Since the 1970s the US has instituted a new and fearful
punishment referred to as LWOP, life without parole. It was meant to replace a
sentence of death, and is in fact a sentence of death in another form to
capital punishment by gallows, electric chair, gas chamber, or lethal
injection.
LWOP is a sentence of waiting for death by illness or old age; it
mandates no escape from a prison cell other than as a corpse.
Consider the implications of such a punishment. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the foundation of modern society and
consists of 30 short affirmations relating to human beings. 22 of those short
principles begin with the word “Everyone”, four use an implied equivalent such
as “All”, or “Any person”. Besides, there are four prohibitions, for example
against slavery or torture that use the negative universal “No one”. Clearly,
the map of living established by the consensus of nations, does not envisage
that human beings can be divided into two categories, those who are entitled to
“recognition of the inherent dignity and of the inalienable rights of all
members of the human family
[i]”, and those who are
non-persons without dignity or rights. And yet there are persons to whom
“everyone” or its equivalent does not apply, and who are excluded from the
prohibitions which should apply to no one. We may call them “no-ones”, human
contradictions which should not, but do exist today
[ii].
What is the fate of a “no-one”? A “no-one” has no right, no
role, no function, other than to wait for death. Their gender is irrelevant; we
may call them “it”. A “no-one” must be placed in isolation from humans, even
from other “no-ones”, since any communication between them would be meaningless
and could cause trouble. Ideally, the “no-ones” should be supplied with the
basic food to maintain life, delivered automatically without any human contact.
Their holding cell need not have any amenity or window, other than the bare
necessity to preserve life. Since some measure of exercise is necessary, a door
is opened automatically once a week to allow them solitary exercise in a bare
enclosure. When the allotted time ends a voice orders them to return to their
cell and the door closes.
Since there is no rehabilitation, no education of any kind,
no entertainment, there is no need of prison staff with skills or
responsibilities in human relations. It is best that the prison administration
be entrusted to private companies who can handle meaningless services. Best too
if the prison is underground as there is need only of entrance, and an exit of
corpses, with service access for staff and supplies.
Today, the prison population of those condemned to LWOP, the
“no-ones” in the US exceeds 50,000. There is no use in asking whether the
“no-ones” deserve their punishment or not. Originally, intended as a
replacement for the death penalty, LWOP is now extended even to being a
punishment for petty crime, under such policies as the ‘three strike” penal
policy, when three minor felonies may lead to the most extreme sentence ever
devised. Repeat petty criminals, or even
juniors, may be subject to LWOP.
Will Thailand take this path of choosing the inhumanity of
LWOP? Unfortunately, there is a great danger that it will. There is also the
hidden threat revealed in the US experience. Once LWOP is introduced, it is
extended to being a punishment for lesser crimes with the reasoning that not
being the death penalty, its application is more easily accepted. The other
factor which emerges is that once accepted as part of the legal code it is next
to impossible to repeal, lacking the emotional resistance attached to the death
penalty, and justified by an appeal to the absolute safety of society. Note
also that in practice a sentence of LWOP is handed down without the protection
of extra attention to legal certainty that should accompany passing of a death
sentence.
There is a danger that a policy copied from the US, the
self-proclaimed icon of human rights, will be uncritically adopted. The
official proposal for abolition of the death penalty in Thailand adds the
codicil, “and its replacement by life imprisonment”. But the implication is that
this intends LWOP, as an assurance of absolute safety from repeat crime.
Ominously, the replacement is accompanied by the suggestion of a large number
of maximum security prisons. They would be located in remote areas implying a
complete isolation of their “no-one” population. The concept that the prisons
would be administered by commercial companies implies the absence of government
responsibility for programmes of rehabilitation or humane management.
The result is a division between “everyone”, and a
population of “no-ones” with no human characteristic.
Does Thailand not have the humanity and understanding to
reject this awful choice?
[i]
Preamble: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
[ii]
Significantly, a US prosecutor admits that he can recall the names of all those
he prosecuted who were condemned to death, but cannot remember the name of a
single one condemned to LWOP. See “Life without Parole: America’s New Death
Penalty”, New York University Press, Chapter 5, 2012
