By Zyberzitizen
Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi.
Will we remember him – or even his name? Will it matter to us? Does it matter to us? Why should we care about a Nigerian who is convicted of trafficking drugs? Why should we care about him who is now dead – sentenced to die and hung by our esteemed courts of well-trained, experienced judges?
Indeed, why care at all when he is not the only or first person to die by the noose for drugs trafficking?
Why?
Because we are complicit in his death.
Who are ‘we’?
The government , the elected MPs, the media, the courts, the local lawyers who kept quiet, the opposition parties who kept quiet, the public who kept quiet.
The society which turned a blind eye.
Yes, we.
The points of the case has been well articulated by some bloggers, especially Alex Au or Yawning Bread as he is popularly known (here and here). Thus, I will not go into that. I would, however, like to focus on the way our whole society turned a blind eye – and how easy it was for us to do so.
And yes, we are guilty of complicity in the death of this young man.
The government:
So many ministers, so many MPs – both of the ruling party and the opposition. Yet, as far as I know, not a single one of them raised this issue/case in parliament. Not that they did not have a chance to. Indeed, they were all in parliament just days before the execution of Tochi took place.
There are many lawyers among the MPs, yet not a single one found it necessary to question the doubts raised by the case of this Nigerian boy.
Perhaps the thought is that once Tochi is executed, people will forget about it soon enough. Or perhaps, that Tochi is from a country which is insignificant to Singapore economically and politically.
Or even perhaps our MPs feel that our courts are so absolutely perfect that there is no need to question but only trust. Indeed, the government has trumpeted the standing of the Singapore judicial system by citing certain international reports and ratings.
When the government itself has publicly and proudly declared that we should strive to be a ‘compassionate society’, but none of the MPs in government finds it necessary to raise the case of Tochi, I find the words ‘compassionate society’ hollow, empty and yes, even hypocritical.
The media
No one is more complicit in the death of this young boy than the Singapore mass media. This is my opinion.
The mass media reaches the masses, that’s why it’s called the ‘mass media’. Thus, it is through the mass media that issues can be raised effectively and generate discussions, debates, even heated ones. This is how alternative views are opened up, orthodox ones questioned, new ideas flow and society progresses.
Yet, in a case such as Tochi’s, the mass media was woefully silent, quiet, nonchalant. Seems to me that the taking of a life deserves nothing more than a blip on their radar screen, if indeed there was even a blip.
Valid, probing questions were raised by Alex Au and particularly the Singapore Democratic Party. Yet, the media must have deemed these questions insignificant. They would rather pick up the Wee Shu Min issue rather than question the law or the application of the law in this case. They would rather devote pages upon pages to useless, inane, senseless, completely irrelevant topics than to ask substantial questions about this case.
When a judge says there is no proof that an accused knows he was carrying drugs, but yet sentence the same accused to death, a responsible media will pick it up and asks questions.
Yet, our media elected to adopt deafening silence.
The courts
How does a judge go to sleep knowing full well that he is complicit in the death of a young boy whom the judge himself pronounce publicly that there is doubt about his knowledge that what he was carrying was drugs?
This, perhaps, is the lingering question that is in the minds of many who read about the case.
Local Lawyers
Woefullt inept, completely cowed, pathetically irresponsible. I apologise for these harsh words but they are my true feelings.
These are the people who are in the business of seeking justice, fairness and sense. Indeed, they can be termed ‘the conscience of society’, a noble profession. But what we have just seen is nothing conscionable, nothing noble.
On the contrary, what we’ve seen from our local lawyers, particularly the Law Society, is shameful avoidance. Convenient shrug of the shoulders, as it were.
Surely, if even a layman can see the inconsistency and the unfairness (to say the least) of the sentence, an expert who is trained in the law for years can see it too?
What made our lawyers turn a blind eye to Tochi?
The opposition parties
So very often we have heard opposition parties declare themselves wanting to be the ‘check and balance’ to the government. So, where were they in this case of potential miscarriage of justice?
Where was the ‘check’ on the courts of government and the ‘balance’ brought to a senseless sentence?
I am particularly disappointed with the opposition parties. Perhaps they feel such a case is irrelevant to Singaporeans (and thus, will not win them any votes – especially when it involves the taboo subject of drug trafficking), or they preferred to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it will go away soon enough.
Check and balance means check and balance in matters which matter. And if how a young boy is put to death does not matter to the opposition, then perhaps the opposition should quit talking about being a ‘check and balance’ to the government. For in not exercising what they preach, they are not less complicit than those whom they oppose.
*Appreciation goes to the Singapore Democratic Party for being the only opposition party which consistently and regularly posted updates about Tochi’s case on their website.
The public who kept quiet
I would like to qualify my criticism of the public by saying that they are only partly responsible – because of the mass media which, as explained, kept the news from them.
But even so, those of us who knew about the case did not do enough. Some of us attended the vigil for Tochi and were there in the early morning of Jan 26 when they tied a noose around his neck and dropped him through the trapdoor, sending him to his death.
We could have done more – much more.
Conclusion
This is a very very solemn time for me personally. Sad, for sure. But more than sad, it is disturbing, disconcerting and even frightening.
It is frightening to know how callously our state metes out the death sentence. How cavalier the attitude afterwards. “We must protect society”, says the prime minister after the death.
But who protects the innocent abused by the state?
Not the elected MPs, not the opposition parties, not the courts, not the lawyers, not the public and certainly not the mass media.
That much has been determined by this case.
Complicity only requires a turning of a blind eye. A shrug of the shoulders. A nonchalant attitude.
And make no mistake, we are guilty.
Thus, in sentencing Tochi to his death, we have sentenced ourselves to a lower level among civilized societies.
Without compassion, that is what we are – uncivilized – no matter the glamourous and glitzy trappings we see all around us.
Welcome to “First World Singapore”.
Disneyland with the death penalty – senselessly meted out.
Where a nation turned a blind eye.
Even to the sanctity of life.
——————
Read an account of Tochi’s journey from Africa to Singapore here.
The series of events leading to Tochi’s execution here.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
thanks everyone. I am against the death sentence. But it exists here in singapore. Assuming that Tochi was found innocent – what happens next? Every other convicted chap will insist that he does not *know* the white pills were drugs or heroine. Personally I am not sure if I would be happy with that defence. Yes, I detest the taking of another human life, but I am not sure if his defence hold either. If the govt can be persuaded to change all capital cases to life imprisonment, then great. But if not, let us give to Ceasar blah blah blah….
I think we should agree that there should not be any law that makes the death penalty mandatory.
Not all cases are the same. Not all warrant the same punishment. The judge clearly was forced to choose between the death penalty and finding the accussed innocent. That should not be the choice! The first thing should be to find someone guiilty or innocent and then, in a second step, decide on the appropriate punishment.
So what’s fundamentally wrong is the law!
And if innocent people die, it is clearly the primary fault of the lawmakers. The gist of the article is therefore correct!
Dear Steve
Well, I can’t agree with that. The judge was free to reduce Tochi’s charge to possession for consumption, or a number of other less serious ones which did not carry the death penalty.
The basic principle of a mandatory sentence is equality. If a person is a drug trafficker, it is mandatory that he is sentenced to the same punishment as all other drug traffickers, whether he be black or white, rich or poor, smart or simple-minded, young or old, foreigner or citizen, man or woman. Otherwise there would be no end of excuses put forward in mitigation. With a mandatory penalty, you know exactly that if you are caught, you WILL get death. No doubt about it.
