MORATORIUM ON MDP:
The Online Citizen calls on the Singapore Government to impose a moratorium on all executions for those sentenced under the Mandatory Death Penalty (MDP). Our Special Focus Week the next 7 days or so urges the Singapore Government to consider the concerns and issues raised with regards to, in particular, the Misuse of Drugs Act and its provisions. TOC believes that there are serious and valid concerns about the application and provisions of the MDP which mandate a moratorium on executions. We urge the Prime Minister and his Government to consider these concerns and to allow an open and robust discourse with members of the public, the legal fraternity and Members of Parliament so that a true national consensus on judicial executions, based on informed considerations, is arrived at. We begin our appeal to the Government with our editorial position on the matter.
TOC Editorial
Why a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking will be both sensible and timely.
The Court of Appeals’ judgement on the Yong Vui Kong drug trafficking case on 31st December 2009 has reopened questions about the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty. In a rather unexpected ruling, the court signalled its willingness to hear arguments against the usual precedents on this issue.
Rightly so, even though those arguments are well-worn and familiar. The chief drawback is that the mandatory death penalty leaves no room for judicial discretion and the consideration of mitigating conditions, such as the age of the defendant or his personal circumstances, and whether there is the possibility of rehabilitation. It is therefore needlessly arbitrary and cruel. Contrary to popular belief, there is also no definitive study showing that the mandatory death penalty has the much-lauded deterrent effect, in part because it is difficult to prove what might have happened without it. But chances are that effective enforcement and an expeditious court system play more important roles in deterring offenders.
The mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking is particularly egregious for several reasons. First, it lacks a sense of proportionality. A young unwitting drug mule (a typical profile of those arrested for trafficking) caught with 30 grams of morphine, for example, gets no more sentencing consideration than a serial killer, while this does nothing to deter the real traffickers who put him up to it. Second, the defendant is saddled with an unusually onerous burden of proof: if caught in possession of a drug, he is automatically presumed to be responsible for it and to know its nature, and if caught with a certain amount he is alleged to be trafficking.
In spite of this, detractors have argued that public support for the death penalty in Singapore is overwhelmingly strong. A commonly cited 2005 survey by the Straits Times indicated a 95% margin of support among 425 respondents, though the survey was undertaken just weeks after the high-profile drug trafficking Nguyen Tuong Van case involving an Australian-Vietnamese national at that time. Even so, there was no indication that the mandatory death penalty was properly understood or differentiated from capital punishment in general.
Furthermore, the figure might reflect apathy rather than conviction. Public awareness on crime and punishment issues is low: the Law Society, for instance, pointed out in 2009 that local universities barely cover the study of criminology or penology, and that there were scant statistics for research on the causes of crime and the effects of penal policies. Public opinion might be very different if the human cost of the mandatory death penalty was given greater public airing.
In any case, legal thinking on the subject has been gradually evolving. In 1981, the Privy Council found in the Ong Ah Chuan case that the mandatory death sentence for drug offences was in keeping with constitutional provisions. Since then, the Ong Ah Chuan ruling has formed the main plank of the state’s arguments for enforcing the mandatory death penalty for trafficking, but in 2004 the Privy Council reversed its position by ruling that “it is no longer acceptable, nor is it any longer possible to say…[as in the Ong Ah Chuan case]… that there is nothing unusual in a death sentence being mandatory.” The Yong Vui Kong ruling subsequently marked a change in the Court of Appeals’ receptiveness to arguments against the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty, despite a ruling by the Court in the Nguyen Tuong Van case that the prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment could not be found in the Constitution.
It is worth noting that legal thinking has usually been ahead of public opinion: right up till capital punishment was suspended by the British legislature in the 1960s, there remained strong public support for it to be retained for some serious offences. Given the gaping flaws in Singapore’s mandatory death penalty, it is about time that such an anachronistic policy be discarded. The Court of Appeal’s refreshingly open-minded attitude towards considering this proposition is therefore welcome.
In the meantime, it is only right for the government to impose a moratorium on executions under the mandatory death penalty – whatever the outcome of the court’s deliberations – so that a more informed public discussion can take place.
