Letter from Mr Marcus Lee to The Online Citizen on the death penalty issue.
Dear TOC,
You might be wondering why I am writing about Mr Yong Vui Kong’s death sentence more than 2 weeks after the impassioned online discussion on TOC over this issue. It really started with a minor altercation between your Editor-at-large, Choo Zheng Xi, and myself on Terence Lee’s blog, “Irreligious”. [1] The issue was quickly resolved when Zheng Xi agreed that I could engage TOC in discussion on this matter.
The process of writing this letter has been a journey of self-discovery for me. I’ve learnt to think responsibly about the life and death of a fellow human being. I wish to cut down on personal attacks against TOC and focus instead on a constructive discussion about the death penalty.
I have to thank this online publication for a few things: first, its effort to campaign for Yong to be treated mercifully; second, the sincere attempts to educate and stir empathy among members of the wider public. Nevertheless, I still have strong reservations about the stand against the death penalty. I have to tread carefully though, and draw a distinction between the abolishment of the death penalty and that of the mandatory death penalty.
First of all, I wish to point out that the debate over the mandatory death penalty shouldn’t be framed solely from the perspective of the drug trafficker. TOC has repeatedly pointed out that Yong’s life had been affected by parental divorce, poverty, abuse and a lack of education. [2] While I acknowledge that Yong deserves sympathy for his plight, I wish to remind everyone that drug users are also victims. I believe many Singaporeans have been educated about the deadly effects of drugs, thanks to years of campaigning by the Central Narcotics Bureau.
Nonetheless, I have also considered Zheng Xi’s point that was raised on “Irreligious”:
“One of the fundamental tenets of criminal justice is that the punishment must fit the crime as well as criminal, hence the possibility of mitigation. You do not sentence a hardened drug smuggler to the same penalty as a first time offender. A law that leaves absolutely no judicial discretion in sentencing is arbitrary” [1]
I now understand that the campaign to abolish the mandatory death penalty aims to abolish capital punishment as the default automatic sentence meted out to all drug traffickers regardless of circumstance. This is different from wanting to abolish capital punishment altogether. I humbly admit that I had a rudimentary understanding of this crucial difference during our previous exchange on “Irreligious”. My stand however, remains the same – I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment for drug traffickers who have knowingly caused harm.
In meting out justice, I believe judges should be able to take into account mitigating factors. I am not trained in law but I hope you will find these suggestions sensible:
1. Social background of the offender
TOC argues for clemency for Yong based on, among other factors, his “tragic family circumstances” and “socialized corruption” [3]. I question if this basis for requesting for a lighter sentence takes away the element of impartiality in our law. Aren’t criminals supposed to be convicted equally regardless of their background? I question if this will lead to bias towards people from underprivileged backgrounds. Please, someone convince me why the answer is “no”.
2. Possibility of reform
TOC also raises some other factors in support of Yong: the absence of a “prior criminal record”, “possibility that he can be reformed” and “whether or not an alternative punishment might suffice” [3]. Can Yong turn over a new leaf? Yong’s brother says that Yong has “embraced Buddhism” and “his personality has changed greatly”. He also says “the prison wardens and priests dote on [Yong] because he’s now a very good kid”. If this is true, Yong is truly a new man.
3. Knowledge of the magnitude of the crime
Having no “prior criminal record” doesn’t mean that the offender is any less culpable. It is still possible for a first-time offender to carry out a crime knowing full well the impact of his actions.
According to the Straits Times:
“… Deputy Public Prosecutors Peter Koy and Stella Tan argued that some of the packets had their ends opened and Yong would have seen the drugs. Perhaps most damaging was the evidence of Yong’s accomplice Reggie Gwee Chin Hian, 22, who testified that he had received drugs from Yong five to six occasions between May and June last year [ie 2007] There had also been two past instances when the drugs were not wrapped when he received them” [4]
It appears that Yong had peddled drugs repeatedly over two months. He very likely knew what the packets contained, thus making him aware of the repercussions should he be caught. I acknowledge that Yong “…was assured by his superiors that these drugs were of an insufficient quantity to warrant the death penalty”, at least according to TOC [5]. I also acknowledge that it might not have been easy for Yong to leave the shady business of drug dealing despite knowing the contents of the packets, since drug lords are not reputed to be benevolent or merciful. Yong also needed money to support his mother, who suffers from depression (refer to the video in [6])
In one of your articles, TOC referred to Yong’s “boyish frailty” [3]. I remain skeptical about the argument that Yong should be excused because of his youth. Yong was 19 at the time of his offence. Our law regards as minors those aged below 16 years of age. Even younger people have been found to be capable of committing crimes consciously. For example, a 15-year-old recently solicited sex on the Internet[7].
In summary, my view of Yong is that he might not have had malicious intentions in peddling drugs. He seemed fully aware of what he was doing, though he appeared somewhat helpless. I hope you will find this impression to be just.
