In memory of Shanmugam Murugesu
-
Yes, and that is something I love to see here.Originally posted by ceecookie:Of course,IMO i would be proud to see the wretched flag here being replaced by the American flag.
5 stars in a circle represents the devil. Wonder if anyone heard of this saying. -
the book:
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleravibookreview.html
exact words:
“Is he still maintaining that an innocent man can be hanged because of procedure?”
“Yes, the answer is yes.”
-
IT IS dead.Originally posted by nubcake:This is singapore dude. Its our law.
Though sometimes i agree tt our law is dead. it does not feel for the ppl.
Civil Servants have no EQ at all. Agree?
And you know that fat indian guy in the Istana once worked for the Japanese during World War II in Singapore. Don't you?
Because, when you say 'we are all human beings', maybe it will work in reminding the guys at the top about what's below them.
It is situations like this in which we need to be reminded of who we truly are.During World War II, Nathan met Urmila, his future wife. Through the gift of an English-Japanese dictionary, he gained an understanding of the Japanese language which landed him the position of translator, then interpreter and finally a post linked to a top official in the Japanese civilian police.
[/quote] -
Yes there is.Originally posted by Meat Pao:Hello Lazerlords.....
I dont understand ur point about the legislature and the judiciary...
All laws are made by the legislature....all sentencing are carried out by the courts.....the judiciary....correct? In most countries in the world, this is how the system works, correct?
So... , what is the difference with this law? With the death penalty?
If the legislative body drafted and passed a law.....and then it become a law......and the judiciary act on it.....what is wrong with that?
The legislature is overstepping its boundary? It would create unjustice? Why would u say that?
I think the parliament would really overstep its boundary, if, one day an MP sit on a judge's chair, and then deliver a verdict. That would clearly be fitting the scenario and the image that u paint.
But, if an MP pass a draft, in the parliament, if the parliament make a new law, and then a real judge sitting on a judge chair deliver a verdict, in accordance with that law, there is nothing wrong at all.
Judges dont make laws.....it is the legislators....and legislators dont deliver verdicts....it is the judges.....it has never been confused, and there is no issue here at all.
It's not the death penalty only...many other laws are also made by legislators, and they stipulate the minimum and maximum punishment, and then the judges, they in court, will try to find, whether a person is guilty or not, should be freed or not, or if guilty, what is the suitable punishment in accordance with the law passed by the legislature.
There is no issue here at all.
Meat Pao.
There is a difference between having a maximum and minimum punishment on the books, and having a compulsory punishment on the books.
The latter takes the right of judicial discretion out of the judge's hands, and in the face of mitigating evidence, the judge is HELPLESS to sentence otherwise, especially so if the law states that intent does not matter, and mere possession already counts as guilt.
This opens up a can of worms because by association, Parliament has already indirectly judged a man guilty before a trial can take place.
It is one thing to mistakenly jail a man, it is another to kill another man for a harsher crime than he committed, in the trained eyes of the judge, where procedure and paperwork says he must hang.
If you can handle that kind of blood on your hands, by all means, carry on. For me and many others, we prefer to err on the side of caution. -
No...thats what u totally neglected something....
The judge can find whether an evidence is valid or not.....whether a witness testimony is valid or not....ultimately whether a person is guilty or not.....then, only when someone is found guilty, the judge is giving a verdict in accordance with the law.
Where is the fault in that? Nothing.
You think the judge has less power because of the compulsory punishment?
Why?
Let's say another crime....with the stated punishment of 5 to 10 years.....
Can the judge...find someone guilty....and then sentence him 4 years?
No? So why not u say, in ALL CASES, all judges have their hands tied, because the punishments are described by the legislature?
Do u see what I mean?
The legislature has its part to play, it has its role, and it is entirely within its right, to stipulate what the punishments are. And the judges have their roles to play, to lead the courtroom, to lead the court proceedings, and try to establish whether a person is guilty as charged or not.
There is no issue here at all......I think you are really getting mixed up on this....
Meat Pao. -
I am talking about the mandatory death penalty for drugs.Originally posted by Meat Pao:No...thats what u totally neglected something....
