedings.
Historical Precedents and Alternatives
Professor Ba Samba Njol Drammeh stated that this imbalance in legal representation increases the risk of convicting and executing innocent people based on flawed testimony or judicial error. He recalled executions carried out under former President Yahya Jammeh, including the killing of nine individuals during the Ramadan period. Professor Drammeh argued that those executions did not lead to a reduction in crime and instead deepened fear without providing lasting deterrence. He further asserted that such actions failed to deliver lasting solutions to public safety concerns. Under The Gambia's current constitutional and legal framework, he asserted that life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence for murder and other grave crimes. Professor Drammeh emphasized that he would only support capital punishment if The Gambia were governed under Sharia law as an Islamic republic. He stressed that without such a fundamental shift in governance, the death penalty remains an inappropriate and unjust measure.
The Gambian Debate Landscape
Professor Ba Samba Njol Drammeh asserted that The Gambia should not reinstate capital punishment as a response to growing public concern regarding an increase in murder cases. He maintained that such a measure would not address the root causes of crime or provide effective deterrence. He suggested that focusing on punitive measures without addressing underlying societal issues is an ineffective approach to crime reduction.
Conversely, proponents of capital punishment's reinstatement argue that the rise in murder cases necessitates harsher penalties to ensure justice and deter future offenses. They suggest that the current legal framework is insufficient to tackle violent crime and that stronger deterrents are needed to restore order and public confidence. Supporters of reinstatement believe that rising murder cases demand harsher penalties to properly address the severity of these crimes and protect the community.
However, opponents of the death penalty insist that the focus should instead be on improving the quality of criminal investigations and prosecutions. They advocate for full prison reform and ensuring the certainty of punishment for convicted criminals, rather than reverting to state executions. They argue that a strong and fair justice system, coupled with effective rehabilitation and consistent enforcement of existing laws, would be a more sustainable and ethical approach to crime prevention and public safety.