I now conclude, contrary to my previous comment on “Irreligious”, that it will be more constructive for our society if Yong is given a chance to reform. My conscience is more important than my pride. If Yong is executed, it will be a sobering reminder that our law only takes into account the actions of offenders and not their personal situations.
I am done now discussing Yong’s case and would like to move on to the death penalty being a reasonable punishment for many drug traffickers. First, I’d like to quote this often-repeated anecdote of a reader who calls himself Andrew Chuah:
“I am [also prepared to] hang my former and only brother who is a top drugs syndicate member based in Penang and he is also very highly educated with top class university from Cambridge, UK and a Master from NUS and has tens of millions of investments in Singapore….”[8]
If this story is true, Andrew is talking about a drug lord who was not forced into the trade through pitiful personal circumstances. On the contrary, he has been blessed with financial riches and a good education. Despite this, he has consciously chosen to harm others through drug trafficking. This person deserves death because he seems so remorseless. It seems unfair to use taxpayers’ money to support him in jail. I will say once again that abolishing the mandatory death penalty is different from abolishing the death penalty altogether. The death sentence should still be a viable option as a form of punishment.
I’d like to share with TOC other arguments against the death penalty that I have come across online and how they have not convinced me. These arguments may or may not have been endorsed by TOC. I just want to share. Please do not take anything personally.
1. The death penalty leaves no room for correction
According to Amnesty International: “Unlike imprisonment, the death penalty entails the risk of judicial errors which can never be corrected. There will always be a risk that some prisoners who are innocent will be executed.”[9]
Errors in sentencing do not discredit the death penalty itself, rather they call for greater care in handing out punishment to criminals.
2. The death penalty is inhumane and therefore should be abolished
Campaigners often use emotional language in their drive to abolish the death penalty. Note the power behind the sentiments expressed in “Irreligious”:
“How many more 20-year-old teenagers must we hang before we realise something is wrong with our justice system?”
“If you are the hangman standing in front of Yong at the gallows, would you have the heart to hang him yourself?” [1]
We are human beings with feelings, nothing wrong with that. It sickens us to see a person make the ghastly transition from life to death, and I have been a witness. Moreover, nobody likes to see young people die. But the perceived cruelty of the death penalty does not automatically mean it is always undeserved. When meting out justice, we should not be totally affected by raw emotions.
I’d like to go on to my last point, which actually might be the most important. Does the death penalty deter drug abuse? I have found sources that explore the relationship between the death penalty for drug trafficking and the prevalence of drug abuse. They are the UN’s Drug Report [10], cross-referenced with Wikipedia’s list of countries that sentence drug traffickers to death. [11]
According to the UN Drug Report, Iran, which has the death penalty for drug trafficking, heads the list of countries with the highest seizures of morphine and heroin. However, the rest of the list consists of countries which do not have the death penalty for drug trafficking. The list for countries with the highest incidences of cocaine seizures is made up entirely of countries which do not have the death penalty for drug trafficking. Among countries with the highest incidences of cannabis seizures, only Indonesia has the death penalty for drug trafficking. The results are the same for other lists – they are dominated by countries which do not sentence drug traffickers to death.
Clearly, there are points of contention. For example, I can question whether a high rate of seizure of drugs corresponds with a high prevalence of drug use. I can question too if the high rate of drug seizures is necessarily due to the death penalty, although it seems to be the case since such a pattern is seen throughout the various lists.
Given the limits of my abilities and time, I cannot analyse all the statistics. I only hope that the sources I have raised will be a starting point for the exploration of the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring drug offences.
In summary, with regard to Yong’s case, I hope we can explore the possibility of giving him a lighter sentence in the hope that he will reform. I remain skeptical about certain arguments against the death penalty. I believe it to be a reasonable punishment for certain drug traffickers. Although we must consider mitigating factors, let us not be carried away by emotion as we do so.
In any debate, it is tempting to want simply to win the argument. I believe the more important goal is to learn how to make our society a better place. I hope my letter has been of some educational value. At the end of the day, all we want is for Yong and other drug traffickers to receive sentences they truly deserve.
Regards,
Lee Jin Fu Marcus
———
Internet sources
- http://irreligiously.blogspot.com/2009/12/personal-appeal-to-all-my-friends-yes.html#comments
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/calling-for-an-end-to-the-mandatory-death-penalty/
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/toc-editorial-media%e2%80%99s-silence-on-yong-vui-kong-a-national-shame/
- http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_302234.html?vgnmr=1
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/high-court-grants-rare-stay-of-execution-appeal/
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/vui-kong-we-care-day-for-compassion/
- http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_412730.html
- http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/12/m-ravi-speaks-on-death-penalty/
- http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html
10. http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation
——
The Online Citizen replies:
Dear Marcus,
Thank you for a well-thought out letter. We are heartened that you support giving Vui Kong a chance to reform instead of being put to death.
