By Mohan Gopalan
On 24 November 1993, an undercover officer from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) approached Rozman bin Jusoh, a 22-year-old Malaysian, asking him if he had cannabis. Rozman told the officer that he did not have any cannabis. Undeterred by this reply, the officer insisted that Rozman find some cannabis for him. Rozman replied, “We will see tomorrow”.
The CNB officer approached Rozman again the next day, asking again for cannabis. Rozman told the officer to wait while he consulted his friends. He found a friend who agreed to supply the drugs as requested, and arranged to hand them to the officer later that evening.
The officer suggested they meet at a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. Rozman brought the drugs in a plastic bag, which he placed on a chair at the table where he and the officer were seated. The officer stood up and walked to the counter to order a drink, and so did Rozman, leaving the plastic bag unattended on the chair. The officer then gave a signal, upon which other CNB officers entered the outlet and arrested Rozman.
Rozman was charged with trafficking in 1040.8g of cannabis. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, trafficking in more than 500g of cannabis attracts the mandatory death penalty.
***
Over the course of investigations and trial, evidence slowly emerged that Rozman was intellectually subnormal.
The CNB interpreter who assisted in recording the statements Rozman had made to the police testified that Rozman was extremely slow. He had difficulties answering simple questions, such as how many brothers and sisters he had. Sometimes, it took him up to five minutes to answer questions as straightforward as those.
A clinical psychologist who had examined Rozman was also called to testify. She found that Rozman had an IQ of 74, which was borderline. Having also observed Rozman during the trial, she testified that Rozman could be easily manipulated by others and would not think deeply about the consequences of his actions. She also thought that Rozman might not be capable of discerning right from wrong.
The trial judge, Justice M.P.H. Rubin, also noticed that something was amiss.1 He noted that Rozman’s oral testimony was “punctuated with long pauses and was generally delivered in a halting manner”. At times, it was “hazy and disoriented”.
The CNB interpreter and the psychologist both emphasised that they did not think that Rozman was simply faking it. Likewise, the judge noted:
“Having observed the accused in the witness box, it cannot be gainsaid that he gave evidence in an unshrinking manner. There was never a trace of squirming, twisting or shifting. His evidence was, however, punctuated with frequent pauses, sometimes long, yet there was no sign that he was taking his time to contrive, concoct or improvise. In fact, he often looked plainly confused, sometimes even by straightforward questions.”
The judge also noted that Rozman’s “demeanour, inflexion and his swaying body movements…at times suggested that he was apparently oblivious to the seriousness of the charges facing him”. To the judge, Rozman was:
“… a guileless simpleton without any gift for contrivance. It must be so, for which trafficker would leave the drugs unguarded on a chair in a public place and walk up to the counter and ask for a drink?”
The judge did not think that Rozman’s subnormal intellect constituted unsoundness of mind, which would have been a full defence to the charge. However, given his subnormal intellect and the way the CNB officer had acted, the judge did not think it could be said that Rozman had intended to traffick in the drugs. The judge reasoned:
“It was…clear from the evidence that the CNB agent and the undercover CNB officer were more than mere agents, and had, in fact, undertaken a substantially active role in persuading [Rozman] to sell them drugs… [Rozman] was a person without guile and would not have embarked upon this expedition for a mere $100 if not for his feeble mind which seemed to have been overborne by the CNB agent and the CNB operative… There was a grave doubt raised as to whether he could be criminally responsible to warrant the mandatory death sentence, in light of his intellectual disability and the real possibility of being manipulated.”
The judge thought that “it would be unsafe for the court to proceed to convict him on the charge of trafficking”, and therefore convicted him for the lesser offence of possession instead. He sentenced Rozman to 7 years’ imprisonment.
Dissatisfied, the prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Justices of Appeal M. Karthigesu and L.P. Thean, disagreed with Justice Rubin’s decision in the High Court.2 The Court of Appeal judges took the view that Rozman’s subnormal intellect was not sufficient to negate his intention to traffick in the drugs. They thought that while Rozman “may have been easily induced or instigated” by the CNB officer to sell the drugs, this fact and his subnormal intellect could be taken into account only in mitigating the sentence. However, they noted that since the sentence was mandatory, “such considerations would only be relevant elsewhere”. Rozman was therefore convicted on the charge of trafficking.
