30 Mar 2006

Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Committee Movie Screening

DEADLINE: The Screening
Guinness Theatre, Substation
8 pm. Wednesday, 5th April, 2006
Free Admission.

Deadline is a documentary on Illinois Governor George Ryan, who, with 60 days left in office, makes a decision on the fate of death row prisoners. Directors Katy Chevigny and Kirsten Johnson tackle the volatile topic of the American capital punishment system with intelligence, compassion and balance. Furthermore, they capture the extraordinary transformation of one man who holds the power of life and death in his hands.

Deadline is New York-based Big Mouth Productions's sixth feature-length documentary film and both Johnson and Chevigny's second film. Chevigny's directorial debut was Journey to the West: Chinese Medicine Today (2002), distributed by Wellspring Media. Johnson's previous film, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival in 1999 and was featured on HBO.

Among other awards, Deadline has won the 2005 Cine Golden Eagle Special Jury Award, the Thurgood Marshall Journalism Award, Best Feature Documentary and Best Director at the Black Point Film Festival, Lake Geneva.W!. It has also screened at Amnesty International Film Festival, Human Rights Watch International Film Festival and The Independent Film Festival of Boston.

This screening is organized by The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Committee, which is a group of concerned individuals who believe that it is wrong for the state to take someone's life. We have organized this film screening as part of our public outreach. We hope to show more people the facts and the myths behind the death penalty.


The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Committee had gone all quiet since the hanging of Nguyen Tuong Van. When Took Leng How's appeal was disallowed, the group did not push for Took's clemency, in spite of the name of the group. Not sure if this constitutes to double standards for I believe if a group is against the death penalty, they should push for clemency regardless of the crime committed. Maybe Nguyen's case was more unique, an Australian Vietnamese whereas Took is from a neighbouring country whom is about to erect a scenic bridge. Hmm.


akikonomu said...

Or, it could be

1. their schedules did not allow them to issue any statement, much less form an action plan

2. they had a clear idea of what they agreed on when they campaigned for Nguyen, but not for Took.

It is entirely possible, and is often the case, in the nitty gritty of action committees that silence is not deliberate, and does not constitute any clear meaning other than the two points listed above.

Matilah_Singapura said...

What is needed is drug law reform, not the death penalty per se.

These 2 crimes are different - brutal murder/rape in Took's case and drug dealing in Van's case.

I support a death penalty for murder. However, in my mind, there are doubts as to whether he raped his victim.

Anonymous said...

However, when the person committed the murder, they could did it out of the spur of anger at the point of time. It doesn't mean the person is bad in nature. So, I support life imprisonment and not death penalty.

Moreover, for religious reason, to execute a person would cause oneself to fall into the hell. This would include:

1) one who implements such law
2) one who confers such law to the
3) one who ultimately gives the
permission to go ahead with the
execution nearing to execution
4) one who actually executes the
4) anyone who agrees and rejoices
at the execution

Who wish to go to hell and suffer tremendously there? Surely not for me. I would prefer to give others a chance to repent for their wrongdoings instead.

mister k said...

hey akikonomu, sounds like you are in the know. how about a write up on them?

Matilah_Singapura said...

>> when the person committed the murder, they could did it out of the spur of anger at the point of time. It doesn't mean the person is bad in nature

I doubt if there is anyone who is "bad" in nature. Everyone gets angry (emotion -> internal), but if a person understands moral choice - i.e. the differnce between right and wrong, there is no excuse.

Everyone, whether they are aware of it or not, is responsible for thier actions, at any time, wherever they are.

The death penalty for murder respects the right of justice, and retribution for the victims.

Of course, there is always a possibility that an innocent might be sentenced to die, which is why the legal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" must be changed to "absolute certainty".

Anonymous said...

from what I have heard of Took, there is reasonable doubt as to what he did and if his actions caused the death of the little girl. I thought I heard that she might have choked on her vomit and died. Would that mean that if I got into a fight with someone in a bar, punched them in the head and they died of a brain hemmorage I am guilty of 1st degree murder and should hang, or should I be charged with simple assault since I had no way of knowing that my punch would cause a brain hemmorage?

Matilah_Singapura said...

Yes, I 'm aware of that. IMO he shouldn't hang because of the doubt over the facts. Unfortunately for him, you and I aren't judges ;-)

And of course, there is no jury system.