TOC has not publicly or officially taken a stand on the mandatory death penalty as yet, although we are concerned about the application of the mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers. We will make our stand known in due time.
Thank you.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
—–
Well thought-out letter Marcus.
While you are at it, let’s not forget that it is but emotions which make us humans. Without that, we might as well all be animals.
You are quoting Andrew Chuah. LOL.
Do you honestly believe a person who refuses to divulge the identity of his brother despite being ensconced in the safety of Singapore? And comes out with stories about suing his bankers and incessant anti-Malaysian incumbent ELECTED federal government propaganda (which ties into his Penangite brother story as the opposition has just been elected there). I challenge his sanity and/or his veracity. Maybe he can publish a book to prove his claims.
I find it hard to believe that Singaporean youth is so naive and sheltered to the point of idiocy or that they have become devious to the point of inciting cl@ss w@rfare to achieve political aims.
P.S Game Over.
Mr Andrew Chuah is not to be trusted, he frequently comes out with stories and lots of negative news quoted from Malaysian opposition websites about the current incumbent ELECTED federal government.
I also find the tone of your letter to be disturbing, do you mean that poor people should be pardoned while rich people should be hanged? This is contrary to justice for all.
I also find the tone of your letter to be disturbing, do you mean that poor people should be pardoned while rich people should be hanged? This is contrary to justice for all.
What is justice with empathy?
Thank you for taking the stand against the mandatory death penalty. However I do have a different opinion with the statements, “I wish to remind everyone that drug users are also victims” and “I believe that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment for drug traffickers who have knowingly caused harm.”
Yes drug users are victims but are they “innocent” victims? It probably has little to do with the drug trafficker. Don’t blame the tabacco company for your cigarette addiction. Just to sidetrack a little, if drug trafficking deserves death then so do the tabacco companies whose cigarettes have caused more harm, and to more people, than drugs. Drug traffickers cannot force people to consume drugs. Yes if people are addicted to drugs, help them. If people traffick drugs, punish them. Don’t kill them.
Secondly, I disagree that the punishment fits the crime. Death is the ultimate punishment. Is this crime so heinous that the criminal cannot be given a second chance?
Someone who causes a financial meltdown destroying companies, families and lives, in my opinion, deserves a bigger punishment than a drug trafficker, but we’ve never heard of cries for the person to be hanged.
Dear Marcus,
Good letter. However, when you say “It seems unfair to use taxpayers’ money to support him in jail ” , do you mean to say that it is not very right economically to keep a remorseless person alive behind bars? If so, killing a remorseless person is the most viable option?
What if we keep this person alive to do tough labour away from the public eye? Not only do we save money by not hiring a worker (probably foreign) in his place, he or she is forced to give back to society in some form or another whether he or she likes it or not for a long long time.
Killing a captured hardened, remorseless criminal might satisfy a certain blood lust for some, but it certainly does not benefit society and in a darker sense might even benefit a hardened, remorseless criminal as he does not need to do more time nor give society back anything positive.
I am more concern about how we waste far more money in everyday wastage from our uneccessary stored food, waste more money and food resources feeding our supermarkets, our craving for all kinds of meat, waste more money fueling our materialistic needs than to be riled by the knowledge that some of our excesses is keeping a criminal alive behind bars, taking away his freedom which effectively keep him out of society, stripping him of anything distasteful he used to represent.
For those who feels strongly about not wanting anything that a hardened remorseless criminal can give back through labour, then do these same people prefer to exploit workers from third world countries to do “dirty” tough jobs instead?
Can one not think that if a criminal is taught to make, say for example furnitures, which in turn are sold in public and that the money made is in turn given to charities or help clinics or any institutions (education) that benefits society positively – isn’t that a better use of a life? A more productive end to a punishment?
As a deterent, would readers not find that a school’s visit to observe the life in Changi Prison would be scarier to the young ones than any grave?
Death is surreal. No living person experiences real death. The dead cannot experience or comtemplate death. But everyone can imagine the feeling of pain or being imprisoned. So how is death a real deterent?
Best regards.
quote: “Even younger people have been found to be capable of committing crimes consciously. For example, a 15-year-old recently solicited sex on the Internet”
A 15-year old soliciting for sex is not a good example to illustrate that younger people are capable of committing crimes consciously. A 15-year old soliciting for sex per se is not causing harm to others (even though on an arbitrary technical point it is an offense for sex with minors).
Marcus should have used examples such youths robbing an old lady in the lifts etc where obvious harm is caused to others.
1) Ravi Philemon on January 4th, 2010 10.54 am
While you are at it, let’s not forget that it is but emotions which make us humans. Without that, we might as well all be animals.
Irrelevant. It is one thing to have emotions (to be sadden by deaths) and quite another to have decisions, especially ones that impact others, be ruled by emotions.
4) Clement Tan on January 4th, 2010 11.37 am
I also find the tone of your letter to be disturbing, do you mean that poor people should be pardoned while rich people should be hanged? This is contrary to justice for all.