***
Rozman’s case provides an illustration of the problematic nature of the mandatory death penalty. While the judges were sensitive to the mitigating factors in Rozman’s case, they could not properly take them into account, and were left with no choice but to sentence Rozman to death. If the death penalty had not been mandatory, the judges would have been able to take into account Rozman’s subnormal intellect, as well as the conduct of the CNB officer. They could then have decided whether to award Rozman a long prison sentence, instead of the death penalty.3
Without the benefit of this discretion, Rozman bin Jusoh was hanged till death on 12 April 1996.
——
References
[1] The trial judge’s decision is recorded in Public Prosecutor v. Rozman bin Jusoh, [1994] SGHC 251
[2] The decision of the Court of Appeal is recorded in Public Prosecutor v. Rozman bin Jusoh, [1995] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 879
[3] Mr. N. Sreenivasan, a lawyer, noted in an article published in the Law Gazette that the death penalty could have been avoided if the public prosecutor had brought a less serious charge, instead of preferring one that attracted the mandatory death penalty, but that this did not happen. In Mr. Sreenivasan’s opinion, Rozman’s case is an “extreme” one which serves as “a clarion call for change”. He suggests that in cases like Rozman’s, judges should have more discretion to award a more appropriate sentence. See N. Sreenivasan, “Special Children: Criminal Responsibility – From Arrest to Jail” Law Gazette (February 2006), online: http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2006-2/Feb06-feature1.htm
____________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Woa Woa….pardon me if i seems wrong….but it is like someone is purposely pushing someone to do something, and that someone who may not have done it without been push got hanged
I dun know if there is any high profile case of MDP with high profile people only then will MDP is given across the board or selectively.
Even drug users are not treated the same when it is from the populace or from the elite I remember the judicial commisioner got off very easily for drug use.
Anyway I believe MDP is only useful when it is the drug kingpin like Kun Sa from Myanmar or other drug lords are taken down, all these mules are a dime a dozen
My apologises the judicial commisioner’s son
locke,
“However one puts is the DP whether with an M or not has resulted in safer streets that I as a citizen can feel as compared to other cities,”
Please read Alex Au’s demolition of the myth that the MDP or the death penalty is a deterrent and that without the MDP or the death penalty our streets would be more unsafe.
There simply is no evidence of this – as empthatically argued by Alex here:
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2005/yax-508.htm
“It bothers me how as a society that hopes to be a knowledge economy and a centre for research, we have this lazy habit of mind to rely on easy explanations when the evidence suggests otherwise…
Are we killing people because it deters others or because we simply want to get them out of the way? Do we rely on the easy explanation because we have proof it works, or because we wish to avoid having to grapple with the uncertainties of truth and conscience?”
An unjustifiable and unreasonable sentenced. A great tragedy indeed.
…to those who’re cynical about this subject or simply failed to understand the meaning of DEATH SENTENCE, please stop your ridiculing and sick jokes.
Try to imagine …either your brother or any of your family member being on trial for a capital offence and the likelihood sentence is MDP.
To the Singapore Government die hard fans .. try to look at the argument in constructive perspectives.
I am uncomfortable with 2 issues with the case:
1.It is MDP and that no mitigation to the circumstances is allowed.
What if someone dropped the drugs into your bag and you are caught.
Remember Singapore trafficking law is that you are presumed guilty till proven
innocent.
2. the bigger injustice – entrapment. -luring people to commit a crime
it is even more despicable when the offence carrys the DP.
These are more than reasons enough to do away with MDP or even DP as a whole
Govts and laws have no right to take away life , it should be left to the job of
the higher being
Dear Andrew
I hate to say this but ask anyone who has studied in the UK and in the US in a major city for an extended period of time, i.e not just a tourist and see whether they feel safer in terms of crime.
Locke
Who has the higher tendency to traffick drugs, Rich or Poor people?
Who has the higher tendency to consume drugs, Rich or Poor people?
lockeliberal,
I hate to say this but physical safety is not the only thing that is important to life. We do undisputedly have physical safety in Singapore, but we are always afraid on other levels: political, financial, educational, retirement, employment, housing. You enjoy taking late night walks in safety to contemplate the stagnation of your salary or the precariousness of your job? If physical security were the greatest thing a man can hope to achieve, why are our best and brightest, no less, leaving safe-and-secure Singapore for crime-ridden pastures?