____________________________________________________________
Related posts:
- Death sentences and executions in 2009
- A call for a moratorium
- TOC Editorial: A hint of assertiveness
- Malaysian MPs and senators call for Yong to be spared
- TOC Editorial: Media’s silence on Yong Vui Kong a national shame
da news somehow released a skorean news on their decision no the death sentence.
we also need news that supports the ban of death sentence?
la nausee,
Your reasoning is flawed because it is entirely based on an assumption – that the call for a moratorium is based on there not being a public debate and that even if such a debate took place and the eventual consensus is support for the MDP, that its opponents would then have to ” recant his prior opposition to the MDP”.
He does not.
He can go on and champion against the MDP.
I don’t understand why you say he must “recant”. He can work on it harder and longer until what he believes to be more just takes place.
“That last assertion is clearly tautological, because you’ve defined what’s ‘democratic’, ‘informed’ and ‘reasoned’ according to what suits your moral convictions.”
I do not think TOC is doing this. If you read the editorial again, it mentioned the concerns of the Law Society and the Privy Council which concerns, I believe, were not based on moral convictions. Furthermore, if one understands the cases and judgements of recent drug trafficking cases, one would see that it is not moral concerns which would make one question the MDA. Instead, it is because of the serious shortcomings in the law and its application which would make one question it.
I dare say that moral concerns are the least of the concerns.
It is amusing to me to see some saying that there is no good reason to call for a moratorium – and they keep repeating this like a parrot on a branch. Reminds me of those who would say, “The death penalty is a deterrent!!” – and keep repeating it like a well-trained parrot even when there is absolutely no proof or evidence or studies which support their assertion.
The current provisions and situation vis a vis the MDP and the MDA reminds me of a vice. But this is no ordinary vice. This vice is special. Peculiar. Deadly. In its grip is a man in robe with a gavel in his hand. A distinguished man. One who has spent his entire life on the bench. A judge.
This vice has this man in his grip. This man cannot move an inch. He cannot move his body, his arms or legs. This vice is so deadly this man cannot even move his eyes. Yet, this man wants to move his head, move his eyes. For he is a man. A human being. And as a man, a human being, albeit a judge as well, he wants to know what lies beyond. He wants to see what lies beyond.
He wants to ask: Why?
Why did this boy traffick in drugs? What made him do it? What circumstances brought him to this situation.
Why?
But the vice does not allow him to. “You cannot ask why!” he is told by the vice maker. “My vice will not allow you to!”
And so the only thing the judge can do is to ask: Life? Or death?
All around him, the lawyers, experts practitioners of the law, cries out for the judge to be allowed to see beyond. To look further into why the boy did what he did.
But their cries are all in vain.
And this is only about the judge. What about the boy accused? He is in an even worse position. His is more like having a noose around his neck already, even before he steps into the execution chamber. For his guilt is already PRESUMED.
He is, even as he stands in court to defend himself, as good as dead.
This is the situation with the MDP and the MDA as it presently stands. If one still asks for “good reasons”, then perhaps one truly does not need any one further, actually. Instead, what one would need is to admit that one does not know what one is saying when one is repeating, like a parrot, “There are no good reasons for a moratorium!”
For if one knew, one would know that there are many good reasons, more than enough, for a moratorium on the Mandatory Death Penalty.
@Tan Cheng Hua, you’re right, the liberal does not have to recant — he can persist in trying to persuade the majority with more debate. But then he’s still stuck in the second limb of the dichotomy I mentioned: “(1) after a full debate, it may turn out that the MDP is defensible, so that the liberal has to recant his prior opposition to the MDP; or (2) that after a full debate, a majority (having seen the light) will surely oppose the MDP.“
The dichotomy, restated simply, is “either you persuade me, or I persuade you”. But that’s a false choice. Mightn’t a third outcome be “we’ve failed to persuade one another”, i.e.the disagreement turns out to be ineradicable, even after we’ve debated till we’re all blue in the face? So demanding ever-higher standards of debate and argument might not solve the problem… in the end, the liberal (assuming he’s in the minority) might simply have to insist that he’s right, and force his opinion through. But as I said, he’s overriding the principle of democracy (or at least one version of it), and that requires justification.
