Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
The various dimensions of the drug and death penalty problem
The hanging of Iwuchkwu Amara Tochi has brought about a huge response on blogosphere. Unlike that of the infamous Wee Shu-min issue, the debate has been fairly intellectual, and it’s interesting to see ordinary Singaporeans debating so vigourously over the issue of drugs and the death penalty. I see this as a good thing in that at least some Singaporeans are not only concerned with bread and butter issues, which is a sign that our society is progessing socially.
There are many different discussion threads going on, and if anyone is interested, here are the top 3 discussion threads on blogosphere.
The War on Drugs – The Kway Teow Man, SingaporeAngle
The Death Penalty: Questioning Ourselves - Speranza Nuova, Singapore Angle
Complicity in the senseless murder of a young boy – Zyberzitizen, TheOnlineCitizen
The issue has clearly polarised blogosphere. Some are pro-death penalty in the war on drugs, while others are dead set against the death penalty no matter what. There are so many points and issues involved that its mind boogling to read all of them, so I decided to try and summarise the main points of contention.
Those who are for the death penalty on drugs usually argue from a utilitarian perspective. If it is for the greater good of society to execute a person against his will in order to deter others from committing the same crime, then the execution should go ahead. If a precedent is set and someone gets off the hook, there will be a flood of people who will try their luck to traffick drugs. In waging a war on drugs, being a war, some lives are bound to be sacrificed. Further, the proponents of the death penalty on drugs point out that why are we just considering the trafficker? What about those people whose lives have been destroyed by the traffickers?
Those who argue against the death penalty point out the death penalty is irreversible and innocent lives could be taken. Further, in Singapore, the burden of proof lies on the defendant to prove his innocence due to the presumption of the intention to traffick drugs if one is in possession of certain amounts as stated by law. It’s much easier to land a conviction with the burden of proof on the defendant rather than on the prosecution, and those against the death penalty argue that this is grossly unfair, especially when capital punishment is involved. There is also contention with the mandatory death penalty, which some argue ties the judge’s hands when deciding on an appropriate punishment.
As the debate goes on and people present more and more arguments, the issue becomes more and more grey. Personally, I think that drugs are indeed a menance to society and firm action should be taken. On the other hand, does it necessarily mean that the same standard of punishment be applied to all cases without taking the merit of the case into consideration? Yet, some will argue that if we apply different standards of punishment, where’s the principle of equality? On what basis does one deserve a lesser punishment? This is perhaps why I don’t wish to do law. It’s extremely perplexing to consider all the arguments involved.
Ultimately, if capital punishment indeed PROVES to be effective in curbing drugs, then I agree it should stay. What I think should change however is the blanket punishment of the current law. As an analogy, imagine that we have a law that goes: If you are in possession of a stolen property that’s worth more than $1, your hand must be chopped off as punishment. That being the case, should the hand of a 10 year-old boy who took a CD from the CD-store have his hand chopped off? Or should the hand of a 40 year old man who has been jobless for a year chopped off for stealing 5 packets of instant noodles to feed his starving kid? As much as I dislike the death penalty, I think I can live with a compromise, that is, to give the judge the discretion of what punishment to mete from a range of possible punishments.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 30/01/2007 at 6:05 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
The example you raise vividly depicts the brutality of the punishment. But do you think stealing a CD, or 5 packets of instant noodles, is equivalent in severity to drug trafficking? Although in these examples the penalty of amputation is certainly less severe than death, so one might argue that it is proportionately disproportionate a punishment.
Even then the analogy is inaccurate — since in both cases the amounts would fall within the realm of plausible personal use (i.e. less than 1000 uses / doses), which for drugs would not attract the death penalty in Singapore.
Perhaps the question should be phrased: “Should a 10 year old boy who took 1000 CDs from a CD store have his hand chopped off? Or should the hand of a 40 year old man, jobless for a year, be chopped off for stealing 5000 packets of instant noodles, if he says it was to feed his starving kid?” — still brutal, but is the outrage lesser or the same now?
(Okay, enough kaypoh questions for one evening. Not trying to stir up trouble; just trying to promote clarity of argument…
)
about 3 years ago
Hehe.. thanks for trying to promote the clarity of the argument.
I am not quibbling with the second part that you wrote, but I have a small question. What makes you think that stealing is any less than drug trafficking? Is that an assumption or a fact?
Ultimately, even if we change the analogy to what you proposed, is chopping off a hand brutal under any circumstance? How about doing it in the least painful way (general anaesthesia), just like how hanging is (supposedly) the least painful way to die. Would it be more palatable that way?
about 3 years ago
It’s the difference between taking away someone’s hand forever (barbaric) and taking away someone’s life forever (also barbaric)
about 3 years ago
I think the severity of a crime is more often than not (ideally) judged by the cost and/or potential cost to those whose lives are affected.
And then of course, where the judgment is to be based on potential costs, there comes the consideration of ‘intent’.
With the current situation in place, there is insufficient consideration to the proving of intent, which is why Tochi’s case is a particular flashpoint for many.
about 3 years ago
I don’t have a natural flair for English, so I’ll try to minimize any mistakes and still get my point across.
In my own opinion, the Singapore laws are shaped according to what law makers see as a whole picture. I think it is paramount that we understand why a death sentence is appropriate for drug trafficking as compared to pilfering.
