[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

November 4




MALAYSIA:

Malaysia should abolish the death penalty entirely without delay


The recent announcement by the Malaysian government to abolish the death 
penalty has received divisive responses – on one hand, it was hailed by human 
rights advocates but on the other, it seems to be opposed by the general 
Malaysian public.

Even though there are many voices in urging the government to review this move 
and to listen to views of the majority of the people, the government 
shouldabolish the death penalty in its totality and it should be abolished now. 
This is because the death penalty goes against the most basic and fundamental 
right – the right to life. And in fact, we were already late in this as there 
are 106 countries which have abolished the death penalty.

Death penalty and deterrence

Many have argued that by doing away with death penalty, we will see the rise in 
crimes, especially heinous crimes like murder. However, studies after studies 
have shown that death penalty does not deter crimes more effectively than 
prison sentence. In fact, they reveal otherwise. According to Amnesty 
International, Canada since abolishing the death penalty in 1976, its murder 
rate has steadily declined and as of 2016 was at its lowest since 1966.

A study conducted in 2008 in the United States which was published in the 
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology further found that 88 per cent of the 
nation’s leading criminologists do not believe that death penalty is an 
effective deterrent to crime.

Back to Malaysia, we have had death penalty for drug offences since 1975 and in 
1983, we even made it mandatory for drug trafficking. The question is, was it 
effective? For us to say that by abolishing the death penalty would result in 
the increase of serious crimes would therefore be too simplistic and would in 
fact blind us from other more relevant factors and causes of such crimes.

Justice for victims and families

Others have argued that justice will only be served if those criminals 
especially murderers were being put to death for taking the lives of others. 
For those advocating for the abolition of death penalty would often be asked 
the question “What if it was your loved one being killed or raped?”. In all 
honesty, the very first answer or reaction that came to mind for most people, 
if not all, would probably be for the murderers or rapists to be killed! In 
fact, the late Karpal Singh who was a leading opponent of death penalty has 
once suggested for child rapists to be sentenced to death.

The topic of death penalty is indeed a difficult one as it cannot be debated 
without involving emotions. Only those victims and their families would be able 
to understand the pain and sufferings. However, if we were to look at this 
again rationally, we will realise thatwhat we are actually talking about is not 
justice but mere vengeance. Wanting to seek for vengeance can be understood but 
cannot and should not be accepted and be made into a policy of a civilised 
society. If we are going to live in a society of “an eye for an eye” by 
imposing death on murderers who took the lives of our loved ones away, are we 
then going to rape the rapists, assault those who have assaulted us and so 
forth? And if for any reason, a murderer managed to escape the law, are we then 
going to condone extrajudicial killing just so “justice” is served?

Wrongful convictions

We have to accept that no one and no system in world is perfect and not 
infallible. If a study in 2014 is right, then at least 4.1 per cent of all 
people who receive the death penalty in the United States are innocent. Even if 
one were to argue that the United States’ justice system is different than 
Malaysia’s and our justice system is better, then let us not forget Malaysia’s 
classic case of S. Karthigesu, who was probably the lucky amongst the unlucky 
ones. Therefore, even if we are going on with the assumption that our rate of 
wrongful convictions is merely 1 per cent, it will still mean that there would 
probably be at least 12 out of the 1267 inmates currently on the death row are 
innocent. And that is only on the assumption that the rate is 1 per cent and it 
does not include those who have been executed.

The death penalty has to be abolished in its entirety because by doing away 
with mandatory death penalty alone but retaining discretionary death penalty 
would not totally eliminate the possibility of innocent people being sent to 
the gallows as it would at its best reduce the number. The thought of having 
even one innocent person who could be wrongly executed should make us feel 
sick. If not, then we might be no different than those murderers whom we 
condemned as we are allowing innocent persons to be killed. Remember, that one 
person is also someone’s parent, child, sibling, spouse, relative or friend. 
And that one person could be our loved ones. When we talk about “justice” for 
the victims and their families, what about justice for those innocents who been 
wrongly convicted and executed and their families?

