SINGAPOREANS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY

We must not lose sight of the value and sanctity of life even as we calibrate the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between those who commit serious crimes, and the victims and their families, and the rest of society.

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/take-more-balanced-broader-view-on-capital-punishment-singapore/3147244.html

Take more balanced, broader view on capital punishment: Singapore Foreign Minister at UN

Posted 22 Sep 2016 18:47

Updated 22 Sep 2016 18:50

NEW YORK: Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on Wednesday (Sep 21) urged countries to take a "more balanced, broader assessment" of the death penalty, as he outlined Singapore's approach to capital punishment.

He was speaking at a high-level event on the sidelines of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in New York, where representatives from countries like Italy noted the "clear international trend in favour of the moratorium" on capital punishment while calling for a "constant effort to listen to those who hold a different position".

In his speech, Dr Balakrishnan acknowledged Italy's intention to promote debate. "I think our starting shared position has to be that all human life is sacred," he said, adding that the question was "whether the death penalty, in the proper context and in strictly limited circumstances, plays any role in protecting the sanctity of life". 

"In Singapore, where I come from, the death penalty remains on our statutes," he said. "But it is applied only and strictly in the context of an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

"In fact, you could argue that a prerequisite is an unwavering commitment to the rule of law, resting on a strong and independent judiciary. There must be fair and transparent laws and due process ... Capital punishment is carried out only after due judicial process and in accordance with the law.

"As a result, for what it is worth, I can stand here and tell you that Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world. Our residents, including women and children, can go anywhere they please, freely and without fear, at any time of the day or night."

Dr Balakrishnan went on to explain how capital punishment for drug-related offences and for murder has been a key element in keeping Singapore drug-free and safe. "Singapore is probably one of the few countries in the world which has successfully fought this drug problem. And we do not have slums, we do not have ghettos, we do not have no-go zones for the police. 

"The death penalty has deterred major drug syndicates from establishing themselves in Singapore, and we have successfully kept the drug situation under control."

Dr Balakrishnan also noted that Singapore has "very high levels of support on the part of (its) people for the death penalty to remain on (its) books".

"But we do not take this support for granted and from time to time, we will continue to review our legislation and make changes according to our circumstances," he said. 

- CNA/dt

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/maintaining-the-legitimacy-of-capital-punishment-in-spore

Maintaining the legitimacy of capital punishment in S'pore

Eugene K. B. Tan For The Straits Times

Published

Oct 3, 2016, 5:00 am SGT

S'pore's stance on the death penalty still firm, yet has also evolved, with the introduction of discretionary regime

In clockwork fashion since 2008, the United Nations General Assembly has deliberated every two years the question of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to abolishing it. As the death penalty remains in our statutes, Singapore is a prominent retentionist state in the serious debate on the death penalty.

Last month, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan put forth Singapore's "contrarian views" on the death penalty at a high-level side event at the assembly.

Noting that the debate is a "heated, painful and emotional one", he affirmed Singapore's belief that "all human life is sacred" and the paramount objective to protect all human life.

Like his predecessor in 2014, he posited that the relevant question in the debate on the death penalty was "whether in very limited circumstances, it is legitimate to have the death penalty so that the larger interest of society is served".

Thus, the rights of the offenders must be weighed against the rights of the victims and their families, and the "broader rights of the community and society to live in peace and security".

Dr Balakrishnan stated that capital punishment for certain drug-related offences and for murder is a "key element" in keeping Singapore drug-free and safe. He reiterated that every state has the sovereign right and duty "to decide for itself what works, and to take into account its own circumstances".

Singapore's position on the death penalty is more nuanced than the abolitionists' austere characterisation of states that retain it as essentially having an abiding commitment to the death penalty. In 2012, Parliament made significant amendments to the Penal Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act, marking a shift from the longstanding mandatory to a discretionary death penalty system.

In murder where the killing was unintentional, the court has the discretion to sentence the accused to death or life imprisonment. The court may also order caning in cases where the sentence is life imprisonment.

Similarly, the Act provides that if a person was convicted of drug trafficking, the death penalty would not be imposed if two conditions are fulfilled. First, he must have only been a courier, not involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of drugs. Second, he had substantively cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau, or he has a mental disability, which substantially impaired his appreciation of the gravity of drug trafficking.

These amendments do not lessen the severity of drug trafficking offences. They, however, recognise that couriers, a crucial part of the illicit drugs supply chain, are morally less culpable than the drug syndicate leaders who direct drug couriers. Executing drug mules will not deal with the root causes of the serious crime of drug trafficking.

The Government has determined that the mandatory death penalty (MDP) may not be needed for all types of serious crimes. This is an important first step, notwithstanding the attraction and force of the MDP was its unequivocal demonstration of zero tolerance and resolve in maximum deterrence.

Yet, the shift to the discretionary death penalty regime should not be misconstrued as Singapore letting up on drug trafficking and murders. Instead, this shift was necessary to retain public confidence and legitimacy in our administration of criminal justice.

