On the death penalty
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this post are that of Death Kopitiam Singapore alone. We are not acting or speaking for any organisations or persons who may be for or against the death penalty. We hope to hear your views on this matter, and may we may find some form of consensus on this matter, however difficult it may be. Thank you.
Photo credit: International Bar Association
Agency.
How much of an agency does a person have in his/her decision to deal or traffic in drugs?
What were the circumstances that led him to undertake those life-altering decisions?
We don’t know, and are in no position to judge his circumstances, but shouldn’t the law consider empathising with the circumstances that brought them to Singapore in the first place?
Maybe he had no agency; he had no choice? Shouldn’t the law, in the first place, protect and defend the vulnerable in our midst?
Lest one thinks that we are woke, free-wheeling, liberal human rights advocates – human rights often get a bad name in this island home. Lest we are accused of upholding the sanctity of life of a person who refused to abide by the rules of a particular jurisdiction.
Lives are lives, the life of a convict is equally as valuable and dear as that of a judge or a legislator in our land. Or at least that what's what we think, lest we are accused of glorifying the death of a drug dealer/trafficker.
Perspective.
Proponents of the death penalty for drug-related offences tend to argue that the collective harm, the many lives harmed by the scrouge of drugs, warrants a punishment that takes away another person’s life.
That the death penalty is a strong deterrence is often mentioned. Is a hard and long prison sentence any less of a deterrence?
We don’t know, but we feel that deterrence should not be considered in a vacuum. Context is key. Context informs our perspectives, including the intended effect of the law and the person who fails to abide by those very laws.
If the death penalty is, indeed, a strong deterrence, shouldn’t it also be instituted for deaths resulting from drink and/or reckless driving? Proportionality is key, one may say. Equally, to ensure safer roads, and safer homes for us all, we must deal decisively with such offences as well. It will send a strong message to the public as well as drivers of the consequences one’s actions must bear.
Families are broken, lives are destroyed. We need to get tough and be tough, including considering the death penalty for more offences, in order to ensure a freer and crime-free society.
Photo credit: The movie "Apprentice" (by Boo Junfeng), 2016
Empathy.
We are neither for nor against the death penalty. We are conflicted, to say the least. We hope that more research can be done, and perspectives can be shared and discussed.
Behind brutality lies a glint of hope on the horizon, if we are who we say we are, a caring, inclusive and compassionate society, then a national dialogue is sorely needed.
In broadening the debate about a country’s trajectory beyond the usual group of elite decision-makers, national dialogues offer the potential for meaningful conversation about the underlying drivers of conflict and opposing perspectives, and we may even find better solutions to holistically address these issues surrounding the death penalty.
We do not have the answers and are in no position to argue for or against the death penalty for drug-related offences.
But we are of the view, unless convinced otherwise, that the death penalty should still be retained for acts like murders, kidnapping, and firearm-related offences.
Whether you are for or against the death penalty for drug-related offences, or the death penalty itself, we, at the Death Kopitiam, are of the view that more empathy is required, not less, in this instance.
What we do, however, strongly believe in is the sanctity and dignity of life of a human person and/or animal, regardless of whether he/she/it is the perpetrator and/or the victim.
On animal cruelty and taking the lives of animals when it is deemed inconvenient to society, it is a topic for a different day.
But maybe, just maybe, at the end of it all, society is both the perpetrator and/or the victim of the death penalty.
Again, we reiterate that we are neither for nor against the death penalty because on both sides of the aisle, there are victims and there are lives lost. We are conflicted.
But hopefully, our society and more Singaporeans can at least discuss more about this mode of punishment, its relevance, pros and cons, its effectiveness and the lack thereof and the many ethical and human circumstances and stories that undergird this issue.
Top image: The Straits Times