Can I check with you where it says that? My impression is that it argues (under point 1) for impartiality. It is the others who are against death penalty that implies that poor people should be pardoned while rich people should be hanged.
1) Ravi Philemon on January 4th, 2010 10.54 am
While you are at it, let’s not forget that it is but emotions which make us humans. Without that, we might as well all be animals.
Irrelevant. It is one thing to have emotions (to be sadden by deaths) and quite another to have decisions, especially ones that impact others, be ruled by emotions.
==
Agreed. Besides, animals actually do have emotions too. Hope people can learn more instead of relying on their human arrogance and ignorance of facts.
lobo76@9: “…justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” – President of the United States of America in pledging for empathetic justice in the US Supreme Court.
Errata: should be
What is justice without empathy?
I would just like to focus on the two main main points on which the author of the letter has mentioned on abolishing the death penalty.
1. The death penalty leaves no room for correction.
This basically means the death penalty is irreversible. He argues that this means capital punishment should be dealt out with ‘greater care’. Unfortunately, this is only an abstraction since no amount of ‘greater care’ can undo capital punishment since we cannot ‘compensate’ the dead. Morever, the criminal-justice system may be wrong at times.
2. The death penalty is inhumane and therefore should be abolished
The author argues that we should not be affected by raw emotions when it comes to meting out justice against drug traffickers. Therefore, the death penalty may be a suitable form of punishment for certain drug traffickers (depending on mitigating factors). Given that the death penalty is a form of punishment that removes human life, it is therefore logically ‘inhumane’. The opposite of human is inhuman. I would hardly consider that equation playing on emotion but instead, a form of logical conclusion.
I would just like to focus on the two main points where the author of the letter mentioned on abolishing the death penalty.
1. The death penalty leaves no room for correction.
This basically means the death penalty is irreversible. He argues that this means capital punishment should be dealt out with ‘greater care’. Unfortunately, this is only an abstraction since no amount of ‘greater care’ can undo capital punishment since we cannot ‘compensate’ the dead. Morever, the criminal-justice system may be wrong at times.
2. The death penalty is inhumane and therefore should be abolished
The author argues that we should not be affected by raw emotions when it comes to meting out justice against drug traffickers. Therefore, the death penalty may be a suitable form of punishment for certain drug traffickers (depending on mitigating factors). Given that the death penalty is a form of punishment that removes human life, it is therefore logically ‘inhumane’. The opposite of human is inhuman. I would hardly consider that equation playing on emotion but instead, a form of logical conclusion.
German were very emphatic with their support of Nazi justice. Doesn’t make it right.
Justice and the death penalty should be recognised for what it is. A subjective decision to remove a person’s life for a crime that society deems sufficiently suitable as a punishment to the crime. Its still subjective.
No one states that someone must be punished for murder. In 16th century japan, a samurai could chop off a peasant’s head just for not bowing correctly. No one in japan regarded it as barbaric or murderous though people probably would today.
The death penalty is, like it or not, a reflection on today’s society.
Are Singaporean society willing to let a 20 year old die on the noose for drug trafficking? The answer is not easy and has been discussed before. The death penalty applies for anyone 18 years and above. What happens if the person is 18 years and 1 day. Also goner. Upping the bar to 21 years won’t resolve the issue. 21 years and 1 day will still be borderline and lead to the same arguments. Low IQ also difficult. Anyone trafficking in drugs already has a low IQ no matter what any study will show.
Why 18? Is it because age of majority in most countries is 18? That’s when these pple get a passport of their own and can smuggle drugs using that passport? Will upping sentence to 21 have an impact to SG’s drug situation? No one can say but Singaporeans have to make up their mind. Until then, the penalty will stay cos no one can decide.
Easy to say no death penalty. In fact, always showing the other cheek should mean no penalty for any crime (so long as the guy seeks forgiveness). The argument against death penalty is as arbitrary as the argument for the death penalty.
Ultimately, the article above is correct in its focus. Put aside arguments for and against death penalty for a moment and consider, should SG society or parliament decide that anyone above 18 should auto get the death penalty or should we let more learned judges (with a vigourous appeals process) decide for Singaporeans whether it is in Singapore’s interest or not?
Personally, I don’t think I know more than judges so I’m inclined to let them decide. Do you think parliament knows more than our judges?
Apparently it’s much cheaper to put someone behind bars for the rest of his life than to hang him.
http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=294
Treason (generally the betrayal of one’s country) is punishable by death in Singapore, although I am aware that the definition of treason in the Singapore legal system is quite narrow. Even this significant crime does NOT carry a MANDATORY death sentence.
Using treason as the example, surely the damage caused by a treasonous act (thousands if not millions of lives may be at risk) is far more severe than the act of drug trafficking by a drug mule. Hence, I think the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking, e.g. of 2g of heroin, is disproportionately harsh relative to the nature of the crime.