The entire point of the mandatory death penalty is that it sends a clear message to drug dealers, and leaves no room for doubt at all. They know that they will be hanged. That is something they have to factor into their consideration.
Of course it makes everyone nervous. The criminals, the police, the courts all have to be super extra careful not to make a mistake. If there is room for doubt, the judge can reduce the charge or throw out the case entirely. But if there is no doubt, then the judge must, as a matter of fairness and equality, impose the same punishment.
You are right to say not all cases are the same. But within limits, all drug trafficking cases are the same. Someone imports drugs for a profit. There is very little that can be said in mitigation (he was young, he was trying to help his sick brother, it was his first time… etc.) and so I think it is right that all sentences for drug traffickers are equal and uniform.
Hmmm…So the question is if the legislative presumptions in a drug trafficking case is unfair. Is it an unfair assumption to say that if a person is caught with illegal drugs, he must know it is illegal drugs? But I guess it would also be hard to prove if he knew it was illegal drugs. But is it really impossible? Has there been any cases where the state has to prove a person knew he possessed drugs instead of presuming he did know.
Some more arguments:
Deterrent should deter. Yet many still come. The methods get more shrewd. The market price for drugs increases as the risk increases. The death pendalty is not a good deterrent, which is plain when you compare murder rates of America with that of Europe (which is opposed to the death pendalty)
A comparison of two city states:
Hong Kong
Drug offences: 34 per 100,000 people
Executions: 0
Singapore
Drug offences: 46.8 per 100,000 people
Executions: 110 (last 5 years according to Government statistics)
Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ill_dru-crime-illicit-drugs
If death sentence for drug mules so effective, why do we still have drug addicts?
Is dear William so strong in his conviction that he is willing to personally pull the lever or was that just a lot of self-righteous farting?
To William:
What possible motive would there be for the criminal justice system to be used as an educational tool for the elite?
The criminal system is used to teach Singaporeans to abide by the law (which no doubt every country does). It has the task to teach the people not to smuggle drugs. How better to do it than to use the stick (well sort of a rope in this case!) The legal system punishes people for the possession of porn (instead of merely the distribution). It does the same for drugs. Well, ven the possession of a political magazine can be criminalized (see: The Far Eastern Economic Review!)
Dear NoName
What a strange question you ask: am I willing to pull the lever or am I just being self righteous? If I am in favour of our air force bombing another nation in self defence, would I be willing to do it myself? Yes, although I would not like it at all. What has it got to do with anything? And “farting” is a dangerous word to use when you are talking about me, as my wife will tell you. I fart frequently, especially after dinner.
You also ask if the death sentence for drug mules is so effective, why do we still have drug addicts. I never said that the death sentence is 100% effective, only that it is the most effective tool we know of. In any case, I think most people, including the anti-Singapore media) agree that we have much less of a drug problem than many, many other countries. My point is that the death sentence has contributed to that result.
Steve, the problem is that the definition of a drug offence in Hong Kong is different from the Singapore one. As you know, in Singapore we like to ban a lot more stuff than Hong Kong. Things which you can do in Hong Kong are illegal in Singapore. Plus, I am pretty sure that Hong Kong, being part of PRC, has carried out a number of executions. But I haven’t found my source yet. So I grant you this point.
Ian Timothy, you are absolutely right again. The question is whether the presumption of knowledge is unfair. Most states I know use it. I don’t know of any case where the state had the burden of showing knowledge, precisely because, as you recognise correctly, it is almost impossible. How would you prove that I knew something, if I said that I didn’t? It’s a tough one. So what most governments do is that they say that IF they can prove a certain factual situation (e.g. heroin in your socks, naked wife in bedroom with another man) then the ball is in the other person’s court to explain. It still makes it easy for the criminals to think up a good explanation. I wonder sometimes why they don’t do it. Hopefully they are not reading this blogsite.
Steve
Good point, I understand what you mean. Criminal theorists call it “educative deterrence”. It is legitimate to use punishment as a lesson to others. Nothing wrong with that, I believe. However the same task can be accomplished even by acquitting Tochi and other accused. In other words, there is no motive for Singapore to be unfair to Tochi and other people just to get the message across. The courts have acquitted on capital drug cases before. Tochi was simply guilty.
PS why for the elite? You got something against RJC daughters of MPs?
I thank William for giving an eloquent counter point to all the other views. If Tochi was found innocent, I believe all future drug traffickers will use the same defense – Forgive me, I did not know what I was carrying. What next for the Singapore police, Sigapore judiciary? I do not support the taking of another life, but we are in Singapore and until we reach a point where all capital punishment is cancelled – we just have to live with this system. Personally I am not convinced that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the sentencing.
Actually I quoted your sentence. I think it should read “educational tool of the elite” ;)
I like to point to the argument of “innocent until proven guilty”
In cases of defamation, Singapore and Britain also consider a person guilty unless he/she proves that he/she is innocent. This is different in the US.
You should first prove that a statement was really defamatory, i.e. that the statement really hurt someone’s reputation and that the allegations are really wrong.
In my opinion, this should apply to any case in court.
———————
About mandatory death penalty:
I think that there should be a lighter punishment if you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person had any criminal intent. The burden of proof in this case has to be on the government who must produce clear evidence that the person carrying the drugs had the interest of selling the drugs in Singapore (I think people in transfer like Ngyuen should be handed over to authorities in the respective countries) and that he knew that what he was carrying was drugs. This latter part would require hard evidence, such as a witness. Unless this is the case, you cannot rule without reasonable doubt.
———————————
About the death penalty per se:
What happens when at some later point someone reveals evidence that the defendent was framed? If the person is dead, you cannot do anything.
Why not imprison him for life without parole? That would have the same effect as detterent, or perhaps even greater potential, because life in prison is much harder than a quick death) Furthermore, the person can be saved once there is evidence.
So why use the death penalty? To save money?
William,
Oooi, dun anyhow say hor. Who says that the KTM is connected to the Courts? You which eye see one?? :-) The KTM is only a kay poh blabber mouth and people dun have to take him too seriously. Zz ask KTM to produce proof? Sorry KTM haven’t install CCTV cambera and dun have proof. Does it thereby mean that the KTM got no integrity and is lying? :-P
In any case, the KTM would like to commend you on being able to stand your ground despite the onslaught. :-) You give the KTM hope that there is still some hope in the young Singaporeans. If you are not already an wannabe lawyer, you should consider taking up law. You will make a fine lawyer. :-P
In any case, the KTM finally managed to say his piece if you’re interested -> http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/01/the_war_on_drugs.html
I am two minds about the death penalty, but I think William is wrong about a couple of points.
“I’m not surprised that the court thought his story was doubtful. I would go further and say he is obviously lying. He did not know that the pills were actually heroin, but he knew the pills were illegal. That’s guilt, in any country.”
The very assurance that Tochi is guilty – guilty of knowingly smuggling drugs by some is surprising. Without the reliance on the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act, it has not been proven that Tochi intended to smuggle drugs beyond a reasonable doubt. While Judges and prosecutors required the presumptions to make a case, there appears to be little doubt in William mind’s of Tochi’s guilt. I find this assumptions smug and fails an ordinary standard of proof – a serious question especially when the ultimate punishment is not only criminal – but death.
“That’s just confusing the issue and appealing to sentiment. Use some logic and statistics. The only statistics that matter are that Singapore is relatively drug-free, and Singaporeans are satisfied with the system.”
