71% in favour of Death Penalty, but ...
-
Hey pple,
read TNP yet? The tabloid did a poll. Apparently, 71% are in favour of the Death Penalty, but only 46% are in favour of it being mandatory. That should send a strogn signal to the government. I concede that removing the Death Penalty as a mandatory penalty is not equal to total abolition of the punishment, but it is at least the first step. And anyway, if we happen to have a merciful CJ and judges, we might in 2025 have our label changed to "abolitionist in practice", and hopefully by then more Singaporeans will understand the cruelty of the Death Penalty, and our dear country will become better in character.
the (hopeful) pikamaster -
When there are direct flights between yangoon and khnom penh to cities in australia, there would be no more risk of singapore becoming a drug transit center.
By then there will be no need for mandatory death penalty.
I sure hope it happens sooner than 2025. -
Yes, supported by the people that death penalty should not be made mandatory, it will be one good move to change the character of our government. It will be a big step forward.Originally posted by pikamaster:Hey pple,
read TNP yet? The tabloid did a poll. Apparently, 71% are in favour of the Death Penalty, but only 46% are in favour of it being mandatory. That should send a strogn signal to the government. I concede that removing the Death Penalty as a mandatory penalty is not equal to total abolition of the punishment, but it is at least the first step. And anyway, if we happen to have a merciful CJ and judges, we might in 2025 have our label changed to "abolitionist in practice", and hopefully by then more Singaporeans will understand the cruelty of the Death Penalty, and our dear country will become better in character.
the (hopeful) pikamaster -
Is it supposed to be wise to change laws according to popular polls?
-
71% of singaporeans or 71% of people polled?
-
I suppose we take the people polled as a representative proportion of Singaporeans...Originally posted by laurence82:71% of singaporeans or 71% of people polled? -
That's how quite a few democratic countries do it, including our model Switzerland. After all, it should be the people decideing how their country should be run.Originally posted by Li Ka Shing:Is it supposed to be wise to change laws according to popular polls? -
I think you're a little off the mark, unless your defiinition of "flights" is very specific.Originally posted by sgdiehard:When there are direct flights between yangoon and khnom penh to cities in australia, there would be no more risk of singapore becoming a drug transit center.
By then there will be no need for mandatory death penalty.
I sure hope it happens sooner than 2025. -
The poll only 100 ppl, too small
-
i feel they should not imposed death sentence on those caught in transit. it is none of our business if the trafficker wants to bring drugs into another country.
not wanting our airport to become a transit centre is not a good enough reason. -
Good idea! Next time someone is transitting bombs thru here, we'll just let it pass. It's not going to blow up here anyway.Originally posted by dragg:i feel they should not imposed death sentence on those caught in transit. it is none of our business if the trafficker wants to bring drugs into another country.
not wanting our airport to become a transit centre is not a good enough reason. Why should we clean up the dirt for others? They'll just say we're being nosy. -
Strong signals are not sent from the people to the government in this country. It is only a one-way signal from the government to the people.
-
71% of people favour hanging Huang Na's alleged killer?
-
71% of Australians favour the death penalty on the Bali bombers, but not their own.
-
It is sort of contradictory. In favour of the death penalty, yet don't want it to be mandatory.Originally posted by pikamaster:Hey pple,
read TNP yet? The tabloid did a poll. Apparently, 71% are in favour of the Death Penalty, but only 46% are in favour of it being mandatory. That should send a strogn signal to the government. I concede that removing the Death Penalty as a mandatory penalty is not equal to total abolition of the punishment, but it is at least the first step. And anyway, if we happen to have a merciful CJ and judges, we might in 2025 have our label changed to "abolitionist in practice", and hopefully by then more Singaporeans will understand the cruelty of the Death Penalty, and our dear country will become better in character.
the (hopeful) pikamaster -
The masses has spoken (albeit a sample size of 100), do away with the mandatory nature of the death penalty. A referendum could also be held to seek the views of the people
-
There's no contradiction between supporting the death penalty and not supporting its mandatory nature. All it means is that some judgement needs to be exercised when sentences are passed.
Unfortunately, unless some radical fundamental changes are made in Singapore's courts, I doubt this will happen. After all, since even before Yong Pung How took over the bench and announced his mandate, I don't believe there has been any change in the government's policy of making the judicial processes more efficient, which translates into turning it into a rubber-stamp process. Why waste time thinking about something when you can go with a mandatory sentence without a second thought and move on to the next case? -
I don't know. I believe that mandatory sentencing should remain for some capital crimes- armed offences and kidnappings for one. Possesion with intent to distribute could be open for discussion however.
-
I don't find any prolem with the death sentence per se, but what is it about its being mandatory that gives it more deterrent effect than a non-mandatory death sentence? Even if the sentence is not mandatory, if the case is proven the sentence will most likely be passed, so anybody planning to commit the crime will still know what they're in for.
For certain crimes, the nature of the case pretty much determines if the convict's life should be forfeit. For example, there's no reason why someone who's murdered someone in cold blood should be given the benefit he knowingly denied someone else. Such a sentence may be passed if the death penalty exists but is not mandatory.
On the other hand, there's more harm in an inflexible mandatory system than in one where judges are trusted to consider and accommodate for the mitigating circumstances. No system of law is perfect, and as such the only sensible thing to do is to provide leeway for dealing with cases that are not run-of-the-mill. -
As I understand, capital punishment is made mandatory for serious crimes to take the decision on sentence from the judges. The argument against it is that judges should be given leeway to consider litigation and other circumstances. The argument for it is that judges are then free from interference or harassment in their sentences. In Indonesia the religious supporters demonstration outside of courthouse is harassment. We have also seen pressure from Philippines, America (in the case of canning) and Australia on judgment involving their nationals. “Mandatory” ensures that if a minister, a wealthy businessman or even a judge’s grandson were caught trafficking, he meets the hangman.
Death penalty for arms possession, armed robberies and kidnapping appear rather irrelevant now as these crimes are no longer “profitable” relative to the risk involved. And anybody who robs with an arm is likely to be using a toy gun, and kidnappings are committed for other reasons than for ransom of money. I think in these cases, “mandatory” should be abolished for judges to consider the different circumstances. These are no longer syndicate crimes and if the syndicate does exist, they are not likely to threaten and influence judgments.
We can’t say the same for drugs related crime. Illegal drugs abuses are still rampant in the region. Illegal drugs trafficking is a highly profitable business, Singapore remains an attractive transit point in the international drugs network. We should continue to put on the wall “drugs trafficking means death” and stay firm in what we do.
We may, and probably should review the types and amount of illegal drugs involved for mandatory drugs, as I understand cannabis is less addictive now but mixture of ice with certain substances enhances the feeling but becomes 8 times more addictive.
We should never amend, let alone abolish, any or part of our judicial process, under the pressure of foreign bodies, to please the media or politicians, or as a compromise to any ideologies. -
just get Quantas to offer direct flights from yangoon or phnom penh to any city in australia and anbody who wants to bring drugs into australia will not need to transit in singapore. simple enough? We are talking about solving a problem, not just declaring a position.Originally posted by pikamaster:I think you're a little off the mark, unless your defiinition of "flights" is very specific.
I am not surprised that 71% believe in death penalty, I am very surprised that up to 46% of the ppl believe in "mandatory"!! I believe a few documentaries showing the prorblem of drugs abuses during prime time on TV could swing the figure close to 50%.
Abolitionists need to do a lot more about solving the drugs problem if you ever want others to see and support your ideology.