By all means, be tough on drugs. Hand out the death penalty if there is no reasonable doubt that it is warranted. But it offers no comfort if the trial judge comments that his hands are tied. It is society’s duty to untie his hands.
Finally, the hypocrisy of hanging the drug mules but letting the drug lords walk bears no sense of justice. It must be challenged and changed.
I do agree that capital punishment is a disproportionate punishment in the case of drug trafficking by first-time offenders, especially so if they have extenuating circumstances—poverty, being swindled, et al. Hence, while I do support capital punishment for the most heinous of crimes, I think that in such a case, a mandatory death penalty is not warranted. Mr Yong Vui Kong certainly does not deserve death in my humble opinion.
Hi people,
Great discussion, some of your comments have really set me thinking
To Ravi (1)
Thank you for reminding me of the importance of the emotions which make up our humanity. However, there are also destructive emotions like anger, jealousy and hatred. These emotions make us less of humans and more like beasts. If we act on these emotions, we might as well be animals
I believe what makes us human is the ability to reflect on a level beyond our emotions.
With regards to this case, I thought it insufficient to say, “The death penalty sounds cruel and I feel sad for the victim that’s why I am against it”. Let’s look at other factors such as the impact victim’s actions and his intentions before we judge if he is deserving of the sentence. In fact, it was with this in mind that I started my whole diatribe on “Irreligious”. The journey continues…
Maybe there should be death penalty only for murderers and those who are repeatedly unsuccessful in their suicide attempts.
To Clement Tan
You insinuated that I am “devious to the point of inciting cl@ss w@rfare to achieve political aims”. I’m sorry to disappoint you but I’m just an average citizen with no political aspirations. I’m not even a regular writer here, just another reader who was invited to contribute to this newspaper
Class differences are not involved when we talk about the death penalty? The meting out of this penalty depends on the actions and intentions of the offender, and the way he makes his decision depends a lot on his education and upbringing. For example, Yong came from a poor family and desparately needed money, and he may not have been well educated enough to think rationally about the consequence of his actions
If Joshua Chiang doesn’t mind, let me share a quote from him (on Irreligious) that made me learn much:
“I have worked with people of very little education from other less developed countries, and believe me, even at the age of thirty, they make choices that we would easily consider illogical, lacking in common sense, and sometimes downright stupid.
Rationality is not a God-send, or a natural gift we’re born with. It has to be learnt. Very often our education makes us forget that.
Empathy is not about looking at people through our eyes and deciding that they should have known better. It’s about experiencing things through they eyes, social background and circumstances.”
Socioeconomic and educational background plays a role in each person’s propensity to commit crimes. It is not something I have plucked out of the blue, put it this way that there are always underlying issues beneath the main issue, let’s not be blind to the undercurrent. However, whether that itself automatically qualifies the offender for exemption from the death penalty is another issue. Let’s go on.
More disturbingly, you asked “do you mean that poor people should be pardoned while rich people should be hanged? ” Let me clarify my point. I said in my article,
“I question if this basis for requesting for a lighter sentence takes away the element of impartiality in our law. Aren’t criminals supposed to be convicted equally regardless of their background? I question if this will lead to bias towards people from underprivileged backgrounds.”
So while writing the article, such an honest question popped up and I decided to open this question to readers so I could receive help. This is not a rhetorical question. Moreover, it shows that I did consider the element of impartiality and what I’ve done is opposite to your accusation of me.
“Please, someone convince me why the answer is ‘no’.”
Ok, so maybe that was an emotional reaction. When I wrote this I had in mind the ideal that society should be kinder to the have-nots. I was hoping that someone can help me to affirm this ideal. However, this is still ultimately an open question. If the answer to the question is more convincingly a “yes”, and that taking a person’s socioeconomic background into account introduces bias into the law, then so be it too. We all are learning.
In my article I was cautious enough about showing extra mercy to offenders based on socio-economic background alone, please elaborate on why you accused me of saying that “poor people should be pardoned while rich people should be hanged”
Lastly, you LOLed my quotation of Andrew Chuah. Fine, I accept that the story was bizzare and the source may not have been totally reliable. But I think I have expressed enough skepticism by starting the sentence with “If this story is true…” Even if it isn’t I hope you get that I am at least illustrating a hypothetical example, through the accounts of this other reader. I also don’t think he will take too kindly your assertion that he is insane. Please have some respect for your fellow readers.
To Life,
Thank you for your comment. Yes you are right, a drug addict is different from a murder victim since the drug addict chose to take drugs, but the murder victim had no choice. However, I have considered whether the consequences of taking drugs are more severe than that of smoking. My viewpoint is, yes drugs are much more poisonous. There is a higher chance of addiction and worse withdrawal symptoms.
While I was considering if the punishment fitted the crime, I identified two different groups of drug offenders, one being the drug mule and one being the drug lord. We have somewhat come to the conclusion that the mule may not have malicious intentions and may even have been duped or threatened into carrying out the crime.
