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’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! =)

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.

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.

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.

“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?

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

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.

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

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. :)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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