Many countries still use capital punishment as a means of punishing those who commit serious crimes. Singapore is one of the few countries that apply the death penalty for drug trafficking. This raises many ethical issues, especially in the wake of the recent execution of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a Malaysian who was hanged for smuggling 42.7g of heroin into Singapore. In our opinion, capital punishment for drug trafficking in Singapore has its benefits, and its downsides.
We are all too familiar with the chaos and bloodshed that drugs can bring to society. The Philippines is a country in the region that is well known for rampant drug trafficking and abuse. In 2021, there were about 41.5 thousand cases involving illegal drugs. In an effort to make the Philippines a drug-free nation, former president Rodrigo Duterte ordered the police to carry out numerous drug raids in order to root out illegal drug syndicates and cartels. However, this has resulted in the deaths of upwards of 6000 people over the course of less than a decade. Many human rights groups have criticised Dutere’s policy as inhumane and outright manslaughter, but till this day, the issue of drugs still persists in the Philippines. The Mexican drug war is another example of how society can rapidly decline with the influx of illegal drugs. The numerous cartels in Mexico has led to countless deaths due to clashes between cartels as well as the authorities. To this day, there has been over ten thousand drug-related deaths in Mexico. With the death penalty in Singapore, it acts as the greatest form of deterrence and thus protects our society from plunging into irreversible damage brought about by illicit drug use.
Singapore’s position on capital punishment for drug trafficking has remained rock solid for decades. In an interview for BBC’s HARDtalk programme, when asked about the use of capital punishment in Singapore, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said,
“If we could kill them a hundred times, we would.”
“It’s terrifying to see because you are then drug dependent, you steal, you cheat, you rob your own parents. I mean, it’s so destroying. And they come in knowing that death (awaits them) if they are found with this goods on them, but the rewards are so great. And they try”
“Without capital punishment, our transhipment rate as a drug centre would quadruple or quintuple.”
This emphasises that the reason for capital punishment for drug trafficking on drugs is to deter, not to unethically murder someone. The idea of inflicting capital punishment on criminals who have not committed an act of causing direct harm to another human being may be considered harsh. As such this issue has sparked much debate on whether or not it is ethical to continue this. Singapore’s policy of capital punishment on drug trafficking has been made crystal clear to the world for decades. Anyone who is willing to try and smuggle drugs into the country will know the risks involved, and that should they be caught, only death awaits them. Hence, why should we criticise capital punishment if those traffickers know what the consequences of their actions are? Should they not be the ones to blame for ending up on death row, and not the law that put them there?
However, what if we were to consider the possibility of capital punishment being inflicted uponinnocent people? After all, everyone makes mistakes, and judges are people too. If someone were wrongly accused of committing a serious crime and were sentenced to death, they have no chance of being "revived from the dead'' upon being found innocent. This makes it hard for them to reintegrate back into society and live out the life they deserve. Or if they were on death row and suddenly freed, the mental trauma and torture from the near-death experience could ruin their lives forever. Carlos DeLuna, charged with the death penalty on 6 years of death row for homicide. He was wrongly accused just because he matched the description of "Hispanic male wearing a grey sweatshirt" given by an eyewitness. With little to no other evidence against him, an innocent man was still sentenced to death. Evidence revealed that 4% of death row inmates may have been unjustly accused, which is still 4% too many.
Sunny Jacobs and her husband were another pair that were victims of this. They were eventually proven innocent, but only after Jacobs served 17 years on death row while her husband death by electrocution. Having lost everything and left without compensation, she was strewn alone to struggle and return to "normal", however that may be. All these bloodshed and problematic issues come in contrast with those wrongly accused without being sentenced to death. If killing the perpetrators of harsh crimes are worth destroying innocent lives, capital punishment may actually be worth it. However, if we were to reconsider the root of the problem, what is the point of killing the (supposedly) guilty? If it were for the people, we should think about the people who may be innocent. Instead of simply righting wrongs with more wrongs, we might be worsening the situation altogether.
Imposing the death penalty on a person ultimately destroys their hopes of changing their mindset and attitude. There is no chance of hope of a better future. In Singapore, there is a chance that the sentencing can be reconsidered, and changed to life imprisonment instead. The court considers the factual circumstances and evidence, in order to ensure that the ruling is as fair as possible. People require a space to grow and change after they have made a mistake, because they would have to readjust their values in order to become better people. If people are simply being condemned for a crime they committed in the spur of the moment, they are unable to prove that they have changed, since they already know how their life will end. As such, by allowing the conversion of a death sentence to a life sentence on a case-by-case basis, Singapore gives the criminals a chance to learn from their mistakes. With this, they are still able to live out their life, but also live with the consequences of their actions. The helplessness felt by not only the criminals but also their family members may result in them resenting the system. Often, most crimes committed that warrant the death penalty in Singapore are drug-related. Although capital punishment has been thought to be highly effective in crime prevention, it is only by giving everyone a chance to change, that the society can progress further. It would be wrong to not punish criminals at all, however condemning them completely without a chance for change would cause them to resent the system hence is not entirely effective in crime deterrence. As such, a balance is important so that people would respect the law and also trust in the government to uphold justice.
In conclusion, capital punishment serves to function as a double edged sword, necessary to maintain the law and order in a country. Whether or not it is too harsh is a contentious issue, sparking much debate.
Written by: Lim An Yik (22S7C), Peh Jia Qian (22S6B), Arissa Ho Shu-En (22S78)
Edited by: Ng Chen Fong (22S63)
杀一儆百