By Vicki Yang
The sandbag. The boiled hemp rope. The lubricated knot. The white hood. These may be the things Singapore’s only hangman, Darshan Singh, lays out before the actual execution of a judicial hanging.
The rituals of a judicial hanging in Singapore are shrouded in secrecy, enshrined in Singapore’s Official Secrets Act, effectively sealing the lips of Singh and other employees at the gaol. Thus, not much is known about the process of hanging conducted in the recesses of Singapore’s Changi Prison, except the method employed for execution here – believed to be the long drop. It is a grim legacy of a punishment method inherited from the British. The ensuing details in this article rely on research on such a method of employment, and on the customs of Changi Prison.
A sandbag is first procured, necessarily of the same weight as the condemned. This inanimate substitute rehearses with the noose, allowing the hangman to calculate as accurately as possible the distance that the inmate must eventually fall. The hangman utilizes the Official Table of Drops, a manual developed by the British in the late 1800s to assess the exact distance of the fall corresponding to the convicted individual’s statistics of weight and height for an efficient delivery by long drop hanging. The rope can be up to three centimeters thick, extending up to nine meters long. It has been boiled and stretched, to prevent any springing and coiling when the deed is performed. Wax or soap perform their lubricating function on the knot for a smooth and swift uppercut delivery to the neck.
While the hangman deliberates over the mechanism of death, the inmate on death row is called up. Twenty-four hours before the execution, Changi Prison Services organizes a strange photoshoot of sorts. The convict is made to strike up more than ten poses of a variety, enacting fictitious scenes no longer to be realized, for instance posing as if in an office and working. Presumably, the shoot is meant to document photographically the last of the condemned, and this product so thoughtfully passed on to the family of the prisoner thereafter.
The last smile documented, the hangman readied, the condemned prisoner is called to the noose. His hands are manacled behind his back. The hangman meticulously places the eyelet of the noose just below the left ear of the prisoner, well placed for a jolt of the rope to break the neck immediately. If the prisoner has not collapsed in the face of the impending death, the last of all that he or she sees is then obscured by the white hood pulled over the head. “I’m going to send you to a better place than this. God bless you,” are reportedly Singh’s last words to the condemned. [1]
The hangman opens the trapdoor. The inmate drops. According to this website, “If the eyelet is positioned under the left angle of the jaw it rotates the head backwards, which combined with the downward momentum of the body, breaks the neck and ruptures the spinal cord causing instant deep unconsciousness and rapid death.” The force of the body weight with relation to the drop distance and gravitational force wrenches the knot and fracture-dislocates the neck violently with 1260 foot-pounds of force. “This causes a fracture-dislocation of the upper neck vertebrae, ideally between the C2 & C3 vertebrae, which crushes or severs the spinal cord leading to immediate unconsciousness.” Paralysis results. Blood pressure and blood supply to the brain descend rapidly, knocking the prisoner unconscious within seconds. Death is by comatose asphyxia.
Remove the hood. A discoloured, protuberant face stares back. Eyeballs on the edge of their sockets, the tongue thrust out of the orifice, a mixture of vomit and drool dribbles down the side of the mouth, a foul smell in the air from sudden excretion as the body’s sphincter muscles are involuntarily relaxed.
Yet the Grim Reaper must still wait, there is no swift taking of the convict. The loss of consciousness and instantaneous death cannot be equated as the same sort of effect. Continued beating of the heart and complete death can take up to twenty minutes, during which the prisoner may still feel sensation from the skin above the dislocated neck.
Few things are left to chance but the hangman’s extensive deliberations over the process can belie the accuracy of the 2, 500 year old science of hanging. Miscalculations can occur, resulting in a more macabre demise. Extend the rope, and the head can be torn right off the body, arteries dangling. Shorten it, and a long painful drawn-out process of strangulation takes place instead, possibly extending up till forty-five minutes. Misplace the noose just slightly, and dislocation of the neck and the resulting death will not be clean and swift, the inmate flailing in the air for several minutes.
