Thoughts on the Special Report on the Death Penalty

By On March 2, 2012 · 9 Comments · In Activism, Anti-Death Penalty, Civil Rights, Singapore

A few days ago I did an interview with Channel NewsAsia for a documentary. Despite my obvious ineptitude when it comes to being in front of the camera (I’d much rather be running errands on the other side of the lens), everyone was really nice to me, although parts of the interview got a little awkward:

“So, what do you blog the most about?”

“The issue that I give the most attention to would be the death penalty.”

“… Ah. We’re not really allowed to go into that, so can you say something else? What do you second-most blog about?”

(NOTE: The above conversation is not verbatim, but put together from memory. The words may not be accurate but the gist certainly is.)

It was therefore with surprise that I woke up on Thursday to find that another member of Singapore’s mainstream media – The Straits Times – had not only mentioned the death penalty, but had done a whole Special Report on it!

I notice, though, that the report does not contain any quotes or interviews with anti-death penalty activists, so We Believe In Second Chances has taken the liberty of making a response to the report, which you can read here. This blog post is just an opportunity for me to set down my own further thoughts on the article.

The first thing to note, of course, is that a reduction in the number of executions each year, while positive, is ultimately meaningless if we are still constantly sentencing people to death. If we’re continuing to build up a huge backlog of inmates waiting for execution, it means that there could be a potential bloodbath whenever executions resume with regularity. Therefore, it is important for us not just to know the number of executions each year, but the number of people on death row each year.

Secondly, the article mentions towards the end that the death penalty has had a deterrent effect (which is why less foreigners come to Singapore now and go on “crime sprees”), yet fails to provide any sort of evidence to prove that the death penalty works as a deterrence. This is probably because there isn’t actually any evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrence, as has been pointed out time and again.

In fact, the article itself suggests various other reasons for the dip in serious crime as well as the number of executions:

“In the past, murders were often gang-related, so they were carried out in large groups,” [criminal lawyer Amolat Singh] said. “As many as seven to eight people could be charged for one murder. However, murders now are usually crimes of passion, where there are just one or two offenders.”

…

“Street corner gangs” are now popular with young people looking for fun and companionship. However, they are less aggressive than those of the 1990s and confine themselves largely to petty crimes such as theft and vandalism. … As they are not making a living through the gang, they take it less seriously and are less aggressive…

…

The nature of drug trafficking is also changing… Criminal lawyer Chia Boon Teck said they are bringing in different types of narcotics or reducing the quantity to avoid the mandatory death sentence.

…

“There is a changing pattern of consumption for drug abusers to soft drugs [which do not attract the death penalty].”

…

Lawyers said executions were also falling because the Attorney-General’s Chambers had been exercising greater discretion when prosecuting offenders.

From these excerpts, we can extrapolate that the reason for the falling execution rate is not necessarily because the death penalty has been so effective that there is no more crime to tackle, but because
1) youth gangs are no longer as violent as they once were due to changing socio-economic status,
2) there is now a demand for a different type of drug (which happens to not attract the death penalty),
3) that drug smugglers are bringing in smaller quantities and
4) the AGC is choosing not to press for the death penalty for certain cases.

None of these reasons suggest that we are dealing with the problems that we’ve been told the death penalty deals with. These reasons merely suggest that crime and criminal behaviour (especially when it comes to drug crime) is evolving, while our methods remain the same. So, what will happen when Ecstasy becomes overwhelmingly the new drug of choice? Would we include it as a drug that attracts the mandatory death penalty too? And what happens when some other drug appears on the market after Ecstasy? And another one after that? And after that?

And if drug syndicates are getting smart and sending through three mules with 10 grams of heroin each instead of one mule with 30 grams, what are we going to do? Lower the threshold that attracts the mandatory death penalty, and hang more mules?

Is it really smart to stubbornly stick to the same old system – which has never been proven to be effective in the first place – when everything else is changing around us?

P.S. For the brevity’s sake I have decided to focus on just a couple of points. There are other problematic aspects of the article which I will leave to my fellow activists to point out, and for the public to discuss.

However, I would like to add that I felt the comment on human rights lawyer Mr M Ravi – saying that his efforts to save Shanmugam Murugesu were “publicity stunts” that gave the family “false hope” – were completely unfair and uncalled for. The death penalty is not a late-stage incurable illness from which there is no hope of salvation. It is a man-made system that takes away the life of a healthy individual who would otherwise potentially live for a good many more years. Are we really so mean as to fault someone for trying every possible way of saving a life?

