The death penalty
Source: Sunday Times (Singapore), 12 February 2006
My Sunday morning sojourn to the local coffee shop this week was spoilt somewhat by the headline of the newspaper left on the table (I didn’t buy it … honest). Ironically, I had, earlier that morning, been leafing through the lastest issue of the Amnesty International magazine, Human Rights Defender (see below), which had a feature on the Van Tuong Nguyen hanging in Singapore. I guess one shouldn’t expect anything less of Singapore Press Holdings, and in a perverse way, I was quite pleased this issue was considered serious enough to occupy the front page. As the country with the dubious honour of having the highest execution rate in the world (13.57 executions per one million population, between 1994-99, followed by Saudi Arabia (4.65), Belarus (3.20), Sierra Leone (2.84), Kyrgyzstan (2.80), Jordan (2.12) and China (2.01)), there is virtually no public debate on the subject. The fact the powers-that-be think it is sufficiently important to figure so prominently in the national daily might be construed as a sign they are beginning to feel the pressure of criticism from the international community. According to Amnesty International, 70 countries have abolished the death penalty in the last 29 years (Human Rights Defender, Feb/March, p.5). Anyway, on the 96% figure, I could question the veracity of the data collection, the size of the sample, and so on, but the fact will remain that the majority of people in Singapore are in favour of the death penalty. Whether they would if they were a sufficiently open debate to be presented with some sound intellectual arguments against the death penalty is another matter. A recent podcast from ABC Radio’s Late Night Live makes for compelling listening in this respect, in which Phillip Adams interviews the author of ‘Dead Man Walking‘, Sister Helen Prejean.
Dear Professor, I have to disagree with you on this topic. I don’t always agree with Singapore policies as you are well aware. Even in this post, I am not debating the majority viewpoint in Singapore for the death penalty.
I am trying to state my views here on the death penalty sans Singapore or anyone else. If a victim’s life has been snatched away from living his/her life to the fullest by whether a deliberate or unintended act of murder by a killer, then who should take responsibility ? Who is going to answer the family of the person so murdered ?
On other cases of death penalty, such as drug trafficking, I do not agree with the majority view in Singapore, even when the case in question appears clearcut. A long jail sentence to deter traffickers should do, these misinformed and misguided folks always are in their youthful years, and governments should not act as “eliminators” removing them from society permanently and sending them to gallows.
In a nutshell, whether it is an individual or government, I am against the deprivation of life in a manner which does not take into account the life itself which is being snatched away. The argument that government does it for the good of the society does not hold water. I also strongly believe that all murderers should receive a jury verdict.
Well, will discuss further soon !
Thanks.
VIJAY
Did you listen to Sister Helen Prejean?
For the record, I am strongly against capital punishment as it:
1. Gives no hope of repentance
2. I do not believe life is ours to take
3. The potential of a reformed criminal to counsel others is not taken into account
I will admit that most of my arguments are not strong and can be picked apart but mine is simply an ideological issue.
Shalom.