There is also a sense of democracy at work, it appears, like a self satisfied mob. The ‘only statistics that matter are’ 1) Singapore is drug-free, 2) Singaporeans are satisfied? If this is not an appeal to emotion, what is? Other statistics matter. Singapore is relatively drug free and there are various reasons, surely. How much the death penalty figure in the deterrent debate requires more study. Just to assert it plays a big role is not an appeal to ‘logic and statistics’ – to say it has ‘some’ effect is no different from saying a butterfly flapping it wings has ‘some’ effect on the Tsunami. Surely the language of logic and statistics are not that of ‘some’ and generalities?
“In all common law jurisdictions (such as UK and USA) criminal knowledge is often inferred through presumptions. Why? Because it’s logical. Let’s say you are carrying something. It is common sense to assume that you would know what you are carrying. It is possible that you do not know, and if so all you have to do is provide a “probable” explanation. The judge doesn’t even have to buy it, he just has to say it is probable.”
Presumptions was common in 1980 (Ong Ah Chuan per Lord Diplock heavily criticized by Hor) but the tide is turning against such presumptions ever since 1986 (Oakes – Canada case; significant because Ong Ah Chuan approved that provision in Oakes which was in question). Canada case followed US jurisprudence (Ulster County Court v. Allen). Presumptions said to violate the presumption of innocence because the accused bears the burden of disproving on a Bop an essential element of the offence, there was possibility of conviction despite reasonable doubt (see above). Human rights in UK will change their position (See Kebilene [1999]. Besides Canada and UK have no death penalty. US depends on state. Many states – very general.
Dear Steve
You started on defamation??? This is going to take all night!
First, it’s not correct to say “innocent until proven guilty” for defamation, since it’s a civil offence. There is no guilt or innocence. It’s also a myth propagated by some quarters who are unhappy with certain political defamation cases.
Second, in a defamation case, the burden is on the plaintiff (i.e. the one who is suing) to prove that the statement defames him. If I am the plaintiff and you are the defendant, I have to prove that you published a statement which tended to lower my reputation in the eyes of reasonable people.
The burden then shifts to the defendant. In Singapore, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and many other Commonwealth countries (including India, Malaysia, etc.) the defendant has the burden of establishing his defence. Typically he has 3 choices.
First, he can say that what he said is true (justification). Since it is his statement, then he has to prove that it is true. Otherwise, he shouldn’t have made the statement in the first place. That’s fair, right? Anyway, it’s accepted as the law of many, many countries.
Second, he can say that what he said is not true, but it doesn’t matter because it is your personal opinion on a matter of public interest (fair comment). This is easy. Let’s imagine you say, “David Beckham is a lousy footballer.” It is a defamatory statement, and it is not true (depends on which team you support, I guess). But even though it is not true, guess what, you will still successfully defend yourself. That’s because Beckham’s football is a matter of public interest and you are entitled to hold opinions on such matters, even where they are wrong opinions. Remember: this only applies to matters of public interest, and not your neighbour’s bad habits or your colleague’s love life.
Third, he can say that he had a duty to speak up and the listeners had a duty to hear what he had to say (qualified privilege). Let’s say you saw your colleague, KTM, taking some money from your boss’s desk. You tell your boss, “KTM stole your money.” Your boss says, “Aiyah, where got? I borrowed money from KTM and I asked him to take it back from my desk.” KTM sues you (I’m sure he won’t, really, but this is hypothetical). Guess what? He will lose and you will win. All you have to show is that you have a duty to speak up, and the person you spoke to had a duty to hear. Even though what you said was wrong, you are not liable.
Defamation cases are very, very difficult to win unless the defence is (a) screwed up, (b) liars or (c) all of the above (i.e. T T Durai).
Mandatory death penalty: there is really a lesser offence. If the judge has any doubt, he has a duty to acquit and reduce the charge. The accused will not be hanged. The word “mandatory” simply means that the punishment for that offence is mandatory, but it is not mandatory to charge the accused with that offence. So if an accused can prove that he had no intent to traffic, then he will not be convicted of that charge, and hanged.
The possibility of error: this is, in my opinion, the strongest argument against capital punishment. If there is a reasonable possibility of error, then there must be an acquittal. I also think that there must be an avenue for appeal in order to overturn the error. Both features are present in our system. That being the case, I think the system is relatively safe and there is very little chance of error.
You will say: so what if there is a little chance – there should be NO chance of error because you are talking about someone’s life. In an ideal world, yes. But in the real world, facing a war on drugs, it’s a much harder decision. We have to balance two things. On the one hand, we want to keep Singapore relatively drug-free, and a mandatory death penalty seems like a good way to do it. On the other hand, we might just kill someone accidentally. Because we are balancing, we have to see how likely it is that we will hang someone accidentally. So far I am not convinced that there has been any wrong conviction for death, when it comes to drug dealers. In fact, I think one or two may have been wrongly acquitted.
You said that life imprisonment has the same deterrent effect. I seriously doubt it. It’s all about sending a message. Singapore has to have the reputation of being the meanest, most unsympathetic, most assholic country in terms of drugs. If you traffic drugs, it’s mandatory death. No excuses, no second chances, 100% certain death. That is the ultimate message to put across. We are the worst. Go someplace else.
I’m not saying the system is perfect. It is seriously not perfect. Yawning Bread said that if we want to send that kind of message, we should do it properly. I think we do it quite clearly (e.g. most foreigners make fun of the fact that we hang people for drugs and cane people for vandalising with chewing gum). It is one of Singapore’s trademarks, like the Esplanade, SIA and Annabelle Chong. It puts us on the map. But we can always do better, I suppose.
Additionally I do think that the alternative of life imprisonment is not humane. It is a deadening, de-humanising process. And then there is the cost factor which you pointed out. Why should society continue to support criminals for the rest of their lives? It sounds heartless but we could use the money for other, much better, purposes.
Phew… I need a rest. I think I will go and read KTM’s blog. At first glance it reminds me of my dick: long and quite hard. :)
Dear Ben
If you have to quote Michael Hor to criticise Lord Diplock, I think you have a serious problem.
PS You say I am “smug” because the majority agrees with my position. I know it’s no longer fashionable to believe in democracy, but sometimes the majority does indeed have a right to decide what standards to apply. You may think that 66.6% of Singapore are ignorant, complacent, apathetic or just scared, but you can’t argue with the principle that a country has the right to establish its own norms. Otherwise we will just debate endlessly and pointlessly(present company excepted).
PPS You say the “tide is turning” against presumptions. We shall see. All you have so far is one Canadian case and one US case, both of which have also been (to use your term) “criticised” by a number of academics. The fact remains that legislative presumptions are a well-established part of the legal system, and your prediction that they will die out doesn’t change the fact that they currently represent the law.
What I am more concerned about is the general perception that, somehow, in Singapore, we have become a rogue nation because we have reversed the burden of proof and hanged people because they couldn’t prove their innocence. That is not the case but that is one of the many myths that have been put out by certain quarters, as well as the following myths which are popular but false:
*Singapore has the highest rate of execution.
*The trial judge found that Tochi did not know he was carrying drugs but convicted him anyway.
*Borat is a funny movie.
William,
What do you have against the KTM huh? First you cast him as a thief and then you compare his article to your dick?? :-)
KTM
It’s just that you write such looooong articles. I can’t understand people who write on, and on, and on… er… except for me of course. I have a good reason to go on and on and on. I am educating the blogosphere. The vast majority of them are against capital punishment. It’s so lonely being right.