On the concerns about the MDA. I believe that the legal objections are ultimately rooted in moral objections. A complaint that the MDP is not “in accordance with law” (Art. 9(1) of the Constitution), i.e. that it is contrary to ‘fundamental principles of natural justice’ (an argument rejected in Ong Ah Chuan), or that the MDP is “cruel and inhuman”, or that it is discriminatory in its application (Art. 12 of the Constitution)… while legal in character, also reflects moral principles which have been placed on a constitutional footing.
Besides, if the criticisms of the MDP were solely or primarily legal as opposed to moral, then there wouldn’t be a need for a full, reasoned debate, would there? The dispute could simply be settled by lawyers and judges in the rarified atmosphere of appellate courtrooms.
@Tan: Your argument is revolving around the sanctity of life, for which I have no answer, nor do I have a God to direct my questions to. There are many good reasons, and issues on the MDP are also currently debated on by the Courts and among lawyers themselves.
By your own reasoning about the gavel, are you implying that if there is evidence beyond any reasonable doubt substantiating the benefits of the deterrent effect brought about by MDP wrt to Drugs Trafficking in Singapore, you would still hold your stand?
Again by your own reasoning, are you implying that discretion be allowed to the judge, who would then subject the accused to his/her preconceived notion regarding the morals and values he/she prefers to impose on the society? What would then, qualify the accused for any general and/or special exceptions?
Just like in the States, structuring Codes attempting to govern the discretionary measure of a non-mandatory death penalty is doomed to fail, because it will culminate in an event where no judge will practice it, or result in a judiciary system whereby judges are given the responsibility, and the ultimate power to dictate the life-worthiness of men and women. The Mandatory nature of the MDP takes away such problems.
Also, In order to move for a moratorium, there is no detailed nor clear and convincing evidence to justify the premature infringement of all Citizen’s rights to the current Constitution even before the implementation of a moratorium.
I’d prefer a rephrase of your words to: ‘one is repeating, like a parrot, “There are no logical reasons for a moratorium!’
@Do Re Mi,
“7. Now, ‘human rights’ argument does not apply here. Specifically, none of such arguments in ‘advocation’ of fundamental human rights can apply since, in order for the ‘human rights’ argument to be valid, the legitimacy of premises 1 and 2 is put into question.
8. Now how can you question the legitimacy of premises 1 and 2 without clear and convincing evidence?”
How is the legitimacy of 1 and 2 questioned or challenged by applying a human rights argument? 1 is clearly not impinged by a moratorium. One’s nationality is not altered by challenges to legal penalties instituted under the nation’s law.
2 is problematic – you are conflating what the statutes are nominally intended to do with what it actually does. This is a loaded assumption since it assumes no bad laws – i.e. nothing in the constitution and secondary legislation fails to protect or even infringes upon Singaporean’s civil liberties and legal rights.
The rest of your argument rests on this problematic assumption, which cannot proceed otherwise. This is also why I think your argument is tautological: you are fending off challenges to the MDP – which is alleged to be infringing upon civil liberties – by taking shelter behind the argument that any challenge to the legal process is an infringement of civil liberties. This argument can only hold by presuming that the MDP is an effective tool in protecting civil liberties, and hence a challenge to it would diminish this layer of protection.
With regards to: “This assumption that any evidence will be in favour of the abolitionists is, due to your premise that the aim of studies is to ‘show the effectiveness of the MDP’s deterrence’, is wrong.”
I should have said: “To claim to want to wait for studies to show the ineffectiveness of MDP’s deterrence but so willing to make a pronouncement on this is at best ironic.”
My point is you claim to know the insufficiency of the alternative penalties whilst claiming that the deterrence value of MDP is unknown as yet. How can you make a value judgement of this type when at least one of the two subjects of comparison is unknown, as you argue?
“I will be willing to concede if the public is ‘informed’, however, I am in staunch opposition to any decisions and/or stands made by an ‘uninformed’ public.”
This is, as la nausée points out, a very problematic position. Since he has dealt with it, I’ll leave it there for now.
