In regards to the above comment, I find it rather iilogical. May I know, if the drug lord were to ask a 11 or 12 yrs old kid as a carrier. What would be the court decision?

If those drug lords wants the drug to reach Singapore, by hook or by crook they will get it in.

Why is Singapore promoting yellow ribbon and giving ex-prioners a second chance.

Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness: blind justice and blind impartiality. Can I know is there really justice for this case? The mastermind is still out there. All the blames have to be solely bear by this guy. If there is no complete justice here, it means that there is no law.

I agree that he should be punished. My personally view is that life sentence should be a fair and just sentence for him. This is how i see as a justice done.

I strongly don’t agree with the abolishment of death penalty like what the previous taiwan law minister have insisted. But this is really an exceptional case.

This is like permitting the operation of casino in Singapore. From what I believe is that gambling kills. If Singapore is able to control the social problems brought by gambling, I dont see why the home affairs cannot control the drug activities here without the help of death penalty.

There is one thing i don’t understand. Why don’t the officer let this guy off and setup up a special task force with the malaysia police and try to get the mastermind and crackdown the organisation instead of sentencing him to death and end case.

I dont read criminal law. I have no knowledge on it. I sincerely hope that the decision maker can review on his case again.

Quite simply, are Haitian quake survivors stealing food to be considered looters and thus criminals? What about a rich youngster similarly shoplifting bread?

If you consider these two points as the extremes on a spectrum representing the criminality of theft, you will realize that the case of a poor person stealing out of desperation will fall closer to the Haitian looter than the rich brat. If you also consider that the looter ought not to be punished and the youngster ought to be, then you have to concede that the underprivileged thief has to be given a lesser punishment for the same conviction (ceteris paribus). It is not a case of being biased as the basis for legal punishment is the general idea that the punishment should fit the crime.

In short, I think it is quite obvious that the circumstances and motivations behind the criminal act, and not the act alone, should be taken into account when meting out “justice” through the legal system.

However, that is, if only all are well informed. Without freedom of speech, without freedom of press, without proper education, without equality, democracy is flawed.

When one, or rather many, are not required to vote based on absurd demarcation and gerrymandering, democracy is tragically non-existent.

In a democracy it is understood that it is everyone’s right to express their opinions (for or against) on matters, and in this case the law.

At the end of the day, in a democracy, should not a law represent what the majority of society wants?

To envision a day or a place whereby people do not ‘complain’ or ‘advocate’ (however you want to see it) for what they want is unrealistic imo .. for that’s part of what makes us human, the fact that there is the reality we do not all see eye to eye on everything.

When laws are clear cut (mandatory), where the judge has no choice, people also complain. Now they become dispassionate cold robots….

So is the issue really about the law being mandatory or not? I would not think so. It is simply a case of the Law not being what YOU want, and thus you complain. That’s the long and short of it.

Personally, I would like to all laws to be mandatory and clear cut (if they were constructed properly to take care of as many situations as possible).

Its quite easy for you to be advocating to save a human being’s life, becos you are sitting comfortably from your armchair at home and once again bringing up much hyped moral issues and totally ignoring the guilt of the offender (which is the point of why he was sentenced to death in the first place).

Do you know that anyone faced with death, regardless of guilt or cause, would not, of wish to die, and certainly want to live, beyond a reasonable doubt (its sweeping statements like that which you make.) save perhaps christian martyrs but then again, they’re not the topic of the discussion here.
dont believe me? try dangling yourself over a cliff. haha.

There is only 1 thing that distinguishes ‘ignorant’ people like you from those who are opposed to your kind — Reason. reason to realize that the topic at hand, is not simply about compassion and wisdom, but the reasoning behind why this dude was given the death penalty. compassion and mercy has a place in the Law of course, Lady Justitia’s left hand does sometimes angle downward, but she is holding a pair of scales after all: there are real and apparent justifications (which are clearly more central than mere compassion) for sentencing the guy to death (which we either agree or disagree with). A lack of reasoning to see why compassion should not be accorded to those who break the law for a multitude of reasons. (whether you agree or not, you surely must see those reasons). and once again, merging the moral issues with the outcomes and using one to justify the other.

However its not too late for you to change; by the way dont let my diatribe make you lose your beauty sleep tonite — everyone is afraid to die!!! I certainly am!!! but if i break the law, perhaps, i might deserve it. and if you do, you too. on the basis of reason. (and yes i am being rather flippant here)

Yes you are right, it is not my own life I am talking about. Please elaborate more on your stand against the death penalty so that we all can learn

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

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!!!

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. :)

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.)

I think that our judges should have the latitude to determine whether the death penalty is appropriate in each and every case.

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.

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).

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

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…

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?