I am quite sick and tired of people using the maintenance of physical security as a reason to not only outlaw everything, but to impose harsh, disproportionate punishment on contraveners. Why take a sledgehammer to everything?
locke,
I am talking about facts.
You are talking about feelings. Quite unbecoming and ironic for someone who was just calling people “bleeding hearts” for having feelings.
Please show me some facts that the death penalty makes any place safer.
It is your deterrent argument all over again and I think we’ve danced your circus on that already.
Dear Andrew
Ok facts :_)) Firstly the stats though impressive as quoted by Alex are misleading as they just take the argument that the MDP or DP deter levels of drug abuse. It does not say anything about crime. Firstly they take HUGE countries with an urban and countryside mix. Japan, Mexico , etc etc. Can anyone take the stories of low drug abuse rates in Mexico seriously with the stories of cartels running around in that country ? For one there is an urban country side divide as experienced even by me in the UK, lower rates in certain areas esp smaller towns and higher rates in certain areas as experienced in cities. Why not find a study which looks at the correlation between say drugs and crime ?
Locke
Dear A n E
I would argue with the PAP to death over housing welfare excessive immigration but I would agree with them to keep the death penalty whether M or not M for drug traffickers. And frankly whether we have a PAP Gov or not I would still want physical security,
Locke
lockeliberal,
Well, the desirability of security in the physical sense is not in dispute. What is is that the death penalty and similarly harsh laws are necessary for its maintenance. I think that letting this argument gain currency is dangerous, because the government can, and arguably, has used the need to maintain public order and security to justify laws that in practice, seem to have less to do with public safety than its own political survival.
Dear A
One can disagree with silly Assembly orders and whatever restrictions and still agree with the DP for drug traffickers. I can still logically scream death to drug traffickers and in the next breath scream freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
Locke
This is indeed entrapment and I’ve known a CNB officer who does the same thing. Disgusting.
For drugs related offence’s,PAP Government to be blame for failing to check 100% at only a few Singapore checkpoint’s before entering this city state.What they caught are purely based on public and their intelligence information where almost all of them were caught after freely moved about here.
What’s happening to the moderation system that suddenly all my comments are under moderation? by the time, it appears, people would have passed by and reading comments below. If I take into consideration Jules-Pierre’s post which is anti-TOC’s stance, and that I also kena both during work and at home (different IP address), I am beginning to suspect some kind of conspiracy.
If moderation is buggy, might it not be better to simply remove it first, and use the traditional method of ‘complaints from users’ to flag potential moderating posts, for the time being?
Locke,
The debate is over the M part of the DP, for now.
locke,
First of all, I think you have got it backwards. The comparison is between the death penalty (whether M or not) and drug abuse. The here is not about drugs and crime.
The issue is that the death sentence (whether M or not) deters drug traffickers and thus adresses drug abuse/drug addicts.
This is the stance the govt takes – that the mandatory death penalty deters drug trafficking (and consequently lowers drug abuse cases).
You are confusing the two.
And as Alex showed, there is no evidence that death sentences (whether M or not) lowers trafficking or abuse.
As for the question of safety, you know and I know that this entails many many other factors – such as education levels, standard of living, employment rates, etc etc. So, please don’t muddle the issue.
You insist that the safe environment in S’pore is due to the death sentence.
My question is simply: Prove it.
i say those convicted of trafficking should be jailed 20 years. of hard labour (carry a full sandbag and run around is fine too) in the initial years, followed by counselling.
if he/she is a foreigner, he/she should be banned from coming back to SG for life. if he/she is a local, then he/she should be under supervision and wear a tag which police can use to track him/her and report to a police station every week for the next 10 years. if he/she tampers the tag, then charge throw that arse into jail for a few years.
if the ex-con does it again. then it means that he/she is not reformed even after spending an extensive amount of time in jail. so, hang him/her.
im all about second chances.
i notice that most of the ppl say that those found guilty should be put in prison for life. but spending the whole life behind bars is almost the same as the MDP. only thing is, we do not have blood on our hands and feel a little better.
but the end result is still the same; a life will be taken away.
And locke,
Actually, you should be the one providing proof of what you say. Those who oppose the (mandatory) death penalty have already provided more than ample proof.
