STOP KILLING LIVES……ITS MADNESS@@@
I see the death penalty as a barbaric, inhumane and thoughtless act without any due respect for the importance and the significance of a human life.
Is the law REALLY reason free from passion? - Aristotle.
Well no offense Aristotle, passion MUST and SHOULD be the key ingredient to the abolishment of the death penalty. We must always have faith in people believing that everyone deserves a second chance @ life.
I do not subscribe to the old school of thought where the aim of the death penalty is for
(i) Deterrence (*the greater good of society *)
(ii) Retributive (*an eye for any eye*) purposes.
Deterrence seems like an attractive theory to appease the general public.
‘Does the greater good- the deterrence of future offenders- not justifies the death penalty?’ Yet no respectable legal system in the world would buy into this reasoning because the good that supposedly results is too speculative and uncertain.
Can the Government please explain why Singapore still has one of the highest execution rates in the world relative to its population? 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 harsh 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?
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 always grew up believing that the law is fair and just. But in the above case, I honestly do not think that the crime warrants such a harsh and undignified death sentence.
Sure I should have be more prudent and check through my medications properly, but how can the law punish me for something that I have no knowledge of? How is it fair to punish me when I lack the ’mens reas’ of the crime? How is it fair when the ‘supposed crime’ I committed is so grossly disproportionate to the punishment meted out?
This also goes against the very nature of the constitution which states that no one may be deprived of his or her life ‘save in accordance with the law’- the law in this case is the MDA.
The laws of the land should be revised not the judgment. But changing the law is something the judiciary cannot do without exceeding its current mandate.
Think about this for a second. The courts determine guilt and pass sentences but Parliament, in deciding what elements constitute an offence (e.g.: not exceeding 15g for drug trafficking), ‘in a sense’ interferes with the finding of guilt’. Parliament affects sentencing as well.
How than can we keep the JUDICIARY independent of the executive and the legislature?
This boils down to the separation of power, where the ‘answer’ is a historical and blurred one.
Should the State be meting out capital punishment in the absence of proof that it works? Why does the State persist in this method and put the burden of proof on abolitionists?
Capital punishment raises troubling moral questions; it should be avoided unless there is proof that it brings such overwhelming efficacy as to override moral objections.
In other words, when there is doubt, desist.
Another common supposed aim is that of vengeance. There are lots of moral objections to retribution which I need not cover. Arguing retributive value for drug trafficking is quite a stretch. The simple guy will say, drugs kill people, so hang the evil person.
Take for example, a certain minister wrote, in his reply to Australia's plead for clemency on Nguyen Tuong Van's behalf, "We, on our part in Singapore, have a responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the scourge of drug addiction, which has destroyed many lives and inflicted great suffering on many families."
‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the evils of gambling addiction that will arise as a result of the casinos?'
‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the evils of tobacco and alcohol?'
‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from HIV+ people who go around infecting other innocent victims?’
‘What about the responsibility to protect the innocent and illiterate landlords who as a result of the law commit an offence of harboring illegal immigrants?’
I acknowledging the serious consequences and the damage that drug addiction causes for the addict and his loved ones and I am also not saying that the drug trafficker should go away scot-free but all I’m trying saying is that the crime does not befit and warrant the capital punishment.
The death penalty is IRREVOCABLE.
You can't bring back the dead, not even when new evidence surfaces later that proves the person's innocence.
Shouldn’t we than change and mainstream our aims of sentencing more to rehabilitative purposes?
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?
I am so fired up right now and I really feel like sending an email to the President on behalf of Van, knowing with all my heart that the death penalty should be abolished. I know one day this challenge would be fulfilled.
I FINALLY have a dream….
** DISCLAIMER: This law student to-be accepts no responsibility for any misrepresentation in the above entry. All views expressed in the above entry are of those of the writer 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). 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. **
Is the law REALLY reason free from passion? - Aristotle.
