It is disconcerting to learn that at least one very senior judge is upset that he is unable to hand down the death penalty to people suspected of trafficking in dangerous drugs simply because the prosecution was unable to prove positive and affirmative possession (of the dangerous drugs) in order to invoke the presumption of trafficking.

While the courts have been reluctant to accept the double presumption (of possession and trafficking), especially when the only sentence permitted is death, the Court of Appeal judge views this safeguard against wrongful conviction as a 'brick wall' that should be broken down in order to get the necessary conviction.

He seems to be peeved that instead of being able to sentence to death, suspects who are apparently guilty, he has to settle for a lighter sentence such as 20 years imprisonment and any number of strokes of the rotan to be meted out at his discretion.

His concern over the rising dadah problem in the country is, of course, commendable, but it is questionable whether hanging people is the right strategy to deal with the problem. In fact there is no shred of evidence to indicate that the introduction and implementation of the death penalty for convicted drug traffickers has had any impact on the continued increase in the number of drug addicts.

If one pauses to ponder over it, one will realise that the death penalty is a barbaric form of punishment which tends to brutalise society. If ever there is a cold-blooded killing of a human person devoid of passion and high emotions - as is often the case in murders - it is the planned and calculated killing of a fellow human being by the state, under the euphemism of 'death penalty'.

It is bad enough that we have the death penalty in our statutes, but at least let us not remove the few safeguards that we have to prevent the courts from imposing this inhuman penalty on our fellow human beings, and especially, God forbid, on the innocent.

Let us not be in a hurry to kill in order to convince people that killing is wrong.