Now, lets see you provide yours – that, for example, the less safe environment in say the UK is because they do not have the death sentence. And tell us what you think a death sentence would do – how much safer would the UK be, how many percentage point (a rough guess will do) if they had the death penalty. Tell us whether the living standards here, the education level, etc have not contributed to the safer environment in Singapore.
Lets have something solid and not this bleeding heart defence of the death penalty – it’s like a fluff, a puff of empty air.
locke,
Your premise is that drug trafficking leads to drug abuse which then leads to crime which leads to an unsafe environment.
Here is what Law Professor Michael Hor has to say about it:
I think we simply do not know. Its proponents often point to the fact that drug offending in Singapore has been kept significantly down by the mandatory death penalty. But if the mandatory death penalty is the key, or at least one of the keys, then how do we explain that for kidnapping, which carries a discretionary death penalty under theKidnapping Act, seems to have achieved even more spectacular results? Some also argue that the introduction of the mandatory death penalty in the 1970s did actually result in a fall in drug offending – but again, we do not know whether and to what extent the mandatory death penalty played a role, for at the same time, it was revealed in Parliament that the government was going to devote much more resources into drug enforcement.
Was our success because of enhanced enforcement or because of the mandatory death penalty (or both)? Drug offences did dip, but rose again in the early 1990s, apparently to levels which were higher (subject to population increase) than the 1970s – and in all that time the mandatory death penalty was well in place.
The deterrent effect of the mandatory death penalty in the context of murder is even more uncertain – it would appear that almost all murders are “crimes of passion” or committed in the heat of the moment, perhaps in the course of robbery. Deterrence works only when potential offenders have sufficient capacity and opportunity to calculate the consequences of their actions – more precisely, it requires the potential offender to discriminate between a discretionary death penalty (I may get the death penalty), and a mandatory death penalty (I will get the death penalty). That would appear to be unlikely in crimes of passion.
Now we must also be clear, on the other hand, that none of this proves that the mandatory death penalty does not work. We simply do not have, in my view, convincing reasons to believe that it does.
Look inside, look inside your tiny mind…………
If you caught the docu “Banged Up Abroad” every Friday, 10pm on OKTO, you’ll see the many reforms drug carriers are capable of when they get released from jail for being drug mules. Many truly regret their stupidity and changed their lives for the better. One, Sandra Gregory, even went back to studies to get her degree from Oxford. Now she counsels others as much as she can to not make the same mistakes.
Imagine, how a more humane society and system would allow a second chance for erring human beings to redeem themselves, whereas a ruthless soulless place like Singapore would stop at nothing to spill blood at all cost, even one of Rozman’s, proven to be not fully culpable, just to “satisfy” a rhetoric to following a defective “law”.
Singapore has blood on its hands and is CURSED, a 100 times more to those that set its error in motion.
Collateral damage ?
While its easy to blame the judges, we all have blood on our hands.
In this country, silence means consent and too many were willing to look the other way as long as it involved someone else’s life.
It we don’t stop and question, one day our turn will come.
@ mic o mic
while i agree with u in the spirit of what u said, im one of those too scared to do shit (i didnt even take pic for the TOC against the MDP thing) because of the possibility of me going to jail without trial for an indefinite period of time.
even if i do not go to jail, if the SPH smears my name, my working life will be over.
i think many others have this thinking too.
it might be better to wait for a better opportunity instead of sacrificing anyone, and their futures.
many do not want to look the other way, but for the sake of their own future, they are forced to.
Law student Mohan Gopalan writes a compelling piece proving once again that removal of mandatory death penalty can indeed save victims that can fall into the trap of the non-discretionary nature of the law.
Described as a “guileless simpleton” with borderline IQ of 74 by trial judge M.P.H. Rubin, he delivered a lesser sentence to the accused, Rozman bin Jusoh, a 22-year-old Malaysian, to 7 years imprisonment for possession of drugs.
But the prosecution appealed and took it to the High Court where they sentenced the accused to death, noting that since the sentence was mandatory, “such considerations (of his subnormal intellect and the narcotics officer instigating the accused to produce drugs) would only be relevant elsewhere”.
If even the intellectually handicapped gets systematically executed by the state, what are mitigating factors useful for? Isn’t mitigation a redundant process in capital cases like drug trafficking? Shouldn’t it then be time for this section of the law to be updated?