William,
The KTM has a bad stomach and needs to let out a lot of gas also. You need to excuse him. :-)
I do apologize for the brief answer. You are difficult to explain to.
“If you have to quote Michael Hor to criticise Lord Diplock, I think you have a serious problem. ?”
No, I am suggesting you read him if you so decide. Please check context. Our current position of the constitutionality of presumptions is Ong Ah Chuan and Yuvuraj. Both has lost favor in UK. In fact we did a U-turn but its legal history.
“You say I am “smug” because the majority agrees with my position.”
Wrong. I said you assumption that Tochi is guilty (as in he intended to smuggle) is smug because the judge and prosecution did not say that – they said the presumptions applied.
“The fact remains that legislative presumptions are a well-established part of the legal system, and your prediction that they will die out doesn’t change the fact that they currently represent the law.”
Yes presumptions but what types? There is tactical and there is evidential. What is losing favor across the developed nations is the shifting to the accused the need to prove away presumptions on a BOP (balance of probabilities). If you don’t get that, sorry.
And yes, regarding defamation – malice removes qualified privilege.
Ps. On democracy. We can establish our norms. I never did argue against democracy except it is subject to constitutional limits (see discussion on presumptions against) suggest that democracy, as we know it,must be checked. You don’t agree? Strange. No wonder you are lonely.
William,
I have a good reason to go on and on and on. I am educating the blogosphere.
Forgot to ask: what makes you qualified to educate the blogosphere? The KTM once thought of teaching bloggers to fry KT, but he later realized that his KT was quite lau pok and so he gave up on that idea. :-)
Also, what makes you think that bloggers want to be educated?
Dear William
In that case then you are indeed having a bad case of indigestion. To use example of “bombing nations” so casually is not only out of context but reveals your lack of moral values. Tochi was most likely guilty of a crime but whether he knew it was a capital offence, only God knows. Are you God?
Drug mules are by definition either desperate or stupid and would not be deterred. Are desperation and stupidity capital offences. Maybe by your values.
The truth is that the folks who profit most from this “economic crime” are the drug lords and the local distributors. How often do we execute those? Should a rich brat be caught, we then check for the “chemical weight”. No, we go after the “weak” link. Weak as in defenceless. So that justice can be more easily served. As in making the life of our courts and police force easier. That is your twisted logic. and so it has very much to do with pulling the lever. If you were given the opportunity to be the hangman, would you be able to look into the eyes of the parents of Tochi and tell them, as you pull the lever, that “true justice has been served” and that you are sending their boy “to a better place than this”?
This gist of this article is about the punishment. sorry, but I personally despise hypocrites who hide behind the letter of law. justice must be tempered with mercy and common sense.
No discussion on drug enforcement would be complete without Milton Friedman’s economic perspective on this issue. I think reading this interview would rebutt many of the arguments listed here.
He is for the legalizing of drugs in case you want to know. Now before you scream, read his views with an open mind. He has this gift of making it so simple.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm
Hi William,
Just wondering.. You have made some good points with regards to the Tochi case. Would you like to write an article for us on it? It would be good to let our readers to see another point of view.
You did say that you are “educating the blogosphere” ;)
Just a thought.
Thanks for sharing your views and visiting theonlinecitizen.
Regards,
theonlinecitizen
Dear Ben
You mentioned that malice removes qualified privilege. Actually, some people think that malice is a defence to QP and fair comment. In fact, if you are interested, there is actually a controversy as to whether malice is a defence or an ingredient… but then again that is far too much depth to go into over the internet. That applies to the other stuff about presumptions as well – we can discuss that stuff forever. Some people even make a career out of it. I started off just trying to rant about ZZ’s blog, and I seem have got myself a bit too deep into the discussion.
Dear NoName
I was asked whether I would “pull the lever” to execute Tochi… isn’t that a distasteful question? I answered it by using the analogy of an air force pilot having to drop bombs on another country. You call me immoral? I don’t mind you making personal remarks but at least justify it.
You asked me whether I am God. What a strange question. If I answer it, you will say that I am immoral again. Basically you are saying “No one knows whehter Tochi knew it was a capital offence” and only God knows. Actually, ignorance is really not relevant at all. If you rape someone, can you escape caning because you honestly believed that you would not have to be caned for it? No one told me? Seriously, dude, you gotta think about what you are saying.
Just because I am in the unfortunate position of having to defend a distasteful activity (capital punishment) does not mean I am myself an immoral and unethical person. I have prefaced many of my remarks with the observation that in the extreme situation of a war on drugs, extreme solutions have to be used. I have also invited many people to put up alternatives. I am well aware that capital punishment is nasty and barbaric. But then again, fighting the drug problem involves getting our hands dirty. You may well despise me as a hypocrite (?) who hides behind the letter of the law… I doubt if that is going to cause me any sleepless night. I would suggest you are nothing more than an armchair critic, given to attacking ideas and individuals without distinction, and offering no coherent solution in return.
Dear Kelvin Tan
I am still reading that Friedman article. I am not sure if he is seriously suggesting legalising cocaine and other hard drugs. I suppose he makes a good intellectual argument based on economics, but many people (especially the people here) would regard the issue as having an ethical and moral one. I can’t comment further as I am still trying to digest the thing.
Dear theonlinecitizen
Well, can I email you privately? I didn’t intend to clog up your site with my thoughts but I blame everyone else for disagreeing with me when it is so obvious that my view is correct and everyone else is wrong :)
Hi William,
Sure, you can email me privately. The email is theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I just thought you have some valid points which might be better if put into an article.
I look forward to your mail.
Regards,
theonlinecitizen
Hi, I think this opinion is worth reading. The author writes about Singapore:
However, there are ample reasons for the Nigerian government, the Ministry of Information and National Orientation Agency (NOA) to educate Nigerian citizens about countries that operate primitive laws and generally ask them to avoid such countries like plagues no matter the economic benefits therein and technological advancement.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200701291462.html
Other than that, I too wonder about the life imprisonment issue. Honestly, i see no sense in that. Sure, you live. But unless someone can tell me that people can find meaning in living behind bars for the rest of their life, that is a life worth living, then ok. If you ask me, I would rather die than live the rest of my life behind bars.
But we’re talking about the death penalty here. While ‘shoot the messenger’ sounds harsh, it does appear to work. If I am a drug lord, and 5 out of 10 of my men get hanged in Singapore, its probably more of a hassle to send drugs to Singapore than say, another country. Not because I care about the lvies of my men, but because its easier to do it elsewhere. Which, of course, serves the government’s purposes. Which is keep your drugs the hell out of my country.
Drugs destroy lives, we all know that. So if you traffick drugs, in my opinion that makes YOU a murderer. Because your drugs are going to kill the kids on the streets. Whether you are paid $2,000 to do it, or making a profit of $1mil doesn’t matter. You’re killing kids on the streets.
I could be wrong, but only one person has given statistics on a country without the death penalty for drugs that is doing better than Singapore, and that’s Hong Kong. It could just be me that’s skeptical, but does it mean that the drug problem in Hong Kong is not as bad as Singapore, or that the Hong Kong police just aren’t catching them as well as we in Singapore are? Just thinking out loud, no facts to back that one up.
I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell am staying away from drugs as long as I’m in singapore!