The judge can find whether an evidence is valid or not.....whether a witness testimony is valid or not....ultimately whether a person is guilty or not.....then, only when someone is found guilty, the judge is giving a verdict in accordance with the law.
Where is the fault in that? Nothing.
You think the judge has less power because of the compulsory punishment?
Why?
Let's say another crime....with the stated punishment of 5 to 10 years.....
Can the judge...find someone guilty....and then sentence him 4 years?
No? So why not u say, in ALL CASES, all judges have their hands tied, because the punishments are described by the legislature?
Do u see what I mean?
The legislature has its part to play, it has its role, and it is entirely within its right, to stipulate what the punishments are. And the judges have their roles to play, to lead the courtroom, to lead the court proceedings, and try to establish whether a person is guilty as charged or not.
There is no issue here at all......I think you are really getting mixed up on this....
Meat Pao.
In this case, the judges' hands are pretty much tied.
Go look up the legislation for yourself. -
I get what u mean....
Let's say for another case....another crime...the legislature says....punishment is 5 to 10 years...
A judge finds the person guilty, but alot of mitigating factors....can he give a sentence of 4 years? No.....at least is still 5 years.....if little mitigating factor, or none, then 10 years...
So the range is 5 to 10 years, and this is written by the legislature, as it should be. The judge will carry out the court proceedings......find evidences valid or not.....find witnesses testimonies valid or not....find a person ultimately guilty or not....then if found guilty, he must refer to what is written by the legislature.....5 to 10 years.
Same with this case....drug trafficking....he will carry out court proceedings....find evidences valid or not.....find witnesses testimonies valid or not....find a person ultimately guilty or not....if found guilty, he must refer to what is written by the legislature, minimum death penalty, maximum death penalty.
So....a judge must follow what is written......but in no way the judiciary is getting interfered by the legislature......unless if the legislature writes....for drug trafficking cases, judges can only convene 10 days of court, can only invalidate 1 evidence from prosecutor......things like that... But if there is no such limitations, a judge carrying out the court proceedings of a drug trafficking case, will act in the same way, like in any other cases......
Where is the less power? Why it is said that the legislature is not competent, or will lead to unjustice? Why is that relevant? An MP will not sit there on a judge chair. A real judge will sit there. But the judge dont decide the punishment for a crime, it is decided by the legislature, as with all other cases. The judge just lead the court proceedings, execute the law, follow the books. He is the implementer.
Where is the mix-up? None. Everybody is nicely in their place.
Here is the thing.....some societies think...some crimes are so abhorable....that they must be meted out with the capital punishment...thats why minimum death penalty...maximum death penalty....and a judge...will just follow this...as he should, as a judge...
Thats why....even if someone claim a mitigating factor....of wanting to pay his brother's debt....it still cannot be accepted as a valid reason....for jeopardizing the human rights of many other people....by distributing drugs......that is seen so abhorable....that no mitigating factor is acceptable.....no such thing as mitigating factor.....and thats the view of some societies....and thats reflected in the legislation...and thats carried out by courts....
Everything is in their place.
Meat Pao. -
Saddam Hussein was hanged. For allegations of assisnating 186 people.
-
ok .. i m no lawyer but i'd try to explain things for anyone who doesnt understand. i'm currently studying in australia so i'm not sure if this applies to sg law, but since sg is considered a commonwealth country with english originated laws, i would expect the parliament setup as well as the judiciary setup to be somewhat similar to that of australia's. If i am incorrect, let me know.Originally posted by Meat Pao:I get what u mean....
Let's say for another case....another crime...the legislature says....punishment is 5 to 10 years...
A judge finds the person guilty, but alot of mitigating factors....can he give a sentence of 4 years? No.....at least is still 5 years.....if little mitigating factor, or none, then 10 years...
So the range is 5 to 10 years, and this is written by the legislature, as it should be. The judge will carry out the court proceedings......find evidences valid or not.....find witnesses testimonies valid or not....find a person ultimately guilty or not....then if found guilty, he must refer to what is written by the legislature.....5 to 10 years.
