.....
hey karen thanks for your comments, but these are just some of my random thoughts about what you mentioned.
Drugs are harmful. I'm not discounting the serious problem of drug addiction and the harrowing effects it has on the addict and the addict's family; I'm also not saying that drug traffickers should go scot-free and unpunished.
All I'm saying is, the crime does not warrant such a final and extreme form of punishment, because death is irrevocable and you can never be 100% sure that you got the right person; that I can't see any humane reasons against life imprisonment for the syndicate Kings and a reasonable jail term for the Pawns; and that, simply put, the death penalty is immoral.
Can a lame excuse of "oh, it's because we have to protect Singapore society from the evils of drug consumption!" possibly or even remotely suffice to dull such pain, one that I, or anyone reading this right now for that matter, can't even begin to fully comprehend?
We can sit back and say, "Well, her son committed a crime and thus he had to pay the price", tell ourselves comforting brain-washing half-truths that clumsily string together random phrases such as "deterrence" and "public policy" and "the good of society", but at the end of the day the issue isn't whether or not punishment should be escaped; it's the legitimacy of the punishment meted out to the offender, and how that punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime.
Secondly, you mentioned that capital punishment is necessary to deter more people from committing the same crime. I believe that I have touched on this point earlier on in my previous posts. But nonetheless, I will repeat again.
The good that supposedly results from the deterrence of future crime is too speculative and uncertain.
Or, let's boil it down to simple statistics. Doesn't the fact that Singapore has the highest rate of execution per capita bother anyone? What about the fact that a large percentage of these executions were meted out on drug offenders? What does that say about the "deterrence" value of this retarded punishment?
Detractors may argue that the high execution rate is due to the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system in the state.
My answer to the above argument is than could they please kindly explain why the majority of the execution is for the trafficking of drugs?
If the judicial system is really doing their job well, shouldn’t the proportion of execution be evened out for other sort of crime like murder and other crimes that warrant the death penalty?
Whilst saying the above, is it than fair for me to say it’s easier for the judiciary to convict drug offenders due to the law of our state?
If I am not wrong, the constitution explicitly states that you have the right to an attorney (okay I couldn't phrase it any way else) and you only see your lawyer six weeks after your arrest.
However in Singapore less than 10% of all accused criminals have access to legal representation. Could you than explain this?
I hate to say this but maybe I am spoiled by American legal dramas and idealistic theories of fairness and justice, when the very moral authority upon which the state justifies its imposition of the death penalty on drug traffickers is called into question, when the mere fact that only one very, very learned and expert and god-like judge decides whether or not one should live or die, when the Court of Appeal isn't really the Court of Appeal but the Court to go to if you want your sentence toughened, when the trial process seems to be in total disregard for the sanctity of human life leave me even more disappointed at our current judiciary.
Btw what you mentioned Karen are one-off cases. I don’t believe in generalization. It doesn’t mean that if for 1 case there is a state appointed counsel means that all future cases will deserve a similar treatment.
And I have also checked with some people in the legal profession, the legal aid bureau isn’t exactly free of charge as what many of us would like to believe. At the end of the day, the defendant still has to pay for certain court charges and administrative charges which will run to the thousands depending on the duration of the court case and the resources needed for the evidences. At the end of the day, many of them would rather do without the legal assistance. So tell me than, does the law punishes the poor for being poor?
The death penalty is already mandated for such drug cases and therefore the accused has been robbed of any right to plead that his relative lack of moral blameworthiness should mitigate his sentence.
Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (‘MDA’) says, "Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug."
An accompanying case put into simpler terms what that convoluted sentence was trying to say, Shan Kai Weng v PP, and I quote: "The position under our law, therefore, is that possession is proven once the accused knows of the existence of the thing itself."
So basically if you're carrying a bottle of capsules thinking it's your vitamin C for your aging and defective eyes and it turns out that the powder inside said capsules are actually cocaine you'd be hanged for possession which the law assumes to be for purposes of trafficking.
I quote from Dr Thio (NUS law lecturer) ‘Once the crime is proven, the judge has no discretion to hear mitigation pleas. There is only the plea of clemency left.’