“For the PP to have a case, they must provide prima facie evidence to proof that the drugs were in the possession of the accused. In other words, the PP had to adduce evidence to show that the accused knew that he was carrying drugs.”
The first sentence is true, but you make a logic leap to get to the second. Providing prima facie evidence of drug possession is only equal to showing that the accused “knows” he was carrying drugs in the context of Singapore law. The law does not require the PP to show intention or knowledge on the part of the accused – it is assumed, as stipulated under the MDA.
In the case of Amara Tochi, who was executed in 2007, Justice Kan Ting Chiu said:
“There was no direct evidence that [Amara Tochi] knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out of his own.”
Despite no proof of intention or even knowledge, Justice Kan said: “Tochi should have known and therefore he is guilty”.
@la nausée
“Besides, if the criticisms of the MDP were solely or primarily legal as opposed to moral, then there wouldn’t be a need for a full, reasoned debate, would there? The dispute could simply be settled by lawyers and judges in the rarified atmosphere of appellate courtrooms.”
Which is what will happen in Yong Vui Kong’s case, isn’t it? His counsel is challenging the constitutionality of the MDP as part of his appeal.
lots of big words were used and the posts were long… so I only skimmed through and wasn’t sure if the following point was covered.
WHY a “more informed discussion” can only take place AFTER the Moratorium? (as implied in the last para, last sentence of the article)
p.s I think it probably was covered, but not in so little words…
@ spiegel: by applying a ‘human rights’ argument, Singapore
Citizens’ rights will be infringed.
I.E. Either 1, I am not a current Citizen of the Republic of
Singapore, or
2, The Statutes and/or the Constitution no longer protects
my rights,
Will be invalid since the new human rights argument imposes
its own set of ‘human rights’ on the existing ones.
‘This is a loaded assumption…legal rights’ Yes, I admit it’s
an assumption as per the effectiveness of the Law, but not a necessary one for
my argument to stand. Whether or not the Law is effective or not is out of the
question, because in the case of the MDP w.r.t DT, there is no relationship
between MDP and Criminal Psychology in Singapore.
On another angle, using your logic, if such a call for a
moratorium achieves its goal, will there be significant proof to show that the
resulting debates will provide ‘a more informed public discussion’? Obviously
not, for the reasons I have mentioned before, which is confessedly subject to
la nausea’s argument regarding the subjective interpretation of ‘more
informed’. My issue is that there are currently no studies, past or present, to
even provide a reasonable question to the ‘informational’ level of the public.
To illustrate, the product of a null set and any multiplier always result in a
null set.
In clearer words, my issue is with the call for a
moratorium, and not the subsequent challenges to the Constitution should the
Statutes, and by merit, the underlying Constitution, prove to be inadequate. I
have absolutely no issue with the call for a moratorium if, and only if, the
call for a moratorium is based on studies with clear and convincing evidence so
that such a case for the call for a moratorium holds.
In other words, I do not need such a ‘loaded assumption’ for
my case to be valid, as whether or not the Statutes and the underlying
Constitution sufficiently protects Singaporean’s legal and civil, rights and
liberties is out of the question – Particularly, whether or not such a
‘protection’ is ‘sufficient’ should be the subject of future studies to
ascertain. Whether that will happen or not is, again, irrelevant.
Therefore, instead of ‘fending off challenges to the MDP’, I
am in fact, challenging the legitimacy of the call for a moratorium with
regards to the MDP in context of Drug Trafficking. In effect, such a call for a
moratorium, if effective, will indeed lead to a moratorium, which is a
fundamental infringement on the basic civil and legal rights of all Singapore
Citizens. So we go back to the fundamentals and ask: Is there justification for
such a call?
The answer is no. Without clear and convincing evidence
to prove that there is a relationship between MDP and criminal psychology in
Singapore, without studies of significant weight and clout to support such a
call, the call and its results, however convincing in answer and tempting in
solution, has little shred of credibility.