There isn’t much time for deliberation on this issue. The law regarding capital punish for capital offences must be updated to give judges the discretion to make a fairer ruling. When even one person gets unfairly executed, it is a life gone and there can be absolutely no compensation for the family or the executed convict.
http://sgdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2010/03/toc-when-discretion-could-have-saved.html
Let’s impose Mandatory Death Sentence on those who entrap intellectually sub-normal people like Rozman!
And the Mandatory Death Penalty, to, for those who tie up judges’ hands (in one way or another).
Heh… for the past few months I have lived in places without the mandatory death penalty. In fact these countries (Toronto, New York City, Washington DC) do not even have the death penalty at all (ok not sure about DC). I do not feel any less safe than I felt when I was in Singapore. In fact I must also add that there are certain areas in Singapore where I feel unsafe…
The purpose of this is to show that arguments based on safety or their variant are often overblown – they make for good sound bites but unfortunately do not stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately the only reason why those who oppose MDP (or DP) for that matter keep getting bombarded relentless is the simple fact that the law has stood for a long time and being comfortable we as a society are less eager to rock the boat and willing to let things be… unless of course it affects us directly. And then it might be too late.
Dear Andrew
The government would put many arguments for the MDP or DP but let me address them one at a time. Firstly I am all for the need for a DP and in removing the M because of a need for greater judicial discretion especially for cases at the margin. However some of the reasoning for public safety etc etc as listed by the Gov applies to the DP as much as the MDP thus my ardent defense.
Firstly the level of DRUG Abuse as listed in the stats bears no resemblance to the scale of the drug problem at hand. I list for example Mexico, just read its latest problems with drug lords. Secondly the STATs are deceiving in the sense that it includes large countries with large rural spreads. Empirically as stated in my observations I have noted that even in the UK there was a higher or easier availibility of drugs in the city versus the countryside universities I studied in.
Professor’s Hor;s comments were general and specific to “offenses” i.e drugs and murder. Is there a mandatory death penalty for first degree in SG or is it just for drugs ?.
Its not just how the DP or for that matter the MDP deter’s drug offences but rather the whole gamut of drug crimes and ease of access to drugs
Take a look at the amounts of drugs that are sized, the easy of drug availibility in some countries versus that of Singapore. Empirically, very easy to prove. Andrew if you want studies then just google Pro Death Penalty :_)) There will be flaws in the studies there which I am sure you will comment on just as I have commented on the flaws in particular of the studies cited by Alex.
Locke
Locke,
I grew up in Hong Kong where there is no DP at all, and the streets are just as safe as in Singapore.
As for “removing the mousetrap altogether”, why is the MDP a “mousetrap” but no the DP? Are you suggesting that the MDP is a deterrent but the DP isn’t? You say you’re for the removal of the M in the MDP, but in these comments, you seem to be lumping the two together again… Hmmm.. not sure what it is you want Locke.
Dear James
Just against the M in the MDP but not the DP itself :_)). However suspicious me just reads many of the anti MDP arguments as being a cover for DP arguments and many Anti MDP proponents are Anti DP as well.
With regards to HK , no comments on that as I have not lived there for an extended period.
Cheers
Locke
Locke,
” However suspicious me just reads many of the anti MDP arguments as being a cover for DP arguments and many Anti MDP proponents are Anti DP as well.”
You seem rather confused. On one hand, you are saying, yes I support the removal of the M, but no, I dun support abolishment of DP, but urm… maybe I shouldn’t support removal of M because many people who support removal of M are also in favor of full abolishment.. erm… ah…
Someone mentioned earlier that you may be a member of an opp party… i hope that’s not true because I would hesitate to support a party whose member can’t even see the bigger picture, and can’t think beyond the deterrence angle to see that THERE ARE OTHER WAYS to achieve the same low level of drug abuse in the country without unnecessary and questionable deaths.
Dear Joshua
Just being a realist :_))) and I am a member but a small member at that and my views are just my personal views which should not be taken as the party views per say.
We can discuss other ways but my own views have been shaped by my own experiences working overseas and I am loathed to fix something which in my view is working i.e the DP, though yes the MDP can be adjusted
Locke
to Wui Mar 23, 2010 12:41 :
aygee: I think you and many others have very limited knowledge about drugs and their implications or uses. Do you know about cannabis usefulness and it’s very effective medicinal properties? Do you know how many people cannot fathom the idea that medicine doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of pills or liquid?