And in closing, I strongly disagree with William on one point :
Borat is indeed an extremely funny movie.
dear Steve
Many thanks for the article, which contains the usual myths about the Tochi case. As you can tell by now, there is nothing I like better than to go through statements and articles, so here i go:
The article said that, “Infact, the judge in the trial court was said to have expressed doubt on the boy’s guilt.” One can read the grounds of decision to see that the judge never did anything like that.
Here’s another, “a school of thought believes strongly that the ordeal and subsequent execution of the Nigerian was racially inclined.” Quite an explosive point which is completely unsubstantiated. Indeed, I understand the popular opinion to be that we hang foreigners of all colours.
What about this: “The United Nations and other human rights bodies have frowned at the use of death penalty.” Quite misleading. The UN has not passed any resolution abolishing the death penalty. I am not sure what are “other human rights bodies” but most existing international treaties categorically exempt the death penalty from prohibition in case of serious crime, most notably, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This statement: Singapore “should also have treated him with dignity and rights that are enshrined in international law, and civilized norms.” But we certainly did. He had a fair trial, in public, and an appeal. He had competent counsel.
Guys, here’s the kicker: the article says that the death penalty is “primitive” and Nigerians should avoid Singapore because of it. BUT Nigeria itself has the death penalty and has applied it many times, according to Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440172004?open&of=ENG-2F5
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/02/10/565/83134
The second report, in particular, suggests that women who face charges carrying the death penalty are unfairly discriminated against and do not access to legal representation for long periods of incaceration. So much for international norms.
If there’s one thing I hate, it’s hypocrisy and dishonest argument. That article is a good example of such a tactic. It’s meant to rile up hatred by accusing others of racism, barbaric behaviour, etc. on the basis of false and misleading statements.
I suppose the right thing for us to do is to write an email to the Nigerian reporter in full capitals saying: “GREETINGS, I AM WILLIAM. I HAVE BEEN GIVEN YOUR CONTACT BY A MUTUAL FRIEND WE CAN TRUST. I AM RECEIVING $100 MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL OIL MONEY AND WANT YOU TO HELP ME TRANSPORT IT, JUST STOP WRITING THESE POORLY-RESEARCHED ARTICLES…”
dear coin
It is sad that you enjoy Borat. Next you will be telling me that “Babel” is deep and profound.
ps. ok, the part with the japanese girl was moderately interesting.
I think the European Union is a good role model:
The 10 December, we commemorate the 57th anniversary of the Declaration on Human Rights. In the United States, the 1000th person to be condemned to death since the re-establishment of the death penalty in 1976 has just been reached. In Singapore, on the same day, 2 December, there was also an execution. These events have once again put the death penalty high on the agenda. The European Parliament will fight it. It goes against the values of the Union. Its abolition is a sine qua none for accession to the Union. Fortunately, progress towards abolition in the world is increasing quickly. In 1977, 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Today, there are 84 countries. But in 76 countries, the death penalty is still in use. Moreover, 24 countries have abolished the death penalty de facto as they have not executed anyone for at least 10 years. Although the number of countries using the death penalty is reducing, the number of executions is particularly concerning.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-3534-346-12-50-901-20051206IPR03223-12-12-2005-2005–false/default_en.htm
also:
On the occasion of the second World Day Against the Death Penalty, the EU reiterates its
longstanding principled position against the death penalty.
The EU considers that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of
human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. The European Union
finds this form of punishment cruel and inhuman. The death penalty provides no added
value in terms of deterrence and any miscarriage of justice would be irreversible.
Consequently, the death penalty is abolished in all European Union countries. But the
reasons for doing away with this form of penalty apply to every person in any part of the
world. Universal abolition of the death penalty, in times of peace and war, is thus a
strongly held policy view agreed by all EU members.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/cfsp/82194.pdf
Hi guys,
As Aaron says in his blog, there are many issues to consider. And with Aaron, I too am glad that the blogosphere is debating the issue of the death penalty.
Thanks to William, I have taken the last few days to think about some of the issues.
What is clear to me are:
1. The mainstream media should do more by way of creating dialogue on the topic.
2. The reason why there are misunderstandings of not only Tochi’s case (if we accept some of the points brought up by William) but capital punishment in general shows the lack of information being disseminated to the public. (William will say this is available on the net but I feel the mainstream media could do more.)
3. Perhaps we are moving towards a more “compassionate” way of thinking, from the comments on various blogs? Personally I hope so.
While we ponder on the issues, I am glad that the possibility of alternatives to the death penalty is not rejected off hand, even by proponents of capital punishment.
And perhaps that is where we can start and take the debate to the next level. Although it is not rejected off-hand, whether we agree that alternatives should be implemented is another issue.
According to some reports, capital punishment has been abolished in most countries. And as part of a “global village” which constantly pegs itself to international standards, Singapore should now look to doing the same for capital punishment. That is, see if abolishment is what we should do.
Thanks guys, for an interesting debate. I am tempted – very much so – to answer KTM’s post on Singapore Angle point for point. But I’m kinda tired mentally. Maybe I’ll do so on my own blog some day.
Regards,
Zz
Dear Steve
Views on capital punishment have changed back and forth throughout history, and the trends usually correlate to the level of violent crime, drug abuse, etc. experienced or perceived by societies in general. I do not see the United States and other non EU countries jumping on the EU bandwagon, at least not based on current popular opinion. The US public is extremely pro-capital punishment. Must be all those Steven Seagal movies.
ZZ – I can’t wait to read more on your own blog. If you need the court’s grounds of decision/statutes, etc. just give me a shout. I will go to your blog now to send you my email address (I don’t have a blog).
Rajan said, in reply to my post:
“If I supplied a knife to you and watch as you kill someone and help you dump the body, I wouldn’t be facing a capital charge. But carry over a bunch of heroin pills and you would be held responsible for the entire deed. And the onus of proof regarding your guilt (mens rea and all that) would be all yours.”
Definitely wrong. If you supplied the knife and watched as I killed someone and helped me dumped the body, you will 100% be charged with conspiracy to murder, and that IS a capital charge. I am not sure you should be using examples you don’t really understand, Rajan.
Rajan also said: “Drug trafficking is not murder, not even close–in fact, it is a ‘no harm’ crime–the only parties tangibly hurt in drug trafficking are the consensual.”
Are you serious, Rajan? Drug trafficking is a “no harm” crime? Drug-related crime accounts for 40% of all jail sentences in the United States. People rob to feed their habits – there are certainly victims there.
Finally, Rajan said: “Solving social ills by killing those who go against the law should have a stronger defense than economics”. Not true, especially when the social ills are caused by economics.
Drug trafficking is essentially a business. The drug barons are in the trade because of the vast profits they think they can reap. If we interrupt their supply by promising all traffickers a mandatory death penalty, the drug dealers will avoid our route and go somewhere else. Ultimately life is economics.
There are a number of other things that Rajan has said which I would love to reply to, because I realise that I have now become the magnet for all anti-death penalty advocates, but I really have to stop somewhere. It’s time for the nurse to give me my medication, you see. They only let us lunatics use the PC a couple of hours a day.
About public opinion on the death penalty in the US:
While you are right that around 66% favor the death penalty for murder, 62% also think it does not work as a deterrent. 37% support the death penalty because they think the penalty fits the crime (an eye for an eye). 11% think it saves tax payer money (which it doesn’t, due to the lenghty process) the same as those who think it works as a detterent. (different surveys)
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/tost_2.htm
Considering this data, I think that Americans would oppose the death penalty for drug related cases, especially with the extraordinary severeity as it is the case in Singapore.