Give the hangman the benefit of the doubt, and say that his preparation of instruments are reliable and accurate. The accuracy of this science of killing, however, also depends on the individual anatomy of the prisoners; for instance the strength of the neck muscles and neck size. How humane the hangman’s fracture is, is only perhaps how well the complex permutation of factors fit together each time the state orders the death of an individual. When that happens, the hangman readies himself on the dawn of a Friday. The instruments of judicial punishment by death are laid out. The condemned is led to the gallows. And the noose is tightened.
___________________________
References:
[1] Ravi, M. Hung At Dawn. Singapore: Orion Books, 2005. Print.
_____________________________________________________________
Related posts:
- Review : Once A Jolly Hangman
- New book puts death penalty on trial
- Japanese officials reveal execution chambers
- Malaysian lawyer denied access to Yong
- The neglect of professional responsibility by the mainstream press
If you don’t commit crimes with death penalty, you don’t need to worry about these.
I think we should also call for a Mandatory Ruling Party Vote Out when a certain number of issues in Singapore remains unresolved.
Singapore justice system is world class – no case of wrongly convicted. Every developed country has at least one incident of wrongful conviction, but not in Singapore. That’s why Singapore judges and ministers deserve world’s class salaries.
//Linda Lim
it should have been all case of wrongly convicted are all swept the carpet. I know of at least 1 case for Singapore. There was a guy who was wrongly charged and lay off from SIA.
That is if you didn’t even add in those cases, where people are locked up for no reasons (valid).
Linda, how does one argue with a punishment that is wrong to begin with?
Sounds more terrible than death by a bullet to the head like in China.
This is bad. How do those fallas who enforce this sleep at night. And esp those who implement this practice.
Doesnt sound like something a 1st world country would practice.
This practice of the final photoshoot sound intriguing. Source?
@Hanging
The innocent have nothing to fear, eh? Sure thing, Dredd.
@Linda
I am unable to believe that you are not being ironic.
I do believe the word u looking for is ’sarcastic’, Agents. I believe Ms Linda is being sarcastic. No system in the world is perfect.
When u have done something, no matter how revolting, hundreds of times, u become numb to it. Why should the executioner feel any guilt for performing his job yah? I mean, when he signed up for the job, its not that he didn’t know the scope.
It has been said that hanging is the quickest and swifest way and hence the most merciful… compared against the other methods such as gas chambers, electric chair and lethal injection……
I also believe that in every hanging, there is a medical doctor around to certify death….
sad for the human race….
what is this article supposed to do?
To show how ‘ugly’ the process so that
a) people will not oppose the death penalty, or
b)people will not be tempted to commit such crimes?
(a) will be about as effective as the images on cigarette boxes I think..
While (b) might work… but TOC audience is hardly the correct crowd to broadcast such warnings…
@Linda Lim,
Perhaps you are just being sarcastic, but still I shall challenge the “misconception” of Singapore never having wrongful convictions. It only is the case because the media don’t tell us about it when it happens.
Might want to read this: http://jacob69.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/the-coffee-shop-murder-j-b-jeyaretnam-and-the-death-penalty/
This process to hanging is the same both for mandatory and non-mandatory death penalties. What is the TOC’s purpose in this article? Is your ultimate goal to abolish mandatory death penalty or death penalty in general? Be very careful what you’re advocating.
A good alternative to death sentence is life sentence without parole. This is punishment enough. I do not think anyone has the right to order the death execution of his fellow humans. There are viable alternatives to the death sentence where the stats have clearly shown that the implementation of the latter has not resulted in any significant deterrence compared to other options. Furthermore, one mistake committed on a death sentence is a mistake too many. We should stop playing God.
I do not think the PAP ministers care about issues like this except the fact that sending someone to death saves money and is therefore a cheap and viable option. This is Singapore incorporated that we are talking about. They shoot horses, don’t they, when the horses can no longer perform.
Today, 120 countries have renounced the death sentence. Some countries which have not renounced the death sentence do not practice it. Active countries are US, China. Pakistan and some rogue states such as Iran and Sudan. And of course, the LKY led PAP govt.
MM is heartless as the facts have shown. I do not think he gives a hoot about issues like this. He may repent on his death bed but I will not bet my money on it. A leopard never changes its spots.