Same with this case....drug trafficking....he will carry out court proceedings....find evidences valid or not.....find witnesses testimonies valid or not....find a person ultimately guilty or not....if found guilty, he must refer to what is written by the legislature, minimum death penalty, maximum death penalty.
So....a judge must follow what is written......but in no way the judiciary is getting interfered by the legislature......unless if the legislature writes....for drug trafficking cases, judges can only convene 10 days of court, can only invalidate 1 evidence from prosecutor......things like that... But if there is no such limitations, a judge carrying out the court proceedings of a drug trafficking case, will act in the same way, like in any other cases......
Where is the less power? Why it is said that the legislature is not competent, or will lead to unjustice? Why is that relevant? An MP will not sit there on a judge chair. A real judge will sit there. But the judge dont decide the punishment for a crime, it is decided by the legislature, as with all other cases. The judge just lead the court proceedings, execute the law, follow the books. He is the implementer.
Where is the mix-up? None. Everybody is nicely in their place.
Here is the thing.....some societies think...some crimes are so abhorable....that they must be meted out with the capital punishment...thats why minimum death penalty...maximum death penalty....and a judge...will just follow this...as he should, as a judge...
Thats why....even if someone claim a mitigating factor....of wanting to pay his brother's debt....it still cannot be accepted as a valid reason....for jeopardizing the human rights of many other people....by distributing drugs......that is seen so abhorable....that no mitigating factor is acceptable.....no such thing as mitigating factor.....and thats the view of some societies....and thats reflected in the legislation...and thats carried out by courts....
Everything is in their place.
Meat Pao.
It is true that Parliament makes law. Judges interpret law. Due to the fact that courtroom time is very precious, sometimes judges have to make assumptions about the law cos it is impossible for laws to fit every case perfectly. ( Rightfully, they can consult Parliament if they are not clear on a certain law) Therefore, it can be said that judges 'make' law as well.
In every case, there's this part called the 'ratio decidendi'. That's the part the judge has to follow. e.g. previous cases of people being convicted of smuggling drugs faced the death penalty, and that particular case was very similar to the one being heard. The judge hence, HAS to follow the previous case ruling. He is not allowed to make his own decisions UNLESS the decision came from a lower court.
However, because there are SO MANY cases heard, it is physically impossible for the judge to follow every ruling. It is therefore, the lawyer's duty to point out to the judge previous cases which bore significant rulings to support the lawyer's cause. Clearly, the judge needs to do his own research as well. But lawyers are the one who point out to the judge previous ratio decidendi decisions which support their arguments. -
Another point I want to highlight. There IS a difference betwen justice and morality. Justice is what the law says, and morality is what you think is right.
TS was arguing morality. Alot of people who didn't share her opinon were arguing justice.
Clearly, justice prevails over morality due to the fact that the law is penned down in black and white. Morality however, can vary from person to person. -
Ai yo...
He break the law and should be punished accordingly. Who ask him to be a smart alex and try to test the system???
Although I admit that the law would be a failure if the punished was innocent in the first place.
Just like you stay in hotel, they also got certain rules like keeping the carpet clean. Failure to do so and leaving unremovable stain would eventually bring a big bill to yourself...
Before you enter into Singapore, you are notify about certain laws and penalty... and yet, he chose to disobey. It sounded like he chose to die if he was discovered unluckily...
-
dinky, why would the alcohol and cigarettes argument not be valid? both alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all harmful. cigarettes and marijuana even have similar methods of consumption.Originally posted by dinky1409:In any case BadzMaro, your argument, from what I had read so far, would be more to why alcohol and cigarettes are not illegal? That would be a different argument in this case. Alcohol and smoking issue would be a different issue. You would agree all these including marijuana is bad. But like I had made my point, just because alcohol and smoking is not illegal, it does not justify the fact that marijuana should be approved upon by the society and the law. If anything is to be argued here, it should be regarding the laws on alcohol and smoking. Its 2 different arguments here, from what I had read so far. Correct me if I'm wrong. I welcome friendly criticisms.