William: I must admit my aiding and abetting example is flawed, but nonetheless it is the onus of the prosecution to prove that such a person is principal to the crime in the case of murder. However, in the case of drug trafficking, the assumption that anyone carrying illegal narcotics above a prescribed limit is a trafficker subject to a mandatory death penalty.
As for “no harm” – for someone who makes such a fuss about the source of statistics, you gave me none. And I would make an educated guess if that number isn’t pulled out from your ass, it includes drug trafficking in itself – its circular to say that drugs causes crime when most of the crime shown are drug crimes. In other words, if you say, drugs cause crime, and then arrest people for trafficking, you cannot go around and say, “Ah hah! See, drugs do cause crimes”.
And crimes by junkies trying to fund their habit – there isn’t a direct causation. If I killed you, you’re dead – there’s the harm. If I raped you, you’re raped – there’s the harm. If I sell you drugs, and you go out and rob a 7-Eleven – there is no direct causation. Because I could very well sell to a billionaire too, who wouldn’t commit any crimes to fund their habit.
More so, the actual prohibition are actually creating this crimes. A ban increases the prices of narcotics, means it is harder for junkies to fund their habit. Also, because dealers are operating outside the law, they are given the opportunity to abuse their customers in ways no legitimate business can.
As for crimes caused by junkies under the influence – the same applies for alcohol, no? Why isn’t alcohol banned?
As for the argument that a mandatory death penalty forces drug barons to move their ‘supply chain’ of sorts elsewhere, what exactly is the social good here? If Singapore is merely a conduit of drugs, not the consumer or exporter of drugs, what social harm caused by trafficking warrants mandatory death?
And again, you refuse to answer how is drug trafficking as bad, if not worse, than murder. If it isn’t as bad as murder, why should the mandatory punishment be death? Why should the presumption of innocence be altered? Why shouldn’t guilty sentences be made only beyond reasonable doubt? If it is as bad as murder – why? Certainly, 40% of American inmates being in there because of drugs is a lousy, unrelated reason.
As for life is economics – I’m sorry if I beg to differ. It is fundamentally wrong and inhumane to kill for the purpose of keeping drug prices high. Life is not an expendable commodity you can snuff out for some supposedly higher social gain.
And lastly, I’m not anti-death penalty; no where did I say that. I’m against mandatory death penalties for crimes such as kidnapping and especially drug trafficking because the crime does not warrant the punishment. Especially in the case of drugs, where you lose the right to be presume innocent until proven otherwise.
Dear Steve
Thanks for the stats. Yes, the majority favour capital punishment, and I think we have established in Singapore that 66.6% is a convincing margin :) Oops I know you said 66% but you know what I mean.
There are a number of aspects of punishment which I haven’t even got into, and “an eye for an eye” (or what lawyers call “retribution”) is certainly one important area. There are many aims and theories of punishment, and deterrence is just one. The other common ones are: reform or rehabilitation, education, incapacitation and restoration.
They are found at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/
You quoted a figure of 37% who support the death penalty because the penalty fits the crime. That usually happens in cases of unlawful killing, e.g. in the Took Leng How case, I imagine many Singaporeans would consider it fair and just to hang someone who sexually assaulted and murdered a young child. That is probably also why women support caning for rapists, because it is something that women feel that rapists deserve. There is no question of deterrence, since in such “crimes of passion” the criminal act is committed without regard to consequences.
What happened in the debate here is that there are two completely different views on punishment. I support capital punishment for drug traffickers because of deterrence. I argue that the economic nature of the offence must be met by an economic answer which deters the offence. So if Singapore says that drug traffickers face the mandatory death penalty, then the drug traffickers will feel that the profit they might obtain is outweighed by the risk and cost of the death penalty on their couriers. So they avoid Singapore.
Although the anti-capital punishment bloggers use the word “deterrence”, actually they have a different philosophy of punishment. They feel that punishment is for rehabilitation (to convince the drug trafficker of the error of his ways), or incapacitation (to keep the drug trafficker in jail for life so that he does not traffic any more). Since they hold such philosophies, they are unable to see why capital punishment is necessary. On the other hand, since I believe that the aim of punishment is deterrence (i.e. to convince others that it is “not worth” it to traffic in drugs) then I do not see any value in imprisonment, etc.
So it’s thanks to your post that the debate has become focused again!
Dear Rajan
You said, “…in the case of drugs, where you lose the right to be presume innocent until proven otherwise.” As I have explained at great length in earlier posts, you do NOT lose the right to be presumed innocent. It is a complete myth. Anyone charged with drug trafficking is presumed innocent, and the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Where there has been a lot of confusion is the concept of “statutory presumption” or “legislative presumption”. This is a presumption, common throughout civilised countries, that if a certain state of facts exist, then a certain situation is presumed. If one were to find one’s spouse in bed naked with another person, one would presume that there has been an illicit affair. You cannot equate the legislative presumption with the presumption of innocence.
You say, “the actual prohibition are actually creating this crimes”. But that is a tautological statement. Any prohibition necessarily creates a crime. If we prohibit vandalism, then vandalism becomes a crime. If we stop prohibiting murder, then murder ceases to be a crime. Let us say tomorrow that we no longer prohibit rape. Then the crime of rape no longer exists, and overnight our crime statistics drop. Is society any better off because rape is no longer a crime? Obviously not. The answer is not in legalising or not legalising things. The answer is to analyse the problem (drug trafficking), why it is attractive (economics) and the best way to stop it (make it economically unattractive). That is why a mandatory death penalty works. It is a tremendous economic disincentive to drug dealers, and it works.
You say, “It is wrong and inhumane to kill for the purpose of keeping drug prices high”. But no one has said that the purpose of capital punishment is to “keep drug prices high”. You are the only one who said that. Mandatory capital punishment is a deterrent to drug trafficking because their couriers tend to get hanged. It has nothing to do with the price of drugs.
You say, “And again, you refuse to answer how is drug trafficking as bad, if not worse, than murder.” But I never said that at all. Drug trafficking does not have to be as bad or worse than murder. Drug trafficking is a serious problem, and it deserves the mandatory death penalty. Why do you insist on comparing it to murder? Is that the only offence you know which carries a mandatory death penalty? There are many many others.
You say, “As for crimes caused by junkies under the influence – the same applies for alcohol, no? Why isn’t alcohol banned?” I really have to ask you to stop thinking about alcohol. It’s not healthy :) Listen, I don’t understand why you want to make me compare this and that. You don’t even know my views on alcohol at all. Quite dangerous to make any assumptions, really. And please try to avoid mentioning my “ass” in posts (someone earlier talked about farting as well)… it gets me too aroused and I can’t focus on intelligent discussions. :)
Hi William,
Is it possible for you to provide us the list of the date and the name of people who received death penalty judgment in the past 10 years?
This is related to the high capital punishment rate due to clearing backlog view. I hope the list may give us some insight into whether this view is valid.
Thanks
William said “Every time someone is sentenced to death, it is a public decision and the world knows about it. No one is condemned to death in secrecy. So it’s just Amnesty propaganda that popularised the myth that executions are shrouded in mystery”
While it is true that the death sentence is a public decision, executions are shrouded in mystery with little to no publicity (the sentencing and the execution are two different matters). If President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria did not appeal to Singapore, local newspapers might never mention the execution.
It is interesting to note that the ST report “Nigeria appeals to S’pore to spare trafficker’s life” said:
“Iwuchukwu, 19, is to be hanged in Singapore tomorrow, according to Ms Chee Siok Chin, who is part of a team campaigning against the death penalty.”