But I thought I can safely assume that the drug lord is driven by greed and wants to earn money at the expense of the health and even the lives of fellow human beings. I struggle with the question of whether this equates to murder, and at present I am inclined to think it is, and therefore it deserves the death penalty. The tragedy of the situation is that, it is usually the mules who are caught and administered with punishment fitting for their bosses.
Hi Wui,
Thanks for the insightful statement, but I need to clarify my point or else I’ll become this cold blooded money minded monster in your eyes. You mentioned,
When you say “It seems unfair to use taxpayers’ money to support him in jail ” , do you mean to say that it is not very right economically to keep a remorseless person alive behind bars?”
There has been a misunderstanding, I did not mean it to be wrong “economically”, but rather from the point of view of “justice”, or at least what I think of it. At the time of writing, I thought it unjust for citizens to support a remorseless criminal through jail. However, now that Joshua Chiang has quoted the source, it seems that this concern is now irrelevant. It would be more expensive to hang criminals and therefore more unjust to society.
Those responsible for deliberately taking lives of other human beings by sentencing them to death – those that report such sentencing – are themselves murderers.
The death sentence is particularly unacceptable in cases such as possession or trafficking in cannabis, a drug that through thousands of years and many millions of users has helped so many and killed NONE.
You ought to feel shame for supporting these unjust and disproportionate sentences.
Marcus@20: Why are anger, hatred and jealousy ‘wrong’ emotions? Don’t these emotions push us to do what is right as well?
The death penality, is barbaric, if we are to look civilized to future generations, we cannot, due to this penality!
as Elsie said and I agree! “The death sentence is particularly unacceptable in cases such as possession or trafficking in cannabis, a drug that through thousands of years and many millions of users has helped so many and killed NONE.”
says it all.
let the punishment fit the crime!
Ravi @ 26,
I guess it depends on your interpretation. For example, social activists feel anger towards whatever flaws in the social system and are thus pressed to campaign for justice, human rights etc. But as for hatred and jealousy, my opinion is that they are the source of hurtful acts and hate crimes and nothing good comes out of them, but you are welcome to explain otherwise
OK forgive me for digressing a bit and talking about whatever little I know about “philosophy” or whatever that is.
I used “act on” in my previous statement. Maybe a better phrase would be “react instinctively to” A beast, if it feels angry, may start turning violent. If it is jealous of a mating rival it may set out to fight with and kill that rival. But we humans, we can do better I believe. We can reflect and act on a level that is beyond our emotions. We can, for example, turn our anger about social issues into something constructive- we can write, we can campaign, or engage in politics etc. That is what I meant.
At the same time, we can detach ourselves from these emotions and think beyond them. You may feel pity for the criminal, but does that alone exempt him from his sentence? You may thirst for vengeance, but does that alone qualify him to be sentenced that way? I don’t think an animal can think at that level.
With regards to the execution of Akmal Shaikh….A Briton.
China has acted in a disgraceful manner.
1)Not informing the next of kin of his exceution, place & time..
2) They have buried the body in an undisclosed location.
3) Perhaps even harvested his organs.
This is a national disgrace for all China citizens.
China has neglected in giving a human being and a foriegner at that, the due respect in death and instead has shown that it is a nation of brutes living in the middle ages.
A great embarressment for a nation filled with such fine culture.
I hope those responsible will be made to address justice.
I will boycott all China made products for a month.
If some sick people exhibit unwarranted cruelty to animals, who do you feel anger towards? The humans or the “beasts”? Only people of the same kind will feel EMPATHY for the former, as opposed to possible sympathy as they need psychiatric help.
Marcus
It is but emotions like anger, jealousy and hatred which make me a better husband, a good father and most of all a caring human being. But just like love, it can be carried to extremes (e.g. narcissistic). I agree with you though about not reacting instinctively alone, but to be rationale as well.
Clement,
We can be angry and empathetic at the same time. Rather than just throw the animal abuser behind bars and rotan him, we may want to know about his background so we can understand the causes behind his anti-social behavior, and if possible, treat it.
I seriously doubt jealousy and hatred are good emotions no matter how you look at it. By itself, both already have negative connotations.
This article was very well written. Sets you thinking. There are just so many sides to this debate. To be frank, I am unable to decide myself. There are just so many different circumstances and possibilities when it comes to this kind of thing.
Marcus,
Perhaps a better way of understanding things may be to use ‘empathy’ instead of ‘pity’. We tend to ‘pity’ beings when we perceive them to be less than us. But if we empathize we can place ourselves in their shoes. Then we can ask the questions – if given the same upbringing and circumstances, would we make the same choices? And would we want forgiveness and redemption as well?
I think the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking should be abolished for the reasons you mentioned .. as it’s arbitary and leaves no room for extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration by the judges.
As for the death penalty in general, I oppose it not due to it being inhumane – (because is not putting somewhere behind bars ‘inhumane’ too), but due to the fact that as of today it is irreversable after the sentence is meted out. Therefore due to the reality of human error in all of us, including our judicial process imo, I feel the death penalty should be abolished too.
