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
Hi Zefly,
I concur with what you said. While I am against the M of the MDP and the whole list of presumptions, I must say that i retain a conflicted stance towards the issue of whether the death penalty should be abolished or not. However on closer reflection it appears that such conflict arises primarily because of the need for society to display its retributive anger against certain groups of criminals (murderers, etc) because there is indeed an alternative to the DP, namely life imprisonment. Of course one can always argue that life imprisonment is a waste of resources, but to rely on this argument to justify the death penalty would be extremely disturbing to say the least. Therefore perhaps the true rationale of the DP is one of vindictiveness.
Lockeliberal,
I suppose that it is quite difficult to separate arguments for and against MDP from arguments against DP per se. The conceptual boundaries are rather blurred and it may be unfair to characterise opponents of one as opponents of the other.
Regards
Ned
Dear Andrew
Perhaps u are not looking hard enough for both sides of the debate or for views contrary to your own. I take a different view that the DP works in combination with other factors to lower the crime rate in Singapore. For example for Drug Trafficking which lowers the availibility and access to drugs for the general population and hence a lower over all crime rate.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:Capital_Punishment#Crime:_Does_capital_punishment_help_protect_the_public_and_deter_crime.3F
Locke
Dear Ned
I suspect that you are right :_)) but really having look at how Andrew argues or discusses the merits of MDP and the DP they really are against the DP as a whole :_)) not just the M. I am against the M on very narrow specific legal grounds.
Andrew’s arguments against the M are the traditional arguments against the DP as a whole :_)) For example “room for remorse compassion reform” etc etc
Locke
The Australian link documents the link between drugs, ease of drugs and availability and its effect on the overall crime rate. Overall I am for the DP especially for drug trafficking. I believe that SG is different and that the DP lowers overall crime rates because of who it “hangs” namely drug traffickers. In so much as the US argument goes that the DP does not lower crime etc murder rates I believe that SG has it right by hanging drug traffickers, like Vong and all Nyguen.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/OrnellasPaper.htm
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:Capital_Punishment
//www.ffdlr.org.au/resources/docs/Crime%20and%20Illicit%20drugs.htm
Locke
Dear Andrew
I suspect that you are not looking hard enough as you are in my view very anti DP and anti MDP for that matter. Personally I believe that its not just the DP but what the DP is applied to which lowers the overall crime rate and gives one an all a safer society. In particular the AU paper though arguing for more treatment clearly states the link between ease , availability of drugs and or the overall crime rate. In that sense because the DP is applied to narrowly in the US, I believe that the US cannot lower its crime rate etc etc because of what it is applied to.
As stated even the studies cited by Alex are problematic on the linkage between drugs and drug crimes because it is country level and does not take into account the inherently greater problem in urban sprawls
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/OrnellasPaper.htm
//www.ffdlr.org.au/resources/docs/Crime%20and%20Illicit%20drugs.htm
//debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:Capital_Punishment
Locke
It is actually cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life than to execute him in the US. More money is spent on pre-trial preparation, pre-trial motions, witnesses, attorneys, jury sequestration, security, extra sentencing trial and the appeals process. The numbers are quite remarkable too; Death penalty trials can cost up to 48% more than life imprisonment trials. A study by the Urban Institute revealed that since Maryland re-enacted the death penalty in 1978, each one of their 5 executions since then has costed US$37.2 million.
The reason for this, apparently, is that the US wants to make sure they don’t execute an innocent person. I personally don’t buy it. It does, however, raise a couple of questions.
Firstly, are those numbers consistent with every nation? If they are, then add the fact that there are NO numbers to back up claims that the DP is an effective deterrent and you have yourself a fantastic case for the abolishment of the MDP and/or DP.
Secondly, is the government genuinely interested in ensuring they do NOT execute innocent people. By leaving in place a system where the defense has to prove beyond any doubt that the defendant is innocent, i find it hard to believe so.
Locke,
You’ve made it clear you’re only interested in removing the M from the DP if killing the accused clearly results in a gross miscarriage of justice. If a person is guilty, you don’t believe judges should take into account his capacity for change or his personal background. In other words, you think someone like Vui Kong should die.
That much is clear.
I’m interested in hearing your response to Joshua’s question:
If there is a way to retain the same low level of crime and drug use [in Singapore] without resorting to DP, would you prefer it?
Incredulous,
Prosecution can’t charge anyone with MDP. MDP is not a crime. Prosecution can charge someone with trafficking. Likewise, judge cannot pronounce someone with MDP. Judge can pronounce guilty or not guilty.