Does it mean there was no official public announcement of the execution? It seems to be the case as no one was aware that Malachy was scheduled to be executed at the same time.
CNB issued a statement:
“EXECUTION OF CONVICTED DRUG TRAFFICKERS” (http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/2007/01/execution-of-convicted-drug-traffickers.html)
after the execution but it was quickly removed.
Why the Changi Prison and the CNB are not keeping a permanent online record of all executions in their news archives?
Why the Istana is not keeping a public record of President’s turning down clemency requests in its news archive?
The impression is that they want to have as little public records on capital punishment as possible. It may not be valid to say executions shrouded in mystery, but these government agencies are surely shy from openly keeping a record of the executions.
Dear Sarek
You ask: “Is it possible for you to provide us the list of the date and the name of people who received death penalty judgment in the past 10 years?” Yes, it is. But it will take me considerable time, and as I said earlier, it is tedious work and not something I am willing to do unless I am paid. I also mentioned how it can be done, i.e. reviewing the public records of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I also said that those people who claim that Singapore has the highest execution rate in Singapore should really be the ones justifying their claim by providing up to date figures.
You said: “If President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria did not appeal to Singapore, local newspapers might never mention the execution.” I am not sure if I agree with your prediction, as the local press has always reported on various hangings, etc. The press reports what people are interested in. I don’t think there is any grand plan to keep Singaporeans in the dark. It is just that, in general, Singaporeans have not shown themselves to be extremely concerned about capital punishment. The amount of time spent on such issues is far outweighed by the amount of time spent on (a) football, (b) Singapore Idol or (c) the property market. You know what Singaporeans are like, and so do the press. Sadly, what they publish is a reflection of our own tastes and priorities.
You said: “It seems to be the case as no one was aware that Malachy was scheduled to be executed at the same time.”
You will find the reason in Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
“Judgment of death.
216. When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he shall be hanged by the neck till he is dead but shall not state the place where nor the time when the sentence is to be carried out.”
This rule originated from the British. The thinking at the time was that it was considered insensitive to the accused to announce the place and time publicly. Today, the rule remains on our statute books, but the authorities have gotten around it by giving out the information subsequently, upon request. In any case, it cannot possibly be true that no one was aware of Nelson Malachy’s scheduled execution. People are able to find out from the same source which told them that Tochi was to be executed. If people were able to find out when Tochi was to be executed, there would be no reason for Malachy’s to be kept secret.
(By the way, Wikipedia incorrectly reports our statute as being the “Singapore Criminal Code” which is wrong. There is either the Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, often called the “CPC”.)
You said: “The impression is that they want to have as little public records on capital punishment as possible. It may not be valid to say executions shrouded in mystery, but these government agencies are surely shy from openly keeping a record of the executions.” I understand why you have that impression, but can you think of any government in the world which keeps such records on the internet? I certainly wish they would, it would make my life easier, but what is true is that:
(1) each time a person is sentenced to death, it is reported publicly
(2) each time a person loses his appeal against a death sentence, it is reported publicly
(3) each time a person is executed, it is reported publicly.
Obviously, all the basic facts are publicly available. Certain political opponents have complained that the statistics are not nicely compiled and gift-wrapped so that they can use them to argue against the government.
By the way, I invite bloggers who wish to comment on the law to read it in its original form first at the following site:
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/act_head.html
William: It would be hard to say your side of the conversation is intelligent, but I’ll humour you:
“Where there has been a lot of confusion is the concept of “statutory presumption” or “legislative presumption”. This is a presumption, common throughout civilised countries, that if a certain state of facts exist, then a certain situation is presumed. If one were to find one’s spouse in bed naked with another person, one would presume that there has been an illicit affair. You cannot equate the legislative presumption with the presumption of innocence.”
The problem is, if you actually read the case or read up about Singaporean laws, is that this ‘legislative presumption’ actually erodes the presumption of innocent.
Lets go back to murder – if you’re found with a bloodied knife and later a body is found; would you be automatically charged with murder and then face mandatory death if you cannot prove that you did not use that knife? No, instead, it is the prosecution’s task to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did use the knife to kill that person.
Now, going back to this case, the prosecution need not do any such thing – Tochi had to *prove* his innocence against the presumption, not defend himself against it. You, echoing the judge, said earlier that Tochi should had assumed that he may be carrying drugs: but should a person be put to death because they were daft?
In fact, should judges assume – especially when it involves life – that Tochi would have know that he was carrying drugs? He came from Africa, where many countries have extremely high tariffs and most smuggling done for tax-avoidance – he could very well had assumed that whoever who hired him wanted to avoid tax. Or those pills could be chewing gum. Or something – the point it Tochi’s life was ended because he should have known not because he had guilty intentions.
“You say, “It is wrong and inhumane to kill for the purpose of keeping drug prices high”. But no one has said that the purpose of capital punishment is to “keep drug prices high”. You are the only one who said that.”
You keep on saying ‘life is economics’ – this is the law of supply and demand. Supply drops, prices increases: demand drops. That’s the entire idea of hunting down traffickers and dealers. If that’s not the idea of mandatory death for trafficking, may I ask, why do you keep mentioning economics?
Perhaps you don’t understand it?
“Why do you insist on comparing it to murder? Is that the only offence you know which carries a mandatory death penalty? There are many many others.”
Because murder is the only crime where I feel capital punishment is justified. And I’m drawing a point here – is the Singaporean government *and* you claiming that drugs is necessarily as bad as murder victims?
“You say, “the actual prohibition are actually creating this crimes”. But that is a tautological statement. Any prohibition necessarily creates a crime. If we prohibit vandalism, then vandalism becomes a crime. If we stop prohibiting murder, then murder ceases to be a crime. Let us say tomorrow that we no longer prohibit rape. Then the crime of rape no longer exists, and overnight our crime statistics drop.”
The point I was trying to put out is that 1) for the same reason you have stated, you cannot point to crime made by drugs prohibition as proof that drugs cause crime and 2) most of the crime that was the result of drug consumption or trafficking may not exist if not for the prohibition.
In other words, how many stores would be robbed if drugs were cheaper due to legalization and junkies not abused by their dealers? How many junkies would become prostitutes if drugs can be bought in a drug store, instead from a nefarious dealer?
“Drug trafficking is a serious problem, and it deserves the mandatory death penalty.”
If drug trafficking is such a serious problem, please explain clearly and extensively why does it deserve a death penalty.
It is first and foremost a ‘public order crime’ – a no-harm crime: there is no direct victim to trafficking. You have to prove here that drug trafficking is such an aberration to public order that those involved in it deserves the death penalty – not me proving the other way around.
You have failed to show why the punishment fits the crime, showed the lack of understanding for basic economic principles despite going behind the cloak of “life is economics”, failed to understand why laws against trafficking was instituted on an economic level and fail to show why drug trafficking or even drugs in itself is so bad that it requires a prohibition. One with mandatory death in fact.
Instead, you choose to ignore how drug trafficking is treated as bad, if not worse than, murder in Singapore’s criminal justice system and to ignore the philosophical and humanistic side of the debate. If indeed putting people like Tochi to death solves the problem of drugs – is that still justified? Is life that significant that it can be sacrificed in the name of some social good?
Hi William,
Thanks for the info on Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
I am guessing that people knew about Tochi’s execution because Mr Ravi was representing him and Mr Ravi had raised public awareness of the case. Do you happen to know who represented Malachy?