You are absolutely right: innocence is not an excuse, however if the law doesn’t give you a right to prove otherwise, than isn’t our law a bit over reaching? Isn’t it time for us to revise our MDA? How does our MDA evaluate against the substantive standards of fairness, humanity and proportionality that the ‘fundamentals rules of natural justice’?
We as fellow human beings are far from infallibility; what gives us the right to take away the life of another person, especially in drug trafficking cases, ESPECIALLY when the law presumes your guilt?
Another reason why I feel so strongly about this is because I personally know of a couple of ex drug offenders back during my involvement in the KBC prison ministry, who as a result of counseling and encouragement, have turned over a new leaf and been reintegrated into society.
They are now leading normal lives and having a free reign over their drug addiction. I sincerely believe with all my heart that rehabilitation is the only way to help these drug offenders rather than taking away their life for the crime they commit. Where is the logic about implementing the death penalty to a drug offender when we know that he is fully capable of change?
I am not trying to say we should argue for the sake of arguing, but there are just some things in life that is worth standing up for. We should start to be a thinking society and not believe any reasoning that is thrown our way .
I totally believe that we are capable to make a change as a society. All the talk about the yellow ribbon project to reintegrate ex offenders back to society, why than do we not even give a second chance to someone who we know is fully capable of change, a second chance at this game of life? How the death penalty does remotely meets the aim of deterrence when it cannot be proven? Isn’t it than true that everyone deserves a second chance? Think about it….
** DISCLAIMER: This law student accepts no responsibility for any misrepresentation in the above entry. All views expressed in the above entry are of those of the author and in no way of a malicious and slandering nature. All views are of a frank and open discussion. The writer acknowledges that the above facts may be subject to inconsistencies from the actual facts (if any) and is apologetic to any parties who take offence to his comments. Last but not least the writer has also consulted various publications and blogs for another alternative views concurrent and different from his views and may have included them for particular referencing. **
Drugs are harmful. I'm not discounting the serious problem of drug addiction and the harrowing effects it has on the addict and the addict's family; I'm also not saying that drug traffickers should go scot-free and unpunished.
All I'm saying is, the crime does not warrant such a final and extreme form of punishment, because death is irrevocable and you can never be 100% sure that you got the right person; that I can't see any humane reasons against life imprisonment for the syndicate Kings and a reasonable jail term for the Pawns; and that, simply put, the death penalty is immoral.
Can a lame excuse of "oh, it's because we have to protect Singapore society from the evils of drug consumption!" possibly or even remotely suffice to dull such pain, one that I, or anyone reading this right now for that matter, can't even begin to fully comprehend?
We can sit back and say, "Well, her son committed a crime and thus he had to pay the price", tell ourselves comforting brain-washing half-truths that clumsily string together random phrases such as "deterrence" and "public policy" and "the good of society", but at the end of the day the issue isn't whether or not punishment should be escaped; it's the legitimacy of the punishment meted out to the offender, and how that punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime.
Secondly, you mentioned that capital punishment is necessary to deter more people from committing the same crime. I believe that I have touched on this point earlier on in my previous posts. But nonetheless, I will repeat again.
The good that supposedly results from the deterrence of future crime is too speculative and uncertain.
Or, let's boil it down to simple statistics. Doesn't the fact that Singapore has the highest rate of execution per capita bother anyone? What about the fact that a large percentage of these executions were meted out on drug offenders? What does that say about the "deterrence" value of this retarded punishment?
Detractors may argue that the high execution rate is due to the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system in the state.
My answer to the above argument is than could they please kindly explain why the majority of the execution is for the trafficking of drugs?
If the judicial system is really doing their job well, shouldn’t the proportion of execution be evened out for other sort of crime like murder and other crimes that warrant the death penalty?
Whilst saying the above, is it than fair for me to say it’s easier for the judiciary to convict drug offenders due to the law of our state?
If I am not wrong, the constitution explicitly states that you have the right to an attorney (okay I couldn't phrase it any way else) and you only see your lawyer six weeks after your arrest.
However in Singapore less than 10% of all accused criminals have access to legal representation. Could you than explain this?