I think Laserlordz brought up a very good point about the legalising of drugs. (though he didn't mean it in that context!!)
has anyone ever considered the fact that part of the reason drugs are so highly prized in singapore is due to economics? Supply and demand. The fact that people have an incentive to smuggle drugs into singapore is because no one wants to do it, and therefore the demand is very high for both drugs, and smugglers.
what if we were to legalise marijuana? That takes the edge off the glamour factor, and drugs like marijuana will become like cigarettes. Legal but harmful. Plus, the government could impose a tax on marijuana sales, and earn revenues from it.
Of course there will be the argument of people suffering from the aftermath of the legalisation of drugs. But if our government finds it economically viable, you think they won't do it? If they can bring a casino, sorry, 2 casinos into singapore, they can pretty much do anything. It's all about the money, isn't it? -
You should read up on the legal process in Singapore. The death penalty is only applied when the evidence is overwhelming and the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I am talking about the mandatory death penalty for drugs. In this case, the judges' hands are pretty much tied.
Go look up the legislation for yourself.
In that situation, a mandatory death penalty provides certainty and consistency in sentencing. -
Legalization of cannabis use for medical reasons has been proposed but so far not accepted both in the US and the UK. The evidence for the use of cannabis in therapy still awaits medical trials. In any case, that argument is a red herring. We have no issue with the legal use of morphine in medical treatment either.Originally posted by coffeegirl:I think this is correct, most of the current activity is aimed at medical legalization. However, it's obvious these patients did not get their first smokes from the government. Consequently they got them from regular users. This indicates that the medical push is just the surface.
I see you all have a strong interest in the law. This site is an organization of numerous American law enforcement officers who disagree:
http://www.leap.cc/
These are just further reasons why the hanging was an atrocious act.
The crux of the matter is that whilst trafficking in an illegal substance is against the laws of the land, should you be advocating that citizens blatantly act against the law? It's probably the effects of cannabis. -
The death penalty should be here to stay.
-
No, you are completely wrong and confused about the roles of the judiciary and the legislature.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Wrong.
The job of the judiciary is to decide the punishment fit for a crime. That's what they are trained to do. I am not going to support legislators and community leaders untrained in jurisprudence to decide on a sentencing policy. It is inherently unjust.
The judiciary's role is to see to the proper application of the the law. Judges do not make the law nor decide how severe a punishment would be appropriate for a particular crime. It is the legislators who have the responsibility and the right to express society's disapproval of any act by enacting laws and regulations. Parliament is right to maintain the mandatory death sentence for serious crimes such as murder and drug trafficking of class A drugs. They reflect the public's sentiments that such crimes should be punished with the ultimate sanction. -
Put simply, judges do not make the law. They make sure that the law is being applied correctly, even if they disagree with it. It is your MPs that have been freely elected by the people who make the laws that reflect the sentiments of the electorate.Originally posted by Meat Pao:This kinda thing is hard to say......those judges, they have their own understanding of what law is...
For instance, many judges...many laws...in the world....are not retroactive....because they dont want to threaten the legal certainty.....
For laymen like us....it can be hard to understand....how can some people commit crimes, but, let's say it was 10 years ago and at that time there was no specific law which covered it, but now there is.......how can that criminal now be let go....where is the justice in it...?
But many judges will say.....yes...cannot....cannot retroactive...
So....it's hard for us laymen to say.....how can that judge say 'Hang for procedure' ......seem so cold.....but what is exactly the reasoning and the background for that? That's what we need to know before we jump to conclusions....
Meat Pao. -
My answer is also yes.Originally posted by snobbish:the book:
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleravibookreview.html
exact words:
“Is he still maintaining that an innocent man can be hanged because of procedure?”
“Yes, the answer is yes.” -
errmmm...morality in the hanging?Originally posted by maxtor:Another point I want to highlight. There IS a difference betwen justice and morality. Justice is what the law says, and morality is what you think is right.
TS was arguing morality. Alot of people who didn't share her opinon were arguing justice.
Clearly, justice prevails over morality due to the fact that the law is penned down in black and white. Morality however, can vary from person to person.
or morality in the consumption/possession of drugs? -
To the TS/person who wrote this article:
Before I begin, "Murder" is such a strong word for you to use. Murder is unlawful killing. Here, Singapore's enforcement of