@Linda Lim
Yes there are wrongful convictions, but a person who is wrongfully convicted should not be punished in the first place, be it fine, imprisonment or death penalty. A wrongful conviction is a problem with the judicial system which should be dealt with by technological improvements, improved legal procedures (e.g. needing 3 judges instead of 2/3 for death penalty) etc, not an abolishment of the death penalty.
And here’s a question for those who advocate abolishment of the death penalty. Why should a person, who has already committed a great harm to society, be allowed to continue to harm society by the leeching of tax dollars for his life?
Will those abolishment advocates dare to ask a question that makes the public face up to the direct cost to them? E.g. “Are you willing to donate $10 per month to upkeep a murderer in prison?” I’m willing to bet that most people will just stare at you and ask you why you don’t just get rid of the guy.
Alternatively, how about we agree to abolish the death penalty, but those criminals in life imprisonment should be made to do hard labour like say construction work? In an economic sense, that would cut costs and reduce our dependence on foreign labour. In a moral sense, that would allow the convict to pay back the debt they owe society, both for the crime and the tax dollars they’re using. Will the bleeding hearts now start crying about how wrong it is to make those precious murderers and drug traffickers labour?
everyone makes mistakes and everyone sins. we are aware that the judicial system is not perfect. dealth sentence may be imposed on people who are innocent. people may be forced to commit certain crimes. death penalty should be abolished. i agree that they should be made to do very hard labour.
a murderer of a villian was given death sentence but a rapist of minors was only locked up 20 years. is this fair? we all know how JC died. the judicial system is full of flaws.
elmo
… the judicial system is full of flaws.
So why waste time on the death penalty? Spent your time and effort on improving the judicial system.
Alpha Tango,
You’d be surprised how many out there are who believe that they ought not cast any stone in the name of the imperfect human being.
Many have expressed challenging views about the the secular nature of our soceity and how secularism have benefited religion and the religious. This is not the case here where the voice of religion is as loud, if not louder, that the voice of a secular society.
This is one example where the name of secularism is wrongly used to advocate a wrongful punishment, a punishment that gives the offender no chance of making amends.
Taking a life away cannot be as easy as ’one-strike-you’re-out’. Life is worth much more than that – no matter what offensive state it has entered into. I know it is easier said than done but it has to be, it just has to be.
Have Mercy
A good alternative to death sentence is life sentence without parole.
That, imo, is akin to torture. So to salve your ‘morality’, you would rather inflict torture than death? Worse, some even sure hard labour while they are at it…
… We should stop playing God.
Please do not add this to the discussion, can?
… some even suggested hard labour
if you do bad things worthy of death..
you should be killed…
Why worry for the culprit?
He/she deserves it..!!
gemami
I don’t think I can reply to the religious vs secular society part because religious debates tend to devolve into a matter of “I right you wrong” echoed across all the participants. It’s quite pointless since the basis of argument is entirely different. Suffice to say that I think societies have a right to choose their own systems and Singapore has chosen secularism, as opposed to say, Christianity dominating USA and Islam dominating Iran. There is no right or wrong social system any more than there is a right or wrong religion. Let’s not open the religious can of worms where it is not directly relevant in this article.
With regard to the ability to make amends, yes the death penalty does take away the ability to make amends, but how would you hardwire the making of amends into the life imprisonment regime? Make the murderer a lifelong slave to the victim’s family? Hard labour? Confiscate all his assets and divert it to the family? In other words, how to convert a convict’s life imprisonment into a source of benefit for society/the victim’s family?
Don’t say that there is no need to hardwire anything and to just let the convict make amends on his own goodwill. There will surely be situations of unrepentant criminals who are perfectly happy that they killed the guy, and don’t mind sitting in jail their whole lives and eating free food. What do we do with them? It’s very easy to preach mercy and sanctity of life, it is far harder to justify the costs associated with such an approach.
Hi Alpha Tango,
I understand your point but it will be hard to argue it without making one’s religious inclination the underlying factor to what is right and what is wrong, or what is good against what is evil.