For some, sympathy, and maybe empathy, plays a major role in
supporting such a call for a moratorium. However, regardless how the Law in Singapore
is reflective of the moral values of the society, each individual’s moral and
personal prejudices are subjective, not to mention to which particular extent
they are fine with such punishment. Some advocate a complete abolition, some
advocate a removal of the word ‘Mandatory’ and others advocate a structuring of
a framework to ‘guide’ the sentencing of the DP – based on similar but nuanced
viewpoints regarding the MDP. These subjective, similar yet somewhat different,
viewpoints should not constitute as being valid reasons for the call.
Furthermore, whether a society is ‘civilized’ or not is
extremely subjective. Making sweeping statements like these have no weight
whatsoever on the argument. That said, I have no wish to go into the
literature of this subject, but I can assure doubters to read up on ‘Academic
freedom and civilised society Higher Education Policy, Volume 15, Issue 4,
December 2002, Pages 371-373, A. J. Jassbi’, and ‘Timothy Fitzgerald,Discourse
on Civility and Barbarity: A Critical History of Religion and Related
Categories. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007’. (Make sure you
have ScienceDirect access before accessing)
Moving on, ‘My point is…insufficiency…as yet’. True, and if
this is how my entire argument is structured, I concede. However, this is, as I
mentioned earlier, a personal opinion on why the MDP would be an effective
deterrent as compared to 10 years incarceration. This personal opinion is by no
means allowed to influence my judgement on the insufficiency of clear and
convincing evidence for the call for a moratorium.
‘In other words, the PP had to…drugs’
This statement was made in respect to the Zulfikar bin Mustaffah, who was
charged in 2001 under the Misuse of drugs Act in 2001. Zulfikar bin Mustaffah v
PP, where, it must be appreciated that possession includes knowledge.
Furthermore, the meaning of ‘possession’ as defined under s
17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act is exactly what I have defined it to be. ‘it must
not only be shown that the accused had physical control of the drugs at the
relevant time; the prosecution must also prove that the accused possessed the
requisite knowledge as to the contents of what he was carrying’: see Zulfikar
bin Mustaffah v. PP [2001] 1SLR 633, at pg. 639
Review the case and you will find that Zulfikar Mustaffah
displayed several behavioural inconsistencies that would be absent in a normal,
unsuspecting person.
Also, as explained by then-CJ Yong: ‘while the fact that the
contents of the bundles were hidden from view may have been relevant in
determining whether the requisite knowledge was absent, this factor should
still not be given too much weight’. Similarly, ‘the court must appraise the
entire facts of the case to see if the accused’s claim to ignorance is
credible.’ See: Zulfikar bin Mustaffah v PP [2001] 1 SLR 633, at pg.
639
Similarly, in the case of Tochi, his inconsistent police statements, as well as
the incriminating $2,000 ‘fee’, were enough for the PP to have a case.
Of course, there are people who argue using the
circumstances of the accused persons, but the real victims in this case is the
persons and the society affected by these heinous crimes. In the case of DT,
addicts’ lives are wasted, and through extrapolation, lives of families’ of the
addicts are similarly wasted.
Regardless of my stand on the MDP w.r.t. DT, the issue that
I have with the call is one of prima facie evidence for supporters of the
moratorium to even have a case.
To put it simply, the call for a moratorium is, without clear and convincing
evidence, unfounded, and all debates resulting from that call will be,
therefore, fruitless.
The convincing reasons for a moratorium, if not abolition, is set out very eloquently here, here , here, here, here and in many publications and papers. All by distinguished practitioners or argued very eloquently. Most of which arguments, issues and questions have not been answered by the government which hangs drug mules.
Take some time to do some simple research.
la nausee,
“(1) after a full debate, it may turn out that the MDP is defensible, so that the liberal has to recant his prior opposition to the MDP; or (2) that after a full debate, a majority (having seen the light) will surely oppose the MDP.“
Again, I have to disagree. You seem to assume and presume the outcome of a debate or full public airing with the assumption that “after a full debate, a majority (having seen the light) will surely oppose the MDP.”
On the contrary, the opposite may happen.
“in the end, the liberal (assuming he’s in the minority) might simply have to insist that he’s right, and force his opinion through. But as I said, he’s overriding the principle of democracy (or at least one version of it), and that requires justification.”