I don’t quite get what you means by “reported publicly” in the following statements:
(1) each time a person is sentenced to death, it is reported publicly
(2) each time a person loses his appeal against a death sentence, it is reported publicly
(3) each time a person is executed, it is reported publicly.
Are you referring to the public records of the Court of Criminal Appeal etc which you said is a tedious work to review? Are we talking about public records which are surrounded by unnecessary inconveniences in this information age?
Thanks for your informative reply.
Regards.
Greetings Sarek.
You said: “Are you referring to the public records of the Court of Criminal Appeal etc which you said is a tedious work to review? Are we talking about public records which are surrounded by unnecessary inconveniences in this information age?”
Yes I am certainly talking about those public records. I am happy to review one or two if you wish, but you asked me “to provide us the list of the date and the name of people who received death penalty judgment in the past 10 years?” I find that tedious since I have better things to do with my time. I am not going to go back the past 10 years to compile statistics for you. Why should I? It is tedious.
Your point is whether the records are publicly available. Yes they are. But please do not confuse something which is public with something which is convenient.
Just because the information is not conveniently available to you over the internet at the touch of a button does not mean that it is a not a public record. The vast majority of public information (company data, real estate data, births, deaths, marriages, divorces) are public but not available over the internet. Not convenient does not mean not public. If the press wanted it, they know where to find it. So, if you want data on “the past 10 years” please do not ask me to do it. Go do it yourself. Honestly, I don’t know what kind of debate this is. Go and find your material, and then make up your argument. You can’t expect me to do your work for you as well.
My dear Rajan
You said: “The problem is, if you actually read the case or read up about Singaporean laws, is that this ‘legislative presumption’ actually erodes the presumption of innocent. (sic)”
Why do you assume that I haven’t thoroughly read the grounds of decision (not “case” as you call it) or Singapore laws? I certainly have and you obviously haven’t. From your writing, it’s quite obvious that you haven’t the faintest clue about the distinction between the presumption of innocence and the legislative presumption. Many, many bloggers have grasped it, but you insist on confusing the two. It’s getting tiring. Try and keep up with the others.
You said Tochi “he could very well had assumed that whoever who hired him wanted to avoid tax. Or those pills could be chewing gum.” Why don’t you just do what you have been telling others to do, and read the grounds of decision? You will know exactly what Tochi’s story was. His story had nothing to do with tax or chewing gum. His story is very clear. Stick to the facts, please.
You said, “And I’m drawing a point here – is the Singaporean government *and* you claiming that drugs is necessarily as bad as murder victims?” Now where have I claimed anything like that? That is extremely dishonest of you. If you want to quote me, at least do it accurately. Everyone can see you are making things up now.
You said, “Because murder is the only crime where I feel capital punishment is justified.” Now this is where I fundmentally disagree with you. Despite you professed respect for life, your true colours have been shown. You actually think that it is right to put people to death for murder? What is your justification? Deterrence? Do you really think that capital punishment is the right solution for crimes of passion? If the victim’s life is taken, is it justice to take the killer’s life as well? Will that bring the victim back to life? Will that deter other murders? Let’s see you try and defend your position for once, instead of attacking others.
Hi William,
You said: “Honestly, I don’t know what kind of debate this is. Go and find your material, and then make up your argument. You can’t expect me to do your work for you as well.”
Well, I don’t see our exchange as a debate. I am just trying to see how much information we can get out from this exchange to serve the public interest on this topic. There is no intention to impose on you to provide information you are not willing to offer. Once again, I appreciate the information and views you have provided so far.
It is not about confusing “something which is public with something which is convenient.” It is about what is the spirit behind making some records public but making it inconvenient for the public to access.
Regards.
Hello William.
It’s nice to meet you. I don’t often talk to law students who are studying the law overseas in the blogosphere. It’s refreshing to see someone argue the law with so much candour, but I figured tt as a Singapore law student, I have to tell you that some aspects of Singapore law are different from what you study elsewhere.
Firstly, the statutory presumption is more commonly referred to as a legal presumption. That’s just it. And while when implementing the legal presumptions of 1) possession and knowledge and 2) trafficking into ss 18 and 17 respectively of our Misuse of Drugs Act, there was no mention of a presumption of innocence (or of its erosion), it has been generally accepted (well, at least all the academics at law school who teach us our basic Evidence course) that such legal presumptions do have the effect of eroding the presumption of innocence.
You said in Comment 91: “As I have explained at great length in earlier posts, you do NOT lose the right to be presumed innocent. It is a complete myth. Anyone charged with drug trafficking is presumed innocent, and the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. No one is charged with drug trafficking outright. What happens is that when you are found with let’s say 20 g of heroin on your person, ss 17 and 18 of the MDA kick in immediately. This means that you will be presumed to a) be in possession of the drugs; b) have knowledge that you are in possession of the drugs in question; and c) be trafficking in those drugs. You are right that these are presumptions of fact (as imposed by the law), but the prosecution has no burden to prove any of these facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the fact that they are already presumed means that if the accused offers no defence, then the prosecution has proved their case.
What this means, is that the legal burden of proof shifts to the accused, such that he has the burden of disproving all the above presumptions on the balance of probabilities. In Tochi’s case, the Court of Appeal (pardon me, I don’t agree with Kan J’s judgment in the High Court case, so I prefer to cite the CA) held that his defence that he did not know that what he was carrying was heroin, failed to discharge his burden on this balance of probabilities.
Interestingly, if you had been right and the burden had instead been on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then perhaps Tochi would not have been found guilty of trafficking, because Kan J did admit that he did not know for sure if Tochi was aware that he was carrying heroin, and I think that this would have been sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.
But that’s all I have to say. I might not agree with you on your stand about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and I might think that your arguments, though well-written do present some logical fallacies to me, but I’m not interested in discussing them. So have a nice day! Maybe we’ll see more of you when you come back to Singapore! =)
William,
May I interject somewhat on your ‘educating’ the blogosphere? I don’t know where you learn your Law. Is it somewhere atropical?
What do we you mean by Presumption of Innocence? If you think it is the requirement of the Prosecutor to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, then for the relevant provisions when certain facts (MDA, s 17 – possession of more than stated amount of said drugs), there is no Presumption of Innocence.
The burden the accused has to discharge in drug trafficking cases is not a tactical or evidential one.
The meaning of such terms might be appreciated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
The accused has to discharge the burden on a balance of probabilities.
Okay, I shall quote you Pinsler, Evidence, Advocacy and the Litigation Process, 2nd Edition, at 254
“Rebuttable presumptions may be found in a variety of statutes and their effect in general is to presume certain facts indicating the guilt of the accused. [FN 83] The presumption is characterised by phrases such as …. The rebuttable presumption of law is a legal presumption which imposes the legal burden of proof on the party against whom the presumption operates so that he must rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities.”
{fn 83 provides a list of example which include ss 17 and 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185) which we are concerned about)
Okay, say you don’t think it is the requirement to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt and all the defences. Perhaps you agree with the current CJ in his article ‘The Criminal Process – The Singapore Model’? But since you seems so aware of the local flavor, will you not read ‘Michael Hor, The Burden of Proof in Criminal Justice, [1992] 4 SAcLJ 267′, and perhaps you might see where some people are coming from.
It is a gahment policy nothing to do with law and justice. The policy had been clearly stated many times by gahment ministers and the Justice system just had to implement it. This is our country Justice System where Judges do not have any say in a case but just like a employee do what they are told by the boss. Sad but true.