The ‘I right, you wrong’ refrain is not exclusive to religious and religion only but also embraced by a secular society as well. Ask yourself what is the basis for determining what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, what is ideal and what is not? It surpasses both the spiritual and the mortal world, so the intertwining cannot be help, and must be an inclusive part of determining what is right and what is wrong – even as we attempt to keep religion out of the way.
With regards to the ability to make amend. The fundamental point must be our treatment of our fellow humankind. To consider this, one must look at an offender as if the offender is none other that a father, a mother, a brother, a sister or one’s own child. Would you then say that your mother, or sister or son must die because society cannot be made to bear the cost of keeping them alive while they undergo rehabilitation and treatment for eventual assimilation into mainstream society?
dear Old Guy, if you kill another person, in your opinion, you deserve the death penalty. So in fact, those people who kill in the name of the government als deserve this penalty as those who order it. In the end, who will survive? Everyone becomes guilty of the crime!
Don’t always think things are fine here. When you get arrested for supposed to be affray, you are deemed guilty by the investigating officers and have to prove your innocence even though you are not the party who started the fight. It happenede to me. I was handcuffed, dumped into a cell with my hands handcuffed to a steel bar and all my belongings and shoes taken away from me. I had to walk barefooted along the walkways in the underground lockup and cell. My statement was wriiten for me and I had to sign it with my hands in cuffs.
Call this justice! When you are in it than you understand what goes on behind the bars!
Who ever you are, you are sheltered. You have not tasted what I did and what my wife and I went through. It was sheer hell. However, you may not believe in the Almighty but He came to my rescue and thank God there are some good people out there who assisted me in my plight to get back what was due to me!
He shows justice in this ever changing world!
The hanging procedure should be publicised to all. This will act as a deterrent. In life not everybody is imbued with ability to constraint ourselves such as hot temper, vengeful, greed etc
Just look at Sadam’s hanging. It is frightening but how many are as strong and brave as Sadam.
I am not sure we should execute people who have not killed another person. The punishment of a tooth for a tooth is very practical. The jealous boyfriend who blinded his girlfriend was in turn blinded by 20 drops of acid as punishment. The girlfriend feeling is she wanted him to feel her pain.
For those drug, possession of firarms etc where no killing took place maybe we can banish them to an island with no amenities and no parole.
I rather a lengthy and expensive process to prevent an innocent murdered rather than a mandatory one that gets a family agrieved over a wrong judgement. This is a basic human right
Goodness.. religious believers just can’t help themselves can they? Just unable to DISCUSS many subjects using ‘elementary ‘ knowledge or inquisition without evoking personal superstitions. There is an apple, we ask why the apple is red, we try to find out, through studies, experiments, thorough researches etc… But by saying,’Ah, my god did it’ just kills off any genuine discussions. Please people, stay with the article, don’t digress.
gemami
I agree that an individual will find it hard to make and discuss moral decisions without reference to his religious inclinations, but it is quite another to have secular societies making decisions based on religious morality. To a religious person, sanctity of life might well be an overwhelming principle that would call for the ban of the death penalty, regardless of the cost. The secular society he lives in might have another standard, such as deterrence (putting aside questions of effectiveness) or utilitarianism. That is why religious views will be of limited use in such debates in such societies, because they’re not in sync with society in the first place.
The same answer goes to your suggestion that we should imagine that convicts are our loved ones and decide if we will still want them to hang. Yes it sounds nice and compassionate, but it is not a sound ground to make high policy decisions. That necessarily requires a certain degree of detached macro-perspective and an objective weighing of costs and benefits. It simply would be impractical to consider every individual situation whenever a policy or law is made, policies and laws are blunt instruments designed to deal with generalities.
In this case, the rights or humanity of the convict has to be balanced against the rights of the victim/the victim’s family to revenge, the right of society to self defence and to punish its offending members. And, in my opinion, our society has rightfully placed the balance against the person who committed a wrong rather than the innocent victim or society. To weigh otherwise would be rather perverse.
As for your argument that the convict should be given a chance to make amends, there is nothing wrong in principle, and I would support the abolishment of the death penalty if a scheme is worked out that will ensure that (1) adequate amends are made, and (2) he does not harm anyone else. That is too much left to chance for my liking. If nothing else, and I’m aware this probably sounds very cold, the death penalty offers the absolute certainty that there will be no re-offence. It removes the problem once and for all.