I think that is a faulty argument. If the decision or consensus is against the proponents of a moratorium, that simply means it will not be carried through (assuming that the Sg govt sticks to its current stand of going by public opinion, as stated by Law Minister Shanmugam in Jan last year.)
So, I do not see how proponents can “force his opinion through”. Thus, your argument about “principle of democracy” is moot. Instead, you should consider the principle of innocent until proven guilty which is increasingly (and in practice) a fundamental principle in criminal law.
As for the moral question, Law Society president Michael Hwang put it most clearly – and correctly – that laws should have nothing to do with morals – but about punishment. Period. I think you should read his Crime and Punishment speech.
Do Re Mi… you’re so illogical. Anyone with brains can see that.
@Tan Cheng Hua, I think we don’t really disagree on the first point. As I said, even after a full, informed debate, the pro-MDP majority might remain unpersuaded. But that’s something that moratorium supporters must face. They must do this by spelling out in advance what would amount to a ‘full, informed debate’ about the MDP. Otherwise, it’s too tempting to shift the goalposts ex post, and say that there wasn’t truly an “robust and informed discourse”.
Secondly, I suspect that this talk about reaching “a true national consensus” is really a form of doublespeak. Sure, moratorium supporters may insist that the strength/persuasiveness of the arguments for and against the MDP can’t be settled in advance of a ‘full, robust debate’. But that rings hollow. MDP opponents aren’t really interested in higher standards of debate about the MDP. They don’t really think the MDP would be justified even if a majority supported it after ‘informed debate’. They’re already convinced they’re right (having considered the evidence, etc.), on principled grounds like the presumption of innocence, the right to life, proportionality in sentencing etc. which have very little to do with democracy. In fact, their arguments are counter-majoritarian: even if a majority supports the MDP, they would still think that the majority is wrong, that the MDP is unjustified and has to be abolished.
So this call for a moratorium in lieu of a ‘full, informed debate’ is pointless, IMO. What liberals want is the abolition of the MDP, because they think it unjustified even if there were an informed public consensus backing it.
On the Michael Hwang speech, to say that he meant “laws should have nothing to do with morals” is a simplification of his position. Hwang, adopting H.L.A. Hart’s approach, was arguing that morals should be involved in the criminal law only in a particular way. Morality should not be a ‘primary justification’ of a criminal law; a law should never be enacted based on “moral denunciation“, but only to protect against “tangible harm” (echoing J.S. Mill). But morality and retribution can rightly operate as a constraint on the use of the criminal law as a means of deterrence and welfare-maximization. One example, Hwang points out, is the moral/legal principle of proportionality: “That principle reflects the correct place where retribution ought to be reflected in punishment – in the distribution of justice, rather than in its primary justification. The extent to which an offender ought to be punished cannot be determined solely by the need to stamp out future repetitions of the same offence; there is a moral limit to the law’s power to make an offender an example for others to fear.”
Don’t mind if I ask, when and where is Yong Vui Kong’s sentencing going to be? Can members of the public turn up?
“Will be invalid since the new human rights argument imposes its own set of ‘human rights’ on the existing ones.”
I’m not sure what you mean here. Why would applying a human rights argument mean a displacement of the existing framework? Why can’t it be seen as improving the existing framework? What if the existing framework does not in fact protect our rights in the first place? Again you assume the quality of the existing framework without justification.
“Yes, I admit it’s an assumption as per the effectiveness of the Law, but not a necessary one for my argument to stand. Whether or not the Law is effective or not is out of the question, because in the case of the MDP w.r.t DT, there is no relationship between MDP and Criminal Psychology in Singapore.”
I disagree. It is necessary – if the existing law do not in fact protect our rights but instead infringe them, then you cannot pursue the argument that a moratorium infringes your rights, since it would not do so anymore than the existing laws. How a relationship (or none) between MDP and criminal psychology relates to the internal coherence of your argument is not apparent.
“…which is a fundamental infringement on the basic civil and legal rights of all Singapore Citizens.”
Once again, the assumption is made that the existing laws do not infringe upon the basic civil and legal rights you speak of. If the existing law is bad law, and already infringes upon basic rights – which legal and human rights scholars have noted – how is a moratorium against a bad law an infringement of civil and legal rights, if they in the first place are being violated by the said law?