But once pronounced guilty, judge’s hand is tied. He cannot NOT sentence the person to death. Of course you can say the judge exercises the discretion to decide IF the person is guilty or not. But the judge has to work within the framework of the Misuse of Drugs Act and all it’s presumptions. So the real power really lies in the hands of the prosecution. And the president (pardon after the death sentence has been passed). But this president has never pardoned anyone before.
The problem is not the judges. The problem is the rope tying the judge’s hand. The problem is everything is so standardized you actually dun even need a judge to begin with.
Dear Lynn and Joshua
That would be an interesting discussion but yes would love to hear it
Locke
Locke,
It’s a really simple question to answer. How you even can be a credible member of opposition when you just keeping evading is beyond me.
Dear Joshua
I believe I already answered the question, that I would love to hear it and to discuss it further and heck my actions or views or whatever are mine alone :_)). I may be a member but a silly comment from a member is a world apart from a silly comment from a senior member
Locke
Locke,
I must have missed your answer to the question. Can you humour me by repeating it? I’m just trying to understand your position.
The thing that troubles me about the MDP (or the DP for drugs, for that matter) is that there is no conclusive proof of its usefulness as a deterrent. You cite the UK and Mexico as examples of countries that are worse off because they don’t have the DP for drug trafficking. But then again, neither does Hong Kong, and it’s just as safe as Singapore.
How does HK do it? Do you think we should at least try to learn from it? If not, then really, you’re only interested in retributive justice, not deterrence.
Dear Lynn
Firstly its not deterrence as an absolute. That is the DP must reduce drug trafficking to Zero and or near Zero. Secondly I view the DP especially in Singapore for Drug Trafficking , armed robbery etc kidnapping, major capital crimes etc together with other measures as working together to inhibit crimes at all levels for example effective policing etc etc etc.
How safe is HK versus Singapore ? Both a at well minor crime level and at a major crime level ? I can’t say about living in HK because I have not lived there but going by reports of major crimes, i.e armed robberies, gang related violence,kidnappings etc etc , Singapore seems safer by that measure
Locke
Dear Lynn
On that note judging how safe a city is when one stays in a five star hotel is a tad difficult, one can only goes by the local news reporting one hears and reads
Locke
@Locke: And the capability and capacity of the local newspaper.
Locke,
You said:
“On that note judging how safe a city is when one stays in a five star hotel is a tad difficult, one can only goes by the local news reporting one hears and reads”
I lived and work in one of the grottiest parts of inner-city Hong Kong for a year, and I felt perfectly safe, even at night. You like making assumptions. And that is fine in some instances. But it becomes immensely disturbing when you base your conclusions on issues such as the MDP or the DP, on untested assumptions. No one knows exactly whether the death penalty works as an effective deterrent against drug trafficking. So what you’re effectively saying is, I think we should have it because I BELIEVE it keeps my country safe. The logic’s a little fuzzy, no?
Shouldn’t we, as a civilised society, look at alternatives before deciding that the only “mousetrap” we can fashion involves murdering another human being? Essentially, you want these people dead so YOU can feel secure, nevermind the dearth of stats to back up your case.
D Dear Lynn
We can agree that you have to work live or study in a city before deciding how safe one feels or does no feel. :_)). Sources for believing that the death penalty works to lower access to drugs ? Look there is a world of difference between “deterrence” and ” lowering access ” . I am arguing that the death penalty for drug trafficking LOWERs access but if your bench mark is “deterrence” as in absolutely stop all drugs or zero or near zero drugs then basically you are asking for people to prove the impossible in order to justify the state taking a life.
Right basically the UK and the US and ease of access in those countries to drugs and the existence of drug related crime. Secondly turning to HK, whilst I can accept that you might feel safer , that has to square with the reports I read whilst in HK of drug raids etc ,gang wars, triad wars related to drugs and turf etc etc, armed robberies etc etc as compared to that of Singapore. I can’t even remember the last time I heard of an robbery with GUNs in Singapore or for that matter a kidnapping.
The stats are that or references are that if one looks hard enough for it. Funnily enough my copy of Freakanomics had some interesting takes on crime and punishment :_)). In summary, Lewitt believes that Criminals like you and me react to incentives both moral and punishments like you and me as rational economic beings. Punishment in his view has been proven to lower crime or the probability of crime. In his view however the process for enforcing the death penalty in the US takes so long due no doubts to the likes of people like you that it renders the threat of even the death penalty in effective. Statistically a gang member having a higher chance of dying on the streets than on dying on death row :_)). Chutzpah I would say your argument, or the equivalent of murdering one’s own parents and then asking the judge for mercy because one is now an orphan
Locke
I think locke should learnt to use punctuations marks in his postings. And to perhaps re-read and edit his comments before hitting the “submit” button.
As of now, it is unclear what he is trying to say and what his stand is.