admindesired.
For years, the world has been fighting for gender balance and equity. Now it seems as if the new constitution is discriminating against males.
One then wonders if this practice is really considered constitutional.
A murder committed under the same circumstances must be treated as thus, regardless of whether the perpetrator is male or female. Period!
In the new constitution, people seem to agree that female murderers should not hang. As noble as the idea might sound, it will be very fair if the courts or the Cabinet makes a decision based on the circumstances of each case or the merits and demerits of each case.
It might not be surprising that in the next 15 years, women will be on top of everything (something that many have for many years been wishing for) and what will happen if they kill. The nation should not take gender issues lightly because soon it will be men fighting for gender balance.
Over the years, the nation and the world at large, have been talking about gender balance or gender equality and in most cases when people talked gender balance they would be referring to disempowering the male gender to empower the females.
Many activists the world over have been fighting for the empowerment of women and gender balance (a noble idea) until it was turned into a battle of disarming men and in the process, writing a major recipe for disaster.
Imagine having a murderer acquitted or having her death sentence nullified because it is a she? Scary as it might sound but the new constitution (if it succeeds) will allow lesser sentences depending on gender.
Taking a look at the story of 68-year-old Rosemary Khumalo, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, one would not help but wonder why she could be spared the noose after the facts leading to her conviction proved that she had a motive to kill.
Rosemary, who, according to state facts used to woo well-to-do men and later rob them with the help of two relatives, wrote several petitions to the President and her pleas for clemency were turned down.
In the case that led to her arrest and subsequent conviction, she was said to have had an affair with a Gweru businessman whom she, together with her accomplices later waylaid and killed while on his way to a bank to deposit money.
Rosemary, who supplied the murder weapon and masks that were used by her accomplices, helped bury their victim in her vegetable garden at her residence. She had a motive to kill which makes part 2 of chapter 4, 48: 2 of the new constitution which states that, the law may permit death penalty to be imposed on a person convicted of murder committed in aggravated circumstances, effective.
Chapter 4 part 2:48 (1) states that every person has the right to life.
In light of this development every one including the male convicts have a right to life such that men can not be discriminated on because of their gender.
The constitution, however, says on 48 🙁 2) b (ii) states that the penalty must not be carried out on a person who is over 70 years old.
On 48:2 (c) it says that the penalty must not be carried out on a woman. (Recipe for disaster!) In light of this, it means that people like Rosemary Khumalo, who committed murder at the age of 53 and was convicted at the age of 55 years in years 2000, will be spared the noose because there is so much law backing her.
Although she claimed to have been wrongfully convicted, she later ironically begged the President for clemency on the grounds that “she may have erred but deserved a second chance”.
In the past weeks, all parties in Government were gunning for a “yes” vote but some of the laws in the draft Constitution have to be amended to protect the lives of the ordinary citizen.
Online Reporter