@ 14) Charles on January 4th, 2010 2.55 pm :
Going by the logic you presented then, is euthanasia inhumane too, because it “removes human life”? I’m just curious btw :)
“Therefore due to the reality of human error in all of us, including our judicial process imo, I feel the death penalty should be abolished too.”
That is quite specious, does it mean all judgments carry a risk of human error, thus all judgments should rendered void. That is what the appellate system is for. And NON-MANDATORY death penalties are not easily meted out.
Zefly, not to be semantic my whole example is to illustrate the difference the two words “empathy” and “sympathy”. Moreover animal cruelty is not a symptom of “anti-social behavior” or a product of “underprivileged” social background, more often it is a precursor to psychopathic tendencies.
My suggestion for Singaporean youth is to read Western online newspapers for the various viewpoints and opinions. I get the feeling that Singaporean lawyers and law students all are geared towards commercial law and not criminal law; are they so lazy as not to even contribute one article to the MSM or online media.
Joshua @ 34,
Yes you are absolutely right. We need empathy in a world where the rich-poor gap is getting larger. The “haves” should not be absolutely detached from the harsher reality that engulfs the “have nots, but instead seek to understand them, even help them.
This brings to mind the other TOC article about Eric How’s facebook post on karma and blaming the govt. Have you read it btw?
yes, have read it, Marcus.
I think one thing the likes of Eric never understood is… we can take responsibility for our own fates – eg. I earn a decent living, but is not ‘rich’ by any stretch of the imagination, it’s my choice, and I dun blame the gahmen for ‘not doing enough for ME’ – while at the same time be EMPATHETIC, recognizing it hasn’t done enough for others who dun even have the kinda opportunity I have to make the choices I can make.
We have to learn to put less of ME into ourselves and more of ME into others.
I really think the hatred towards death penalty have been misplaced. The idea of death penalty is to deter people from breaking the law which in turn leads to a more “functional” society (do note that i never believe that law = justice as there’s never justice in this world).
Death penalty is certainly barbaric but unfortunately 99.99% of us (anyone who is rich enough to post a message here) are dishing death penalty to the third world countries day in day out, does it mean we should stop all that?!
At the end of the day, death is just another law (although a barbaric one) of nature. And if we see death penalty is another mean of maintaining the society well-being, i would say death penalty is there to stay (in my opinion)
12) Ravi Philemon on January 4th, 2010 2.26 pm
lobo76@9: “…justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” – President of the United States of America in pledging for empathetic justice in the US Supreme Court.
VA:F [1.6.3_896]
How is this quote related to your point of being ‘emotional’ when making decisions?
Abstract implies vagueness. How is a punishment that is clearly defined for a specific crime vague? Are you sure you didn’t take that quote out of context? It was about a gender equality bill when this was quoted… what has it got to do with being emotional?
Food for thought-
Does the existence of death penalty as a solution make society more ‘functional’ or is it reflective of a DYSFUNCTION within society?
If – and I do believe it- human beings are endlessly creative, should we not use our endless creativity to solve our problems of crime with a more nuanced and enlightened approach?
17) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on January 4th, 2010 3.39 pm
Apparently it’s much cheaper to put someone behind bars for the rest of his life than to hang him.
Costs differ from country to country, depending on how much lawyers earn, or how one houses death row inmates. IF cost is to be a consideration for determining the death penalty, I would say a study has to be done IN the particular country for it to be valid.
Personally, I do not think it is an important factor…
Marcus,
No no, I never thought you were a cold blooded money minded monster at all. I believe many of us readers here think that you have a thinking and rational approach in probably many issues and that the death penalty is a particularly hard subject to tackle sometimes as it has been debated for all ages of time.
What was pointed out by you is something that so many have brought up in the past. Using the “why should I pay to keep someone I find ‘deserving to die’ alive” feeling as one of few reasons, pro-death policy makers have successfully created powerful resentments for many, who otherwise seldom investigate or get too emotional about where the rest of their taxes go to.
Even if it can be argued that it is more expensive to hang someone on deathrow than to keep him behind bars, I have little doubt many will still rather want the life of people whom they believed to be menaces to society to be taken away forcefully, than to imagine them eating well, living under a shelter and being able to tuck into beds at night.
“I would not pay to keep you alive” and “I would rather pay more to watch you die, than pay less to let you live” has more or less the same weight of emotions that resides in many (not all obviously) pro-death supporters in regards to monetary costs’ argument, in my opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05bar.html
“Does the existence of death penalty as a solution make society more ‘functional’ or is it reflective of a DYSFUNCTION within society?”
In fact in my opinion both are correct :) death penalty IS a reflection of dysfunction and also the solution to the defect and thus make the society more functional. Note that it is a solution to the defect BUT not a correction to the defect and i never believe there wil be one (correction) as long as there’s emotion.
if – and I do believe it- human beings are endlessly creative, should we not use our endless creativity to solve our problems of crime with a more nuanced and enlightened approach?”