I hate to say this but maybe I am spoiled by American legal dramas and idealistic theories of fairness and justice, when the very moral authority upon which the state justifies its imposition of the death penalty on drug traffickers is called into question, when the mere fact that only one very, very learned and expert and god-like judge decides whether or not one should live or die, when the Court of Appeal isn't really the Court of Appeal but the Court to go to if you want your sentence toughened, when the trial process seems to be in total disregard for the sanctity of human life leave me even more disappointed at our current judiciary.
Btw what you mentioned Karen are one-off cases. I don’t believe in generalization. It doesn’t mean that if for 1 case there is a state appointed counsel means that all future cases will deserve a similar treatment.
And I have also checked with some people in the legal profession, the legal aid bureau isn’t exactly free of charge as what many of us would like to believe. At the end of the day, the defendant still has to pay for certain court charges and administrative charges which will run to the thousands depending on the duration of the court case and the resources needed for the evidences. At the end of the day, many of them would rather do without the legal assistance. So tell me than, does the law punishes the poor for being poor?
The death penalty is already mandated for such drug cases and therefore the accused has been robbed of any right to plead that his relative lack of moral blameworthiness should mitigate his sentence.
Section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (‘MDA’) says, "Any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have known the nature of that drug."
An accompanying case put into simpler terms what that convoluted sentence was trying to say, Shan Kai Weng v PP, and I quote: "The position under our law, therefore, is that possession is proven once the accused knows of the existence of the thing itself."
So basically if you're carrying a bottle of capsules thinking it's your vitamin C for your aging and defective eyes and it turns out that the powder inside said capsules are actually cocaine you'd be hanged for possession which the law assumes to be for purposes of trafficking.
I quote from Dr Thio (NUS law lecturer) ‘Once the crime is proven, the judge has no discretion to hear mitigation pleas. There is only the plea of clemency left.’
You are absolutely right: innocence is not an excuse, however if the law doesn’t give you a right to prove otherwise, than isn’t our law a bit over reaching? Isn’t it time for us to revise our MDA? How does our MDA evaluate against the substantive standards of fairness, humanity and proportionality that the ‘fundamentals rules of natural justice’?
We as fellow human beings are far from infallibility; what gives us the right to take away the life of another person, especially in drug trafficking cases, ESPECIALLY when the law presumes your guilt?
Another reason why I feel so strongly about this is because I personally know of a couple of ex drug offenders back during my involvement in the KBC prison ministry, who as a result of counseling and encouragement, have turned over a new leaf and been reintegrated into society.
They are now leading normal lives and having a free reign over their drug addiction. I sincerely believe with all my heart that rehabilitation is the only way to help these drug offenders rather than taking away their life for the crime they commit. Where is the logic about implementing the death penalty to a drug offender when we know that he is fully capable of change?
I am not trying to say we should argue for the sake of arguing, but there are just some things in life that is worth standing up for. We should start to be a thinking society and not believe any reasoning that is thrown our way .
I totally believe that we are capable to make a change as a society. All the talk about the yellow ribbon project to reintegrate ex offenders back to society, why than do we not even give a second chance to someone who we know is fully capable of change, a second chance at this game of life? How the death penalty does remotely meets the aim of deterrence when it cannot be proven? Isn’t it than true that everyone deserves a second chance? Think about it….
** DISCLAIMER: This law student accepts no responsibility for any misrepresentation in the above entry. All views expressed in the above entry are of those of the author and in no way of a malicious and slandering nature. All views are of a frank and open discussion. The writer acknowledges that the above facts may be subject to inconsistencies from the actual facts (if any) and is apologetic to any parties who take offence to his comments. Last but not least the writer has also consulted various publications and blogs for another alternative views concurrent and different from his views and may have included them for particular referencing. **
posted by theflyisneverdead at 11/30/2005 12:34:00 AM
2 Comments:
hahaha.. this is turning into a debate already.. but i'm having fun here.. lost touch with the law for quite sometime already.. but well.. i'm not as good as this prospective LLB grad here.. and i'm just standing by what i think is right.