Do you understand what this case is trying to highlight to us? That mandatory death sentences should be abolished for too many good reasons which are being substantiated by many good studies and well supported by many good statistics, … and not because of the questionable circumstances of a very very unfortunate person.
From your responses to various commentors, i do get the feeling that you’re very passionate and emotional about this thread.
But i dont see how you can infer that i and many others have “limited knowledge about drugs”, that i dont know that “many people cannot fathom the idea that medicine doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of pills or liquid”.
How do you link me to not being able to emphatise with Rozman’s case, from my posting? just because the discussions have been taking “pragmatic” angles, you have to criticize those who dont get as emotional as you?
We’re all with you on this, just take a a deep breath, and re-read your comments before clicking on Post. Please dont judge me when you dont even know who i am :-)
Each country is unique and each country has it’s own socio-political-economic issues.
What works for one country, may not work for another.
So, we are just wasting our time, if we keep comparing ourselves with other countries.
We have to see it from a larger perspective why the harsh MDP.
It is probably due to Singapore’s economic success and safety that has lulled our citizens from thinking we do not have crime. It is the severity of our laws that has made Singapore relatively safe. Singapore do not have the benefit of hundreds of years to develop our people into an egalitarian nation.
On top of that, Singapore is close to the drug triangle of South East Asia. Being, a major transport hub across the world; traffickers would definitely want to use Singapore as a major transit point. Thus, the harsh MDP law.
As a deterrent for a global smuggling operations, it has worked.
What we are seeing now, is that we do have a local market for drugs, and when there is demand, there will be supply. So often drug traffickers would keep trying to smuggle drugs into Singapore for that market. And those caught trafficking will be dealt with according to the law.
But, the MDP is not automatic if one is caught. The prosecutor will first charge the person with MDP. The defence lawyer will try to argue why his client should not be charged with MDP. (So mitigating factors can be submitted; in Rozman’s case it was his low IQ). The presiding judge will the decide if the lawyers’ arguments and evidence substantiate the cause to charge a person under MDP.
The first judge based on the mitigating evidence decided to amend to a lesser charge and sentence Rozman to a jail term.
So, MDP is not automatic if one is caught with drugs and initially charged as a drug trafficker. It is applied by the judges only after weighing in arguments and the evidence submitted.
After the prosecutor appealed, it was the appeal judges that amended the charges to MDP.
So, I think the issue is, we have people who assume MDP is automatic, and thinks that once someone is charged with MDP, the judges have no other way but to sentence the convicted person to a death sentence all in one trial. I can see why they can be pro-MDP-abolishment as they don’t have all the facts; but the fact is, MDP is not automatic and an initial charge of MDP can be amended to lesser charges by the judges(based on evidence and lawyers’ arguments/submissions).
To me the biggest issue is not MDP, but the seemingly non-standards applying to the use of MDP. That is, we can have a group of judges that will say, evidence do not warrant the MDP, but yet another group of judges will say, the same evidence warrants MDP.
So we are actually at the mercy of who happens to be the judge at our time of sentencing, and the lawyers who are defending or prosecuting us.
after reading this, i bet he did not know what was going on until his last breath.
To Jules-Pierre,
A girl with IQ of 74. You pester her repeatedly for sex, offering a tempting sum of money. When she finally agrees, you arrest her for prostitution, citing as proof of guilt:
1. She bargains for more money (But she doesn’t want you to think she’s so easy.)
2. She subsequently offers sex to another man whom you do not know. (But who led her down that path?)
3. She opts to discuss the matter in a not too public location. (Her IQ is not so low that she’s not shy.)
This is not about the M of MDP by the way. Its about a person, his sad fate in a case with so many aspects that just stink.
A CNB officer, the judges and PP setting a trap to hang a man of 74 IQ. Very clever of you guys. But above all, there is God and his name is NOT LKY.
The time has just not arrived yet but when it does, you are the only to hear your cries.
Dear Locke,
It’s possible some people supporting the removal of the MDP may also be against the DP. But if we spend our time splitting hairs over hypothetical differences, rather than emphasizing the common goal, we’ll miss the chance to bring about the practical change we all want to see, no?