Well no offense Aristotle, passion MUST and SHOULD be the key ingredient to the abolishment of the death penalty. We must always have faith in people believing that everyone deserves a second chance @ life.
I do not subscribe to the old school of thought where the aim of the death penalty is for
(i) Deterrence (*the greater good of society *)
(ii) Retributive (*an eye for any eye*) purposes.
Deterrence seems like an attractive theory to appease the general public.
‘Does the greater good- the deterrence of future offenders- not justifies the death penalty?’ Yet no respectable legal system in the world would buy into this reasoning because the good that supposedly results is too speculative and uncertain.
Can the Government please explain why Singapore still has one of the highest execution rates in the world relative to its population? 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 harsh 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?
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 always grew up believing that the law is fair and just. But in the above case, I honestly do not think that the crime warrants such a harsh and undignified death sentence.
Sure I should have be more prudent and check through my medications properly, but how can the law punish me for something that I have no knowledge of? How is it fair to punish me when I lack the ’mens reas’ of the crime? How is it fair when the ‘supposed crime’ I committed is so grossly disproportionate to the punishment meted out?
This also goes against the very nature of the constitution which states that no one may be deprived of his or her life ‘save in accordance with the law’- the law in this case is the MDA.
The laws of the land should be revised not the judgment. But changing the law is something the judiciary cannot do without exceeding its current mandate.
Think about this for a second. The courts determine guilt and pass sentences but Parliament, in deciding what elements constitute an offence (e.g.: not exceeding 15g for drug trafficking), ‘in a sense’ interferes with the finding of guilt’. Parliament affects sentencing as well.
How than can we keep the JUDICIARY independent of the executive and the legislature?
This boils down to the separation of power, where the ‘answer’ is a historical and blurred one.
Should the State be meting out capital punishment in the absence of proof that it works? Why does the State persist in this method and put the burden of proof on abolitionists?
Capital punishment raises troubling moral questions; it should be avoided unless there is proof that it brings such overwhelming efficacy as to override moral objections.
In other words, when there is doubt, desist.
Another common supposed aim is that of vengeance. There are lots of moral objections to retribution which I need not cover. Arguing retributive value for drug trafficking is quite a stretch. The simple guy will say, drugs kill people, so hang the evil person.
Take for example, a certain minister wrote, in his reply to Australia's plead for clemency on Nguyen Tuong Van's behalf, "We, on our part in Singapore, have a responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the scourge of drug addiction, which has destroyed many lives and inflicted great suffering on many families."
‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the evils of gambling addiction that will arise as a result of the casinos?'
‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from the evils of tobacco and alcohol?'
‘What about the responsibility to protect the people of Singapore from HIV+ people who go around infecting other innocent victims?’
‘What about the responsibility to protect the innocent and illiterate landlords who as a result of the law commit an offence of harboring illegal immigrants?’
I acknowledging the serious consequences and the damage that drug addiction causes for the addict and his loved ones and I am also not saying that the drug trafficker should go away scot-free but all I’m trying saying is that the crime does not befit and warrant the capital punishment.
The death penalty is IRREVOCABLE.
You can't bring back the dead, not even when new evidence surfaces later that proves the person's innocence.
Shouldn’t we than change and mainstream our aims of sentencing more to rehabilitative purposes?
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?
I am so fired up right now and I really feel like sending an email to the President on behalf of Van, knowing with all my heart that the death penalty should be abolished. I know one day this challenge would be fulfilled.
I FINALLY have a dream….
** DISCLAIMER: This law student to-be accepts no responsibility for any misrepresentation in the above entry. All views expressed in the above entry are of those of the writer 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). 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 11/16/2005 11:48:00 AM
1 Comments:
OK, let's make a deal. Conservatives in the US will stop executing around 58 vicious killers a year if liberals will stop executing 1.5 MILLION innocent, unborn babies a year. Let's put it on the ballot and see what Americans think.
Post a Comment
<< Home