We understand that how drugs affects a man’s health. How easy we get hooked on it, and how expensive it is to get hold of drugs. Anyone can think of the possible implications that will bring if someone is in desperate need for, say Heroin.
We will see further break downs in already broken families. We will see people killing each other for money to get drugs. We will see how people die from withdrawal effects because they couldn’t curb their kicks. We see suffering. We see social instability.
Many may agree that it is for greater good, but we failed to see how this greater good is being achieved through smaller success in certain policies that are implemented in the first place.
Take an example. We are able to walk alone in the nights because there are lesser crime rates in Singapore. Crimes didn’t happen because they didn’t have to, not because they aren’t present.
Robberies, thefts and kidnaps are mostly motivated because of money. And the demand of drugs demand for cash. We can see that it’s a chain of effects which many will agree that they aren’t far-fetched.
Strict law enforcements are there not because we want to keep Singapore being a fine city, but more importantly, a safer one.
I must agree with Aaron that Tochi’s case indeed has a valid mitigating factor to consider. However, I still stand firm to strict captial punishment. What was lacking in his case was perhaps the absence of substantial evidence to prove his intent. And having said that, since all pieces of evidence point against him, it was a necessary move to sentence him to dealth.
It was hard to decide if Tochi was really unaware of the heroin. What would you do to prove your innocence if you were him? Because seriously, I don’t know. How to you prove that there isn’t a bomb found in your residence if police raided your house and manage to find one because of a tip off?
Cry foul? Doubt so.
In his case, it’s really guilty unless proven innocent.
about 3 years ago
[Tried to post this earlier but my browser may have had a glitch, or the post may have been eaten by your spam filter.]
“What makes you think that stealing is any less than drug trafficking? Is that an assumption or a fact?”
Well, in the list of possible crimes, drug trafficking would be worse than stealing, because:
- Drugs create their own demand. While the initial choice to use them may be voluntary, their addictive nature removes free choice from the user.
- Because they create their own demand, they at the very least are linked (if not causative of) to additional crime and hardship, as a White House report and United Kingdom Home Office webpage state.
- The nature of injectable drug administration, unlike theft, contributes to the HIV/AIDS problem, as stated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
- Unlike stealing, the problem of drug trafficking has become the subject of International Conventions and hundreds of United Nations resolutions and reports.
To return to your question on whether drug trafficking and stealing are functionally or morally equivalent, I (and possibly even the staunchest opponents of the death penalty for drug trafficking) would have to say they are not equal.
A highly addictive drug instils in its user the equivalent of unsatiable hunger. Your 40-year old jobless man, if he were a drug addict, might steal from even his own family [see this UK Hansard link for a UK parliamentary debate citing such instances], and where would his starving kid be then?
Or, to put it differently, drug addiction deprives men and women of their dignity. It strips them of their free will — which is why those who successfully beat addiction are as respected as they are rarities.
We often criticise our Gahmen for being authoritarian. But even the most authoritarian government in the world cannot take a man’s freedom of thought. Drug addiction can.
about 3 years ago
Speranza Nuova,
Your addiction argument is fair enough. The next thing I wonder is that since drugs are no good for the human health since they are addictive and deprivation of drugs can lead the abuser to do extreme things, what about other addictive things like gambling? Maybe we should also hang those that organise gambling sessions because they, like drug lords, destroy families through borrowing from loan sharks etc. Maybe stealing wasn’t testy enough for some real mental exercise.
Thanks for doing the homework though. You have been very kind to help bring up more issues for further critical thinking. Really appreciate it.
about 3 years ago
Kwok Heng,
It might be of interest to you that the concept of intent, which we probably cannot do without these days isn’t something very old. I was taught that intent was a product of Enlightenment thought. Prior to that, nobody knows of the concept of intent. Everything was judged by the final action.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for rescuing my comment post from the depths of spam-filterdom.
Taking up the question of gambling vs drugs, you are correct in that both are addictive. The distinction is in mechanism and extent.
The mechanism of addictive drugs is that they act directly on the chemicals of the brain and body. In short, they mess around with the very cells and electrical impulses that make up your brain and shape your consciousness.
Gambling may give a thrill, but it does not have the same addictive potential, for the above reasons: even the most exciting million-dollar royal flush will not alter brain chemistry as a drug can. Hence gambling and sex addictions are less common – and easier to treat – than drug addiction.
This is also why drug addiction is so hard to overcome: the very biochemical basis of human desire and volitional will has been subjugated and perverted.
Granted the human spirit is more than the sum of cells and electrical impulses and biochemicals — but it sure doesn’t help the integrity of that spirit when the physical infrastructure for its mortal existence has been corrupted by drugs.
about 3 years ago
Aaron:
Yes. But so long as something is utilised in argumentation or drafting of something like law, then it’d have to be considered.
Anyway, I like what Speranza Nuova said about the difference between gambling and drug addiction.
I don’t know about all these drug thingies… But the other thing about gambling vs. drug-use is that there’re more factors that inhibit ‘pleasure’ associated with gambling as opposed to drug.
The ‘pleasure’ obtained from gambling is more or less mediated by chance. The ‘pleasure’ obtained from drugs is more or less definite. So the distinction between the two is also about the immediacy of the what the user gains from it.
The other thing is consider is opportunity-for-use. There are more opportunities for drug use than there are for gambling.
It’s not uncommon to smell someone smoking pot in place of cigarettes in Melbourne’s bars and cafes.
about 3 years ago
see.