On Capital Punishment
Well, I am not supposed to be blogging about socio-political issues, so I will keep this post short. The young Australian Nguyen Tuong Van has been in the news recently - he had been sentenced to death for drug trafficking and the government of Singapore has refused to commute the sentence. Now anti-capital punishment groups are getting into action here in Singapore, organising events and so on. Read Omeka Na Huria or Singabloodypore for more details.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't like the death sentence myself. But among these Nguyen Tuong Van supporters, I sense that there is a lack of clarity in thinking. Many of these people haven't really worked out for themselves where they really, really stand. They say that they are absolutely against the death sentence and that Amnesty International says that the death sentence is a violation of human rights etc etc. That's all good and well, but ...
... where were they when Took Leng How was sentenced to death for killing Huang Na, an eight-year-old little girl? How come they didn't organise a solidarity event for Took?
See, if as a matter of principle, you stand against capital punishment all the way, then you can't pick and choose your convicts. You can't say, "Ooh, I hate people who kill children, I shan't support Took. But Nguyen looks like a handsome young man and he has a twin-brother sob story, so I'll support him. Shanmugam Murugesu has two kids and a poor old mother - I'll support him too."
That's nonsense. If you stand against capital punishment - you stand all the way (like Amnesty International does). It shouldn't matter what the crime was, or whether the criminal has a sob story or looks handsome or not - you stand all the way. On the basis that a life is a life. Took's life is a life too.
I'll be very impressed if along with calling on the Singapore government to commute Nguyen Tuong Van's death sentence, those folks in Singapore also call on Took to be spared the death sentence (I'm assuming Took hasn't been hung yet). But somehow I don't see that happening. Do you?
5 Nov 2005
Death and Other Stories
An interesting post from Mr Wang Bakes Good Karma:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'll be very impressed if the law and order crowd (Mr Wang et al) so much in favour of prosecuting racist bloggers for their racism, also speak out loudly in favour of censuring several prominent politicians for making similar or worse comments. But somehow, I don't see that. Do you?
It would help if your examples were more recent. When you write about Choo Wee Khiang, for instance, you're writing about an 1992 incident - that's more than a decade ago. The horse was flogged then (deservedly); now it's dead; only historians would still be interested. Besides, Wee's remarks in Parliament are really rather trivial and irrelevant in the overall story of his life, compared to what happened later.
When I write about Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong, I'm writing about leaders who are still leading Singapore. The horse was flogged then (deservedly), but it wasn't flogged with the whip of sedition. I still don't hear howls of censure from the law and order crowd, which prefers now to pass the buck to historians, and appears to believe that this matter is now closed for debate unless you're a historian?
Maybe the only thing to say about no death penalties is that we are no Gods to decide.
Man are fallible and no man's laws are infallible. You can approve to kill one person and you can approve of the decision to wage war that kill millions.
What, then, is the weight of life?
This is a re-post from MrWang's site. Can't help but feel strongly about this issue.
Dear Singaporean,
I fully agree with you on point (1) - Drugs are evil, highly addictive and destroys families.
I disagree with you on points (2) and (3).
(2) There is scarce availability of drugs in Singapore. This must be a sign that the death penalty for drug trafficking is an effective deterrence. (I paraphrased you)
Of course, there is a deterrence effect to any punishment for drug trafficking. Harsh penalties and swift enforcement would greatly deter drug trafficking. We should take a tough stand on drug trafficking. It is a horrible crime that must not go unpunished. However, the rational question remains: Will imposing lengthy jail terms, harsh fines and more caning be equally effective (and more humane) as the death penalty in deterring drug trafficking?
At first glance, there is a simple co-relation between the scarce availability of drugs and the death penalty. However, there is no empirical evidence which proves that the death penalty DOES CAUSE a decrease in the availability of drugs. For example, the observation that dark clouds exist on rainy days: this observation is not helpful because we do not know if dark clouds do actually cause rain (See “Steven Levitt: Freakonomics: A Rouge Economist Explores The Hidden Side Of Everything” for a more eloquent explanation)
Therefore, the death penalty may not be the cause of scarce availability of drugs in SG. They could simply co-exist, analogous to the co-existence of dark clouds and rain. Could there be more direct causes?
a)Increased vigilance in customs inspection for drugs
b)Improved use of technology in drugs detection
c)Increased police manpower for Central Narcotics Bureau
d)Increased collaboration within ASEAN on sharing of information on drug trafficking rings
e)Stricter penalties against personal drugs consumption
f)Increased public education on dangers of drugs consumption
I deliberately ignored the effect of ANY punishment for drug trafficking on the availability of drugs. Factors (a) to (d) directly reduce the supply of drugs into SG. Factors (e) and (f) results in less demand for drugs, ergo, fewer incentives for drug-rings to risk trafficking drugs into SG.
Despite the perceived effectiveness of our death penalty, I have tried to illustrate other factors that do cause a substantial reduction in the availability of drugs.
(3) From the drug mule point of view, if the penalty is death, they can refuse to do the job even if someone point a gun at his head. There has to be some amount of stupidity for Nguyen (or his handlers) to needlessly choose Singapore as a transit point, or perhaps he was set up to be caught anyway.
Let us take the strongest case for the proposition that death penalty should be imposed for drug traffickers: Nguyen was caught smuggling drugs INTO SG and not using SG merely as a transit point.
Let us assume Nguyen knew of the death penalty in SG. Drug mules are often at the mercy of the drug-lords, who literally “point a gun” at their heads. In the case of Nguyen, not only was he threatened by the drug-lord, but I assume his brother was threatened too. Faced with immediate danger to himself and his family, drug mules do not have a practical choice but to accept the job, even at the risk of the death penalty.
If Nguyen did not know of the death penalty, tough luck for him, since ignorance of our laws is no excuse. But here, the effectiveness of the death penalty is highly suspect: how would the death penalty deter the unknowing and foolish Nguyen?
Ultimately, I do not believe that drug trafficking is a crime so morally reprehensible that every Nguyen deserves to die. The objective of promoting social, communal and Singaporean interests should not justify the taking away of Nguyen’s right to live.
So Singaporean(s), what do you think?
Well put, beach-yi. Just as in the Bible:
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Oh, I'm sure Singapore would also happily hang the drug barons, if the barons were dumb enough to be caught in Singapore with the evidence on them.
No to the death penalty. Means that NO to the death penalty.
Post a Comment