James
There must always be one who must evoke their religious superstitions. For goodness sake, please just stay on the topic, discuss it, debate it.. leave your god,gods, santa clauses out of non religious subjects.
locke,
As I said, and as Prof Hor said, there is no evidence that the DP acts as a deterrence. And further to this, President of the Law Society Michael Hwang said that there is a moral limit to laws which basis is deterrence.
As of now, you have avoided my questions:
Show us that the DP is a deterrent. (We come back to this old chestnut which have been debated to death but we will get into it. No worries.)
25 Nov 1993, 5:30pm: Tan, the agent provocateur, suggested that they meet at a McDonald’s near rochor centre. Rozman disagreed (reason as stated in my previous post) and suggested that they conclude the deal at the bus stop opposite bukit timah shopping centre. Tan agreed.
26 Nov 1993, 7:00pm: They met and Tan lied that he did not have the cash with him as his “boss” was angry with Rozman’s decision to change the meeting place. They agreed to meet again shortly to effect delivery of the drugs at the Kentucky Fried Chicken at bukit timah shopping centre.
Dear Andrew
It has been debated to death and as far as you believe that it is UNTRUE or that u r right I will believe I am right it is true there will be no winners in this argument either way. I am against the M in the DP but only on the strict legal grounds that there is a need for judicial discretion for cases on the margins.
Professor was against the MDP on the grounds of deterrence and effectiveness but as I suspected half the MDP campaign is about being against the DP to begin with which I strongly support hence my qualms about people like Vong as being deserving of a second chance.
You can type in or google half a dozen websites for a pro death penalty argument based out of the US. You may be believe that the debate is won and settled but I do not.
Personally whether retributive and or deterrence, I hold the view that the DP cannot by itself work but rather works with a combination of other factors to ensure a low crime rate in Singapore. In itself extending the DP to drug trafficking keeps the availability of drugs lows and hence drug related crimes and an overall safer enviroment which I can feel and touch
Locke
I sincerely believe that the MDP is inhuman. Not everything in life is black or white. Some areas may be grey. That’s when a good judge uses his sense. Otherwise, he is a robot.
If there is a vote, count me as against the MDP.
I give up.
People keep posting, but no one is listening.
I can see why my imposter like to call you guys (the pro-MDP-abolishers) sheep; because you can’t see things in a larger context but only the grass in front of you.
I am going to try it ONE more time. Then you can continue with your ‘debates’.
1. Singapore is unique and has its own socio-political-economic issues. No use comparing with other countries as what works for one country may not work for another.
2. You can be initially charged with MDP, but the judge upon hearing lawyers’ arguments and looking at the evidence may amend the initial charge of MDP to a lesser one.
3. MDP is not automatic. It is only applied IF, the prosecutor can convince the judge the crime warrants an MDP.
4. You CAN appeal the Judges’ decision.
5. Trials are not like you see on TV, where a person is charged, goes to trial and sentenced in one day. There is something called due process. And the defence lawyer are given time to prepare for the case. Unfortunately, most lawyers tend to fight for reduced charges/sentencing rather than fight for their client’s freedom.
6. MDP works as a deterrent; it prevents Singapore from being used as a global drug smuggling transit point, due to its reputation as a ‘safe’ country. As we are close to the drug triangle of South East Asia.
7. The problem is not MDP; the problem ARE THE JUDGES who DOES NOT seem to have STANDARD OPINIONS. Using Rozman’s case as an example, we have one judge that says the evidence and arguments do not warrant an MDP, and yet we have other judges thats says it does warrant MDP.
locke,
You have danced around the question I keep asking.
You said:
” In itself extending the DP to drug trafficking keeps the availability of drugs lows and hence drug related crimes and an overall safer enviroment which I can feel and touch..”
I have been asking you to show proof that the DP is a deterrence.
The fact is that there is no evidence to support this – no matter how much I google or how good the arguments are for a DP – here or in the States.
Do you agree that there is no evidence to support your contention that the DP is a deterrent?
Andrew,
Perhaps you may wanna frame the qn to locke as – If there is a way to retain the same low level of crime and drug use without resorting to DP, would you prefer it?
IMHO, I suspect the real reason to be a desire to see people punished by death.