Criminals still have rights too (which is why some ppl are so adamant to try terrorists as combatants). That’s why we have due process. That’s why we feed and shelter them, provide rehabilitation and counselling, put together the Yellow Ribbon Project and so on. If the due process shortchanges the criminals of their rights, then it should be addressed as well.
“Similarly, in the case of Tochi, his inconsistent police statements, as well as the incriminating $2,000 ‘fee’, were enough for the PP to have a case”
How does a fee necessarily indicate he was trafficking drugs – and heroin for that matter? It would only hint at his prior knowledge that he was carrying contraband. Nothing about $2,000 itself suggests that the package was heroin. I may be mistaken, but I remember reading somewhere that many drug mules do not have access to a lawyer during police interrogation (in the case of Singapore). This, if true, has significant bearing on the quality of the prosecution and the statements of the accused.
“Of course, there are people who argue using the circumstances of the accused persons, but the real victims in this case is the persons and the society affected by these heinous crimes. In the case of DT,
addicts’ lives are wasted, and through extrapolation, lives of families’ of the addicts are similarly wasted.”
First of all, from this argument, it more than hints at a normative intent on this issue disguised as technical objections.
So we can’t accord any responsibility to the drug users then? Heinous crime – who describes it as such? How about smoking? Are tobacco producers committing a heinous crime? Do we execute the sellers for peddling cigarettes? In your words, remember that the real victims are persons and society affected by the crimes – the second-hand smoke, the carcinogens released into the air, the negative effects on those with allergies, the slow killing that takes place inside the lungs. Or gambling? Are casino operators committing a heinous crime? In your words, remember that the real victims are persons and society affected by the crimes – the massive debts, family breakdowns, the loansharking problem, the gambling debt-related murder and suicides, the perceived increased prevalence of anti-social behaviour.
Why do we kill drug mules but not these people? What’s the qualitative difference between the harms they cause? Isn’t there an argument that since the latter two do their damage in a far more innocuous way, then they are in fact more dangerous since people are less wary?
Drug use in itself seldom kills people – the associated problems do most of the killing and hurting, as you mentioned. The contraction of diseases, the related social breakdowns, debts run up to feed the habit leading to crime, the black market, the poor contaminated doses which lead to user deaths.
Similarly, gambling in itself doesn’t kill people – the associated problems do. So why are we picking on one and not the other?
@Spiegel: I would be willing to continue this discussion if I wasn’t bogged down by my midterms as currently am.
and as for tochi:
“I found he had wilfully turned a blind eye on the contents of the capsules because he was tempted by the US$2000, which was a large sum to him. … Consequently, even if he may not have actual knowledge that he was carrying diamorphine, his ignorance did not exculpate him … ”
- Justice Choo at CA
Also, I won’t be seeing myself participating in any future discussions as of now. Glad to have at least experienced an exchange of ideas.
How many lives must be wasted before we finally bring this issue to the table to be discussed?
http://sgdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2010/03/yong-vui-kongs-appeal-hearing-set-to-be.html
Yong Vui Kong’s (above, with sister) appeal against his death sentence for drug trafficking will be held on the 15th of March, 10a.m., at the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court Singapore.
sgdeathpenalty has been actively campaigning to raise awareness on the use of the mandatory death sentence for drug traffickers like Yong Vui Kong, but the fact of the matter is that for every Yong Vui Kong, there maybe a dozen or so sentenced to the gallows that do not get publicised in the press.
The review of the law is pressing, and sgdeathpenalty together with The Online Citizen, calls for an immediate convening of a working group for a moratorium on the mandatory death penalty. How many lives must be wasted before we finally bring this issue to the table to be discussed? Is there no better alternative punishment for borderline drug cases like these, and is there no consideration that there is possibility of repentance and that the condemned person will bear no harm to society if given the chance to live?
To quote a netizen, “when the State brings its criminal jurisdiction to bear, it acts on behalf of all Singaporeans. If Vui Kong is hanged, he will be hanged on your name and mine.” This statement bears true to all similar judicial executions carried out in Singapore.