Tagged with: • • • •
 
Remember, sharing is caring!
Reddit Facebook Twitter Delicious

  • Pingback: (@kixes) (@kixes)

  • Caleb

    If drug abusers find a new drug because the current one they are using attracts the death penalty, doesn’t that mean death penalty is effective? Extend to ALL drugs!

    If drug traffickers are reducing the quantity of drugs per trafficker to avoid the death penalty, doesn’t that mean that death penalty is effective? Extend to ANY quantity of drugs!

    I wish I can say that the death penalty caused the evolution of street gang behavior, but that is obviously not true. But if it does help, however remotely, in the evolution of society away from violence, then why not?

    On top of that, AGC has clearly been exercising more discretion when it comes to passing the sentence, doesn’t that mean that they are now capable of wielding MORE power (broader death penalty laws) with greater responsibility?

    I think, moving forward, death penalty should be applicable for more crimes, less severe crimes.

  • Caleb

    I’ve read the “We Believe in Second Chances” article and I feel that the main problem is poor execution of the law. If the facts were presented as per the stories, then I agree they should not have happened. Perhaps I misunderstand what mandatory death penalty means, but I would believe that offenders remain innocent until proven guilty. If there is any shadow of doubt of the intentions of the offenders, they should be held in remand until the doubt clears.

    No compassion for the tax evader though. If you knowingly collude with criminals, you open yourself to the risk of greater evil.

  • http://blaxellinwords.blogspot.com Eddy

    If you believe offenders should remain innocent until proven guilty, and judges should take all evidence into account and assess it on its merits, there’s an activist cause waiting to be joined.

    That’s not what happens at present.

  • Pingback: (@kixes) (@kixes)

  • Kirsten Han

    If you look at the article, it doesn’t actually say that users are moving on to new drugs because the current one attracts the death penalty. They’re moving to new drugs because that’s the new trend (and the article also mentions that Ecstasy is now in fashion because it’s easier to pop a pill than smoke or inject). So that shift is unlikely to be caused by the death penalty.

    Changes in the demand for drugs is inevitable, and has been happening from the start. There will always be the “hottest” drug of the time, just like there’s the hottest fashion. These things will constantly evolve, and we need to find ways to deal with that, as opposed to sticking to the same method and insisting that it will work even when there are indications that it won’t.

    As for drug traffickers and the quantity of drugs, it would be a joke to say that the death penalty is effective. What do you mean by “effective”? The death penalty would only be effective if there is empirical evidence that its existence actually CURBS drugs entering the country, but in this case we are seeing that the drugs are still being smuggled in, just that syndicates are finding ways to “beat” the system by having people carry less each time.

    The death penalty involves the ending of an individual’s life. This is not something that we should be taking lightly. For us to be able to justify allowing the State to systematically execute in our names, there needs to be more than a “remote” chance that it is actually necessary. Is this what you would tell the family members of a death row inmate, or the inmate himself? “We don’t know why we’re killing you, but it’s JUST IN CASE, you know.”

    And again, just because the AGC has been exercising their discretion more, does NOT mean that they are capable of wielding more power with greater responsibility. (You certainly seem very eager to hand over all sorts of power without checks to all sorts of authorities, I have to say.) Just look at this case: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/11/how-much-discretion-should-the-prosecution-have/
    Also, it’s been decided that the AGC does not need to explain how it exercises its discretion, so it’s really all up to them who they’d want to let go and who they want to hang. Combine this with the mandatory death penalty which removes the judge’s discretion in sentencing, forcing any guilty verdict to attract the death sentence, don’t you think it’s a bit of a joke that the AGC has so much power, even more than the judge?

    In summing up, it is strange that you would think the death penalty – of which there is NO PROOF that it is effective at all in preventing more crimes – should be extended to MORE, less severe crimes.

  • Kirsten Han

    The mandatory death penalty falls under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Misuse of Drugs Act also shifts the burden of proof on to the accused. So, for instance, if you are charged with drug trafficking, it becomes the burden of the accused to prove that he was NOT trafficking. This is actually a guilty until proven innocent scenario.

  • Pingback: Post-Museum (@postmuseum)

  • Pingback: Daily SG: 5 Mar 2012 « The Singapore Daily