second reading in the Senate yesterday.

Government Sen. Michael Scott introduced The Abolition of Capital and Corporal Punishment Act, noting that putting people to death as retribution for their offences was "cruel'' and "against human rights'', both locally and on an international level.

He said a large number of countries had already abolished the death penalty and that the number of US states in favour of retention was "diminishing''.

He also said life imprisonment would be a "proper and adequate substitution when dealing with cases where life had been taken''.

"Bermuda is the only overseas territory to retain capital punishment,'' Sen.

Scott said, "and we need to be sensitive to the dilemma that the UK could face if we don't abolish it.'' And referring to corporal punishment as "whipping into submission'', he said: "The practice is barbaric and we now have the alternatives of psychological counselling and rehabilitation programmes.

"We need to respect the standards of international human rights.

Opposition Sen. Maxwell Burgess made it clear that he was in favour of capital punishment.

"I support it and have done so for some time,'' he said, "but I also have the utmost respect for those who differ with me.'' But referring to last Friday's debate of the same bill in the House of Assembly, Sen. Burgess asked: "If Government failed to convince a majority of their own members of their viewpoint, then how do they think they can come here and convince me?'' He called the Progressive Labour Party backbenchers who did not stay for the vote "men of integrity'' for "standing up for their beliefs''.

"And I suspect that they were not persuaded on that night because this bill was not clear enough on how they propose to administer life sentences in the death penalty's place,'' Sen. Burgess said.

He also called the bill a "half-baked measure'' and added: "The people must be completely satisfied that the sentence in place instead will be properly administrated.'' But Opposition Sen. Mark Pettingill called the death penalty a "barbaric'' practice which had no place in "a society like ours''.

"I have been to death row at Westgate and let me tell you, it chilled me,'' he said.

But he added that he did not think the Government was "seeing the wood for the trees''.

He called the Government's handling of the matter "emotional'' and said: "This piece of legislation should not be about that but instead about what's right. This is exactly where it falls down.'' Referring to the Criminal Code, Sen. Pettingill said the bill, as it stood, did not address the law of as it was written on the books.

"We have to address this and get things in place,'' he said, " and there is no reason at all why it needs to be rushed through or knee jerked.

"We have a responsibility to pass legislation that is working. And if we don't, then we risk making ourselves look silly to the rest of the world.

"It's not an emotional debate but a law and the law is wrong.'' Sen. Pettingill said one effect of the bill would be that probation would be a sentencing option for someone committing pre-meditated murder.

"In an emotional knee-jerk reaction, they have gone through every section that has death penalty and crossed it out and haven't bothered to read it.'' A Police officer who looked the other way while a crime was being committed is liable to a prison sentence of three years, but the way the new bill was drafted, this would be increased to life imprisonment.

"This legislation is not thought out and is rushed, and this from someone broadly in favour of an Act to get rid of capital punishment, but this is not it,'' Sen. Pettingill said.

He also said no one would be hanged or flogged in the next year, so the bill should be rejected and redrafted properly so the legislation would work properly.

"We can't just say we'll vote today because that's what the public wants and we create a nonsense. I am not trying to be undermining, but we have got to be gentlemen and ladies of sensibility. We can't just blindly go through this.'' He said a judicial committee should be established to look at the issues, which happens in England. This would take the emotion out of the problem and find a middle road to satisfy everyone, Sen. Pettingill claimed.

Senate Leader Alf Oughton said the Public Safety Minister decided if a prisoner should be released after serving a minimum sentence, following reports.

Death penalty to be abolished following Senate debate Independent Sen. Jeanette Cannonier said someone sentenced for pre-meditated murder should be locked up for life and "swallow the key''.

She said she was not in favour of the abolition of capital punishment because "if someone wants to kill one of mine, the shoe has to be on the other foot''.

Sen. Pettingill said: "This house is here to correct mistakes that are made up there (House of Assembly). I've highlighted some serious mistakes, and if you take a three-year sentence and make it life, that's a serious mistake.'' He said the bill fell at the first hurdle because it talked of abolition of capital punishment, but there was no mention of capital punishment in the law.

"We will be laughing stocks, whether Britain wants this or not. If it was sent over there (to Britain) the Labour boys would say `You can't do away with capital punishment because you don't have it','' Sen. Pettingill claimed.

"There is a fundamental mistake in the drafting of the legislation.'' And he said the errors could not be corrected in amendments. An entirely new bill was needed.

"We can't always be bickering and banging our heads together for an agenda,'' he said. "We all talk about constructive criticism, so let's not pass legislation and leave it to a judge, even though it is ridiculous. There is not the urgency to pass this Act because it (corporal and capital punishment) does not happen.'' Independent Sen. Walwyn Hughes said he was in favour of abolition, but "we have to be sure that if there are mistakes, we correct them. Now that we've discussed it, I find it very hard to support that bill''.

He said he "could not live with a bill that has errors so glaring because it looks silly''.

But he said: "It is not the end of the world, it can come back and be made better.'' Government Senate Leader Milton Scott said Sen. Pettingill made some interesting points, but that drafting was not a perfect science.

Senate had passed legislation before that had been flawed, but concerns had been taken to Government who had addressed them.

He said: "To look at all the anomalies of the criminal code would take two or three people two or three years. You have got concerns in writing and I will take them back to the Attorney General and I'm sure they will be passed to the Law Reform Committee.

"The one thing that concerns me is the issue of capital punishment has to be addressed. Every right thinking person would think it is barbaric and should not be taking place, and I'm in favour of abolition.

"I would hope we can get sufficient support around the table to ensure it is eradicated from the statute books before the Millennium.

"I have heard concerns and I will take them back and will see that the Attorney General will address these concerns and I'm sure that will go to the Law Reform Committee.'' See tomorrow for more Senate coverage Sen. Michael Scott