When an innocent person is being executed, the responsibility does not lie 
solely on the judge but the whole society will have to share that 
responsibility as we were the ones who allowed it to happen. To put it crudely, 
our hands will be (or would in fact, have been) stained with bloods of 
innocents.

Make the right decision

In discussing and deciding whether to retain or abolish the death penalty, it 
is important that we look at this issue rationally and ask ourselves two simple 
and basic questions – “What are the aims/goals of sentencing?” and “Does death 
sentence meets these aims/goals?”. If we accept that death penalty is not an 
effective deterrent to crimes and justice would not be served, then the only 
plausible argument left is incapacitation.

While there are many who have been executed or currently on death row deserve 
second chance, it is undeniable that there are some who would probably not 
going to repent or would be a danger to the public and should be incapacitated 
– so that they would no longer be able to commit crimes. However, if we can 
meet the goal of incapacitation by keeping them safely away from the public 
with life imprisonment or imprisonment for life, why should we retain the death 
penalty? If one were going to argue that it would cost us less by sending 
someone to the gallows than keeping them for life, then perhaps that is the 
price that we should pay and it would be worth paying if we can ensure that no 
innocent person would be executed (notwithstanding the fact that some studies 
have also shown that death penalty would cost more).

The move to abolish death penalty might not be a popular one but it is 
definitely a right move and the Malaysian government and lawmakers have the 
responsibility of making the right decision for the public. Also, only by 
abolishing the death penalty in its entirety would give us the moral authority 
to save Malaysians abroad who areon death rows but deserve a second chance.

(source: Opinion; Tan Chong Yan, malaymail.com)



*******************


‘Death penalty should be an option for deserving crimes’


On the other side of the coin, some believe the death sentence is still needed 
to deter crimes.

Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong says the penalty should remain, but only as an 
option for crimes that warrant a heavier sentence.

“It is imposed as a deterrent punishment while justice calls for punishment 
that befits the crime.

I maintain that engagement with relevant groups must be carried out to collect 
views on capital punishment,” says the Ayer Hitam MP.

Elaborating, Dr Wee points out that the mandatory death penalty for drug 
offences was removed following an amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act last 
year.

Instead, it was replaced with options: the death penalty or imprisonment for 
life and whipping of not less than 15 strokes.

“This has given wider room for judges to decide the sentences of drug 
offenders, based on the facts of each case, whilst maintaining the deterrent 
death penalty,” he says.

Dr Wee urges Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Liew Vui 
Keong to discuss with judges on more changes to the law, if he claims judges 
are bound by conditions.

“If so, please discuss further amendments instead of removing death penalty 
from the options without consulting stakeholders,” he adds.

Dr Wee reiterates that a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) be set up to 
listen to different views to weigh the issue carefully.

“To address the murder rate, a combination of efforts like effective policing, 
accessible public health system and unemployment solutions should be looked 
into,” he says.

Former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan says the death sentence 
should remain as the answer to serious crimes that can damage the country and 
society.

“In cases like murder, waging war and terrorism, the death sentence is needed 
to deter others from being involved,” he says.

He points out that we cannot ignore crimes that can harm society and cause 
significant social problems.

“Capital punishment will be a deterrent. But at the same time, we must ensure 
the rule of law is observed because we don’t want innocent people to be 
prosecuted and executed.

“The more serious the punishment, the more the rule of law must apply,” Musa 
stresses.

But prevention is always better than cure, and he believes more efforts to 
educate the public and inculcate a respect for the law must also be done.

“If we don’t educate our people well, they will spiral down and get themselves 
involved in wrongful activities,” he says.

Neither for nor against the death penalty, Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation 
senior vice-chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye suggests that a national referendum 
be held to gauge what Malaysians think.

“It is important to get the feedback from the public. This is an issue of great 
importance which involves human lives.

“If the government feels a national referendum isn’t necessary, the least they 
can do is to form a PSC made up of MPs from both sides,” he proposes.

Because the death penalty can be contentious, Lee urges the government to be 
cautious and consider all sides of the argument.

“For now, I am neither supporting nor opposing the death penalty.

“But we must provide an opportunity for the people to have their say and be 
prepared for their answer,” he says.

(source: thestar.com.my)