drug trafficking is no way more moral than a death sentence.. what right do you have to cause the possible death of others directly/indirectly by your selfish acts of earning money and becoming rich? if you think that sentencing someone to death for drug trafficking is immoral, what are these drug traffickers?angels?
you have to remember, the deterrence cannot be seen just by the numbers. Considering the fact that a considerable number of drug traffickers who were caught were on transit in singapore, would mean that if singapore has less tight security and even lighter punishment for drug trafficking, what would singapore become? drug traffickers transit hub like in other foreign countries?
though you hint that the death sentence could be meted out to someone innocent, i seriously doubt that the judicial system and the police force is that incompetent.
the government's decision of having a death sentence for drug trafficking is to deter ppl from doing so, esp in singapore as we are a small country.. however, there are just ppl who knowingly take the risk and play with death. They had their choices and if they picked this way to earn the money, they'll have to face the consequences for their selfish acts.
on the legal aid bureau, i do not think it is fair for ppl to commit crime just 'coz they are poor and then seek for FREE legal representation. the govt ensures that everyone has a possible avenue to legal representation but that does not mean that it comes FREE. why should taxpayers pay for the legal costs of another person who committed a crime, which is often morally wrong?
and once again, MDA stipulates that u are PRESUMED to know that there are drugs in ur bag but it also states UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVEN ".
it is unfair to say that u'll be hanged when u think that u are carrying vit c when in fact,it's cocaine, due to the presumption of knowledge. IT IS THE ONUS OF THE ACCUSED to prove otherwise. and only if the accused is unable to prove otherwise, then what is left is the clemency plea.
So u must remember that the trial to a drug trafficking case, does not stop after the DPP has proven his case. It's for the accused to then show evidence that he has no knowledge of the drugs in his possession - e.g. Ms sylvia lim's case. and i think (not very sure though, mebbi u as a prospective LLB undergrad should chk this out), it is mandatory for accuseds who are facing the capital punishment to be legally represented.
and lastly, the drug offenders who have turned over a new leaf - if you sympathise with them, then have you ever thought who were the ones who landed them in the jail and their current plight. Besides themselves, it's the drug traffickers and the peddlers who handed them the drugs. it's an evil food chain here, drug traffickers gives the drugs to the peddlers, peddlers gives addicts the drugs, addict robs to pay for the drug and they land in jail for robbery and drug possesion whilst the traffickers continue to earn until siao.
put urself in the shoes of the family of a drug addict. Besides possibly blaming the addict for this foolish act, do you really think that these drug traffickers, who dunno caused how many to lose their bright futures ahead, do not deserve the death sentence??????
Quoted from The Straits Times, 1 December 2005
"AN AUSTRALIAN whose 40-year-old son and daughter-in-law are drug addicts has e-mailed Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo supporting Singapore's decision to hang Nguyen Tuong Van on Friday.
The man, who asked to remain anonymous, described the anguish his family faced due to his son's drug habit, and expressed anger at those who showed sympathy for drug peddlers like Nguyen.
His e-mail, coming amid criticism from human rights and other activists, suggests ordinary Australians hold a different view and back Singapore.
The writer said as much: 'Most of the objections are coming from people who obviously have never had to go through, and continue to live with, the devastation that drugs cause to thousands of people in this country.'
Describing his son's addiction as a 'curse' and a 'nightmare', he said he took his son and daughter-in-law into his home for four years to provide stability and prevent their four children from being taken away by social services.
'It was the most emotionally draining four years of our lives. I have had the heartbreaking experience of dragging my son from our toilet with a needle in his arm, and he had stopped breathing. If it hadn't been for his wife knowing what to do, he would have died.
'Unless anyone has experienced this, they would not know what it is like to worry yourself sick every time your child goes to the toilet, is late home from wherever, or your grandchildren don't know where their parents are.'
He also criticised proposals for a minute's silence when Nguyen is executed: 'I travel extensively around Western Australia and I can tell you I have not met one single person who believes this man should not be hanged for his crime.
'If politicians proposing this ... think for one minute the majority of Australians agree with their thinking, they had better get out into the real world and listen to the people.'
He believed few Australians disagreed with the execution decision and few would be observing a minute's silence. "
Post a Comment
<< Home