Unfortunately, i believe that human are NOT endlessly creative and hence there’s no better ways to resolve the problems when it comes to bring down the rate of extreme crime. (The death penalty serves as a form of deterring measure).
@ 35) Clement Tan on January 5th, 2010 10.20 am :
I was not implying that all judgements should be rendered void due to the presence of human error. There have been cases whereby after the whole judicial process is through, and the convict is serving their prison sentence, or even in some cases where they are on death row, revelations via new technology (such as DNA for e.g.) has exonerated them.
I’m sure hope that the non-mandatory death penalty is meted out with greater care, but given as I said the reality of human error – in all judgements – I think it should be abolished because it leaves no room for the judiciary to reverse the sentence after it’s meted out in the case of an error of some sort being made once that error is found out in the future.
I enjoyed (not the most ideal word in considering the topic at hand) reading this thoughtful post by Marcus and the comments that followed. Thanks all.
I think that our judges should have the latitude to determine whether the death penalty is appropriate in each and every case.
i am for the death penalty. perhaps not it being mandatory, but well, unlike the vocal proponents of both sides here, perhaps i have not come to terms with myself as to that issue as of yet. the points raised are certainly the run-of-the-mill, not to say they arent thoughtful, but simply that it would be hard to convince the other side (of whichever side you’re on) because well simply, people can be more stubborn than you think (and will always have a ready [and another standard run-of-the-mill, though also carefully thought out] counter. simply put)
i would just like to quip here a little perhaps, that perhaps (in the spirit of things) that we separate the “ought” (that is, what SHOULD be done) from the “is” (as in what it IS NOW) and maybe seperate the moral arguments from the ones concerning the actual reality of the situation. simply because the former undoubtly would champion many ideals (too many to list), and the latter would make us seem rather overtly practical and removed (not to mention, an ardent PAP supporter, amongst other criticisms that can be levelled)
that said, im not saying either side is correct or wrong (the intellectual coward i am, arent i? let me forestall and predict your flames), but merely saying that seperating the two spheres of arguments, mentally at least, and not using one to justify the other, might just give some peacde of mind. they are, and should remain seperate.
and to end off. i’d like to comment on the other unstated assumption in the entire debate. that is, the simple equation that Law/Justice = Equality. without dabbling into the area of positive law (ie that law is essentially crafted by those in power), nor attempting to bring in the whole issue that our equal rights as humans do not necessarily make that equation true (nor the issues about the ends that the law seeks to achieve), i just like to remark that Aristotle’s way of viewing Justice would (somewhat distorted i suppose by my analogy), also make things easier to see i guess.
Justice is somewhat like a marker on a sliding scale. and like all measures, it doesnt remain firmly fixed on the point called equality. it slides up and down. it only coincides sometimes.
have a good day all. (try not to flame me too much.)
@ 46) random passerby on January 6th, 2010 1.53 am :
Regarding the equation you brought up, that there is an underlying assumption that Law/Justice=Equality – I disagree. Personally the only ‘equality’ that persons can expect from the law imo is that nobody is above the law, i.e. everybody is subject to the laws of the land. This may not be true either though, for e.g. in the case of diplomatic immunity.
So personally the law and the justice that comes forth from it when they are seen to have broken a law, does not necessarily equate itself with equality or any other notion. It is but a set of rules. What defines it imo is ultimately society/societies .. and imo it moves in that general direction of what the majority of the people want in terms of ‘justice’ (in the majority of the world).
These are just rudimentary suppositions of my own .. I hope I have not missed the point here. :)
Hi Marcus,
Do you know what you are talking about???
Its quite easy for you to be advocating to take a human being’s life, becos its not your life that is at stake, isnt it??
Do you know that at some point in your present life (more probably in one of your future lifes you will be on death row and you will face the same thing you advocating for. You dont believe me? haha
There are only 2 things that distinguish ‘ignorant’ people like you from those who are opposed to your kind — Compassion and Wisdom — you totally lack either of these qualities in you
However its not too late for you to change; by the way dont let my diatribe make you lose your beauty sleep tonite —fools are born every minute!!!
We must approach this subject on the premise that no one I repeat no one likes the death penalty. The law is enacted through proper readings in Parliament and it can only be reversed in the same process.
To say that we demand that the accused be off the hook because he is young etc or amnesty interternational saythis or that is futile. Remember the judges’ hands are tied because of the word ‘mandatory’.
We should channel our energy to remove the word ‘mandatory’. Judges are human too and they would discharge justice fairly and in accordance with the law. You cannot twist and turn as you wish. The law has to be upheld.
Whether you change your mind now and then is a non issue. Just concentrate on what is law.
Let’s hope that the system can find a good reason to commute the death sentence. Irrational attacks will make it more difficult. Worse still to politicise it. potl