Lastly, abolishment of the death penalty per se will not help the re-assimilation of the convict back to society in any way because the alternative punishment in Singapore is life imprisonment. The social cost to be measured is that of killing the convict vs keeping him alive for his natural life, rehabilitation does not come into the picture. To go down your line of argument, you would either have to suggest a way the convict can be useful in prison, or argue for the abolishment of life imprisonment as well.
I could never say this better…
http://acgrayling.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3Athe-last-word&catid=34&Itemid=66
The narrow mindedness and sheer ignorance of some people regarding the significance of the death penalty and the motivations of those that do not support it is indeed very frightening.
Didn’t any of you watch the videos by TOC where people on the street were interviewed regarding their views in just that? It doesn’t matter whether we are religious or atheists, left wing or right wing or even good old law-abiding citizens. The point is that we should put more thought and effort into determining WHY someone needs to die a deliberately inflicted death. Whether it is our own relative or son or daughter that is convicted of the crime is not anywhere related to the point, it is just an attempt to humanize the problem for most of us that will never be in that situation.
The death penalty should be abolished for all crimes except where keeping the person alive would be pointless because that person will continue to be a danger in society at large. A drug lord who is proven to have been coordinating the smuggling of massive quantities of drugs into Singapore would fit this bill. He/she is deliberately profiting from the destruction of lives repeatedly. If is difficult to make a career out of drugs without knowing the harm it causes to society at large. A drug mule is not a drug lord. Similarly, if someone brutally killed another human being and there is ample evidence that the crime was committed by him, not from a forced confession or any sort of confession, but by transparent evidence properly collected and presented to an independent third party (judge or jury), the death penalty might be appropriate.
Many of us in Singapore have so fully bought into the idea that the death penalty is completely and unquestionably useful to maintain a safe society and we generally don’t care why someone is being hanged because the MSM immediately puts many criminal suspects to shame. Giant mug shots in the papers together with slightly biased angling of stories about crimes. Most of us ‘good’ people would immediately get judgemental and go “that is a very bad person” when we read a crime story here.
Abolitionists of the MDP do not all believe that life is sacred because God gave us life. Calling us religious is a blatant attempt at discrediting our ideas. We believe that human beings have progressed far enough throughout history to appreciate that people are NOT animals, but complex biological beings capable of very deep motivations for their behaviour. Simple having an MDC for any crime denies this very fact. There is a LOT of gray in this world and nothing is as clear as black and white. Nothing at all. For those of you who say “if you don’t commit the crime you’re safe” or “it’s an effective deterrent” are plain ignorant (or in denial) of the reasons why people can be driven to a particular behaviour and the inherent complexity of the human being. I’m sure most of us have chosen to do something against your better judgement at least once in your lives because it ’seemed like a good idea’ at the moment. I shall spare you guys the lecture on human vices.
A person can think complex thoughts, feel deep emotions and make decisions based on a combination of those thought and emotions. We should not summarily brand people who commit offenses as evil by nature and also take into account the motivations for those actions. Abolishing the MDC but still maintaining a death penalty for criminals that have directly taken lives and will remain extremely dangerous after their release from prison is the next best ideal to a complete abolition of penalty. This is not as easy to determine as having a predetermined quantity of drugs obviously, but it respects the importance of human life. The government owes this to its citizens after almost 35 years of implementing a policy that was never fully opened for a thorough public discourse.
I apologize for the very strange formatting. It seems my cutting and pasting from MS Word might be the culprit. If it’s possible for the moderators to remove the gibberish before my actual post, I’ll greatly appreciate it. :)
The article states: “The loss of consciousness and instantaneous death cannot be equated as the same sort of effect. Continued beating of the heart and complete death can take up to twenty minutes, during which the prisoner may still feel sensation from the skin above the dislocated neck.”
I understand that loss of consciousness and death are not the same thing — although one would expect ‘brain death’ (which is, by most accounts, equivalent to ‘death’: see the Interpretation Act, s. 2A) to follow very soon after the snapping of the neck, even if the heart continues beating. But how can one ”lose consciousness’ yet ‘feel sensation’? This seems like unscientific melodrama: if you’re unconscious, then you’re unable to feel pain, and vice versa.
Alpha Tango,
I like your line of argument, very convincing and straight to the point. I concede that, apart from one contentious issue, most of your assertions are valid and I may have to relook my position.
The contentious issue lies in this statement: “…the right of society to self defense and to punish its offending members…”
Does self-defense gives one the immediate right to kill and offender? For example, when an enemy comes at you with a knife, do you immediately think of killing him in self-defense or would you rather disarm him if you can?
One can be excuse in such a situation if he thinks of killing the other to save himself, especially when it happens quite suddenly and there is no time to think. But surely, to catch him and then deliberate to sentence him to death is just unfathomable for a civilized society.
The other question is this: “In its right to protect itself, who in society decides how the protection is to be carried out and the punishment that goes with it?”
Whoever it is, it must be a party that speaks the collective agreement of society isn’t it? In this regard, has society’s views been sought on this?
As some have argued, it is precisely because society’s views were never sought that there ought to be an immediate moratorium to cease all killings. Until such time that there is adequate discussion and exchange of views, and a set of ‘self-defense’ and ‘punishment’ agreement is arrived at, we cannot claim to be speaking and acting on society’s behalf.
gemami
Feb 26, 2010 13:49
Does self-defense gives one the immediate right to kill and offender? For example, when an enemy comes at you with a knife, do you immediately think of killing him in self-defense or would you rather disarm him if you can?
Interesting point to say the least
… do you remember the case where the police shot dead the ‘assailant’ (who just stabbed someone in a nearby coffeeshop) in the MRT station? His defence was exactly this.. that he was in danger and the ‘policy’ (taught in his training) was to shoot.
One might say, that Singapore is quite consistent in this respect.
As some have argued, it is precisely because society’s views were never sought that there ought to be an immediate moratorium to cease all killings.
Many things have not been ‘discussed’ and were implemented. I could certainly say that society’s views on election were not properly sought, and GRCs were implemented, electoral office came under the PM, etc. Should elections be put on hold while we discuss this for the next 10 years? PAP certainly won’t mind.
Aiyah! lobo76 – When you argue like this how to answer back except to try and impressed on you that there is a vast difference between taking a life and selecting a bunch of people to cause chaos.
At what point does one deem a life so worthless that it is more worthwhile to end it – that is the question lah.
I think the ‘moratorium’ argument runs like this. A law is valid only if it is made with the ‘consent of the governed’. With most laws, it’s sufficient for this ‘consent’ that the People’s representatives have voted by majority to enact it — the People’s acquiescence is enough. If they don’t like it, they can reflect that disagreement through the ballot box (if it’s significant enough an issue to affect their ultimate vote).
But the MDP is different, because it threatens a fundamental liberty. So we demand a greater degree of ‘consent’, i.e. that MPs only vote in favour of it on the back of informed public opinion by the People in support. Otherwise, such a law is invalid. The argument then concludes by insisting that there was never such ‘informed consent’ in favour of the MDP to begin with, so it must be suspended (and repealed) unless the public supports it after an open, robust debate.
This of course begs two questions. First, when does a law ‘threaten a fundamental liberty’, and thus require this heightened standard of consent? Lots of laws may threaten basic constitutional/human rights (freedom of speech, equality, religion, movement etc.) — do we therefore say they are all illegitimate until a ‘robust’ debate has taken place? Or else how do we identify which laws are ’special’… just something that a minority disagrees strongly with? Is that not then simply a way to overturn democracy?
And secondly, what precisely do we mean by an informed consensus or consent? Presumably, a referendum on the issue need not necessarily reflect an informed consensus. But then how do we determine whose views we should listen to? “Only legal specialists and parliamentarians are counted.”? “Only people who agree with us.”?
gemami
Feb 26, 2010 14:35
At what point does one deem a life so worthless that it is more worthwhile to end it – that is the question lah.
hmm… that seems more to be a question regarding MDP itself, not whether we should have a moratorium.