Giving our Supreme Court judges the discretion in sentencing empowers them to weigh the relevant factors and the mitigating circumstances, and to individualise sentencing. By tempering justice with mercy, the punishment meted out can better fit the crime, and offenders given a second chance in appropriate cases.

To be sure, there are increasing - and more strident - calls for the complete abolishment of the death penalty. In the past few years, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has urged UN member states to consider whether the death penalty fails to respect the inherent dignity of the person, causes severe mental and physical pain and suffering, and amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

Singapore has rejected the link between the death penalty and torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The European Union and the UN have called for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The moratorium has gained traction, as shown by the voting records at the UN assembly. In 2014, the draft on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty was adopted with a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 37 against, with 34 abstentions. In 2012, it was 110-39-36. In 2010, it was 107-38-36.

Singapore has consistently voted against the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

Besides Singapore, the list of retentionist states include Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Nevertheless, Singapore has not ignored or disregarded the international developments. While there is still no international consensus against the death penalty, the list of abolitionist states grows slowly but surely, suggesting that there might be inexorable movement towards its abolition.

Singapore's execution figures have declined significantly since the 1990s but the overall crime situation has not worsened; in many respects, it has improved. Could our tough stance on crime continue to work well without the death penalty?

Given the conflicting empirical data elsewhere, however, both abolitionists and retentionists have immense difficulties proving their case persuasively and compellingly. Statistics alone will not resolve the deep divide between the two camps.

The Singapore Court of Appeal has consistently ruled that the MDP is constitutional and not in breach of the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Singapore Constitution. On whether capital punishment legislation should be modified or repealed, it took the view that these "policy issues… in the exercise of its legislative powers… is for Parliament, and not the courts, to decide on the appropriateness or suitability of the MDP as a form of punishment for serious criminal offences".

I regard the discretionary death penalty regime as a determined expression at maintaining the legitimacy of our capital punishment regime. More significantly, it manifests our ability to get out of the force of habit, convenience, and reliance on our long-held dogma that the MDP is necessary to deal with the most serious crimes.

There is, as yet, no public clamour in Singapore for abolishing the death penalty. While there is no authoritative study on public attitudes towards the death penalty, various past surveys point to support for its retention. There appears to be healthy public trust and confidence that the death penalty regime in Singapore has the requisite deterrent effect on criminals and has sufficient safeguards.

Nonetheless, the authorities face the continuing imperative of demonstrating that the death penalty regime works well and is in accord with societal values and norms. In this regard, we must not lose sight of the value and sanctity of life even as we calibrate the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between those who commit serious crimes, and the victims and their families, and the rest of society.

Regular and robust reviews are necessary to evaluate the need and use of the death penalty as an integral part of the administration of criminal justice in Singapore.

Our no-nonsense approach towards crime has made security and order defining features of our society.

Keeping our criminal justice system relevant and legitimate in the face of changing realities and the rapidly evolving crime situation is vital in maintaining public confidence, while also keeping faith with the values that Singaporeans regard as important.

•The writer is associate professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.

INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/80-per-cent-singaporeans-in-reach-survey-say-the-death-penalty-should-be-retained

80 per cent Singaporeans in Reach survey say the death penalty should be retained

A survey by Reach of 1,160 Singapore residents found that 80 per cent felt the death penalty should be retained. PHOTO: BERITA HARIAN FILE

  

Published

Oct 6, 2016, 5:49 pm SGT

SINGAPORE - An overwhelming majority of Singapore residents support the death penalty, according to a survey by government feedback agency Reach released on Thursday (Oct 6).

The survey found that 80 per cent of Singapore residents felt the death penalty should be retained. A total of 1,160 residents were randomly selected for the survey, which was carried out through the phone.

Only 10 per cent said the death penalty should be abolished and the remaining 10 per cent did not give a definitive answer or refused to answer.

In Singapore, capital punishment is mandatory for offences that include first-degree murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking above a certain quantity. In 2012, Parliament made significant changes to the Penal Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act, changing its policy from mandatory to discretionary capital punishment.

In cases of murder where the killing was unintentional, there is now the discretion to sentence the perpetrator to death or life imprisonment. Caning may also be ordered in cases where the sentence is life imprisonment.

According to the survey, there is widespread general support for the death penalty system, with 57 per cent outrightly supporting death penalty and 80 per cent of residents generally supporting the notion. In addition, 23 per cent said "it depends" and 13 per cent opposed it.

Those with higher education qualifications were more in support for the death penalty. Among those with a university and postgraduate qualification, 68 per cent supported the death penalty, while the number of polytechnic and and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) graduates who support the death penalty is 62 per cent and 50 per cent respectively.

Among those those with primary school qualifications and below, 54 per cent support the death penalty.

A majority, or 82 per cent of those polled, agreed that the death penalty is an important deterrent that has helped to keep Singapore safe from serious crimes.

The survey also found that 81 per cent of those who generally supported the death penalty voted for the death penalty to be used as a punishment for murder; this was 78 per cent for using a firearm to commit a serious offence; 74 per cent for arms trafficking and 67 per cent for drug trafficking.