Law Society : Give judges leeway to set aside death penalty
-
Give judges leeway to set aside death penalty
Proposal comes from Law Society, which also wants homosexual acts among consenting men decriminalised
Apr 5, 2007
AsiaOne
The Law Society wants judges to be given the discretion to either sentence offenders to death or to a jail term instead of the mandatory death penalty for crimes such as murder.
This is a key plank in the Law Society's response to proposed changes to the Penal Code by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), according to a report in The Straits Times today.
Judges must now impose the death penalty for all capital punishment cases if a person is convicted.
It is understood that her claims are still being verified.
The Law Society also made other proposals in a 55-page report which was drafted by an ad-hoc committee of 16 lawyers and academics, and endorsed by its council. Another key change calls for homosexual acts among consenting men to be decriminalised.
The society's views which was submitted to the MHA on Friday, were drawn up after being invited by Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs and Law) Ho Peng Kee to study the proposed changes last November..
This report was posted on its website on Tuesday.
In arguing for discretion to be given to judges in dealing with capital punishment cases, the society pointed to a new law mooted by the ministry, which deals with hostage-takers who hold the government or others ransom.
The ministry proposed that a person convicted of breaking this law will be punished by the death penalty or a jail term extending to life and caning or a fine.
The Law Society proposed that this discretion be extended to all capital offences.
It argued that changing the mandatory death penalty for capital offences will not lead to a reduction in deterrance.
"This flexibility in sentencing humanises the law and reflects the evolving standards of decency in Singapore society", said the report.
In addition, the society said that MHA's proposal to retain homosexuality as an offence in Section 377A "cannot be justified". Section 377 of the Penal Code deals with sexual acts "against the order of nature".
It described that the such a retention as "out of step with legal norms in the modern law".
However, the Law Society emphasised that it was not arguing that homosexuality is morally approved, and added that while a "significant minority" wanted the provision to remain, the majority view prevailed.
The MHA's approach is that homosexuality is not widely approved in this society. As such, the ministry has said that it will not be "proactive" in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.
However, the Law Society perceives this as an acknowledgment that the section is 'out-of-step' and 'runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'. Thus, it suggests a through review as well as a new chapter in the Penal Code on sexual offences.
Besides expressing its gratitude that the MHA consulted both the public and it, the Law Society also urged the creation of a commission to review the reforms.
An MHA spokesman yesterday said that all views received were being studied.
--
http://news.asiaone.com/a1news/20070405_story5_1.html
Finally, at last there is some debate in the official sense about the unethical nature of mandatory death penalty. -
many laws r outdated in singapore. but again it is still run by 1st generation politician so it will take time to let go.
-
-
Surprised?Originally posted by WiNtEr'SkiLL:
This was rumoured to be one of the key points the Law Society will press for a few months back, after the huge debate stirred up by the Nguyen and Took hangings.
Philip Jeyaratnam is quite smart, these moves are not something light. -
clemency ftw?
-
yeah we should do away with legalized murder
but i seriously doubt if any local judge will choose death penalty over life imprisonment
-
Our abhorrence of death by stoning in the islamic countries, is the equivalent of the western civilsations abhorrence of our archaic draconian capital punishments.
Who gave you the right to take another person's life, when the life does not belong to you. If the person is dangerous, just isolate him, killing him won't bring back ab initio. -
I still believe in the death penalty and other hard measures ....
but I ask that it be applied equally ...
why do we have on one hand some poor bastard hung for smuggling drugs and on the other, the ringleaders of drug rings allowed to conveniently "go overseas for treatment, holiday etc" ... (remember the high society drug case ? ) ...
I'm no lawyer, but I do know that the law should be blind ... but it seems to me that it's only selectively so .... -
The question of whether we should keep or abolish the death penalty, can only be dealt with when we have revoked mandatory capital punishment, and return to the judge that discretionary power that was once in the hands of Parliament.
-
Ooooh....becareful you are touching on a sensitive area....not sure if Singaproean understand what this impact.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The question of whether we should keep or abolish the death penalty, can only be dealt with when we have revoked mandatory capital punishment, and return to the judge that discretionary power that was once in the hands of Parliament.
In the long run I do hope that the Singapore law society can be a voice in between judicial system and parlimentary system. We need a Voice somewhere in between since chief justice are political appointee. -
Sensitive? Heh. It's not sensitive at all. Personally, I believe that legislation should not over-step judicial discretion. We've gotta always ensure that our judiciary remains amongst the best, and that means finetuning whatever can be finetuned.Originally posted by Arapahoe:Ooooh....becareful you are touching on a sensitive area....not sure if Singaproean understand what this impact.
In the long run I do hope that the Singapore law society can be a voice in between judicial system and parlimentary system. We need a Voice somewhere in between since chief justice are political appointee. -
i think LKY felt threaten by Francis Seow, the then President of Law Society. He have to remove him so that the judicial would not interfer with the parlimentary by law. He probably knows that judicial has the overiding abilities to veto any law pass by the parlimentary of it violate its authority.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Sensitive? Heh. It's not sensitive at all. Personally, I believe that legislation should not over-step judicial discretion. We've gotta always ensure that our judiciary remains amongst the best, and that means finetuning whatever can be finetuned. -
Yeap.Originally posted by Arapahoe:i think LKY felt threaten by Francis Seow, the then President of Law Society. He have to remove him so that the judicial would not interfer with the parlimentary by law. He probably knows that judicial has the overiding abilities to veto any law pass by the parlimentary of it violate its authority.
Francis Seow was also Solicitor-General, and rumoured to have been a potential Chief Justice. -
the sad part is that not sure if singaporean do understand whats at stake. And now they can only argued about minister pay raise.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Yeap.
Francis Seow was also Solicitor-General, and rumoured to have been a potential Chief Justice. -
Fully agree.....cannot see the local and malaysian drugs traffickers hanged silently while those holding australian and US passports get tremendous support, international and local, to undermine the sentence, even after judgements have been passed.Originally posted by Fatum:I still believe in the death penalty and other hard measures ....
but I ask that it be applied equally ...
why do we have on one hand some poor bastard hung for smuggling drugs and on the other, the ringleaders of drug rings allowed to conveniently "go overseas for treatment, holiday etc" ... (remember the high society drug case ? ) ...
I'm no lawyer, but I do know that the law should be blind ... but it seems to me that it's only selectively so ....
Can our judicial system be totally independent of political influence? can our judges exercise their judgement based on law but take into consideration appropriately, any other factors? Can we count on solely the judges to decide on the life and death of those convicted? Is the law society giving more power to the judges or are they targetting at some inadequacy of the existing system?
I no lawyer also, hard to say which is better. Just have to make sure that my children will never have to be anywhere near... -
I wun say it's barbaric to hang...
But the thing like for Took's case, there was a doubt by one of the judges...
The majority case should also be reviewed..
Another thing is regarding mandatory caning sentences... Sometimes it does not act as a deterrent as some would still repeat the offence -
In the first place, how confident are the locals in the police and judiciary?
-
Regardless of the confidence levels, both the police and judiciary have to exist side by side, and ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.Originally posted by iveco:In the first place, how confident are the locals in the police and judiciary? -
In the first place, media laws have to go. The State's Times must become like those run my Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Regardless of the confidence levels, both the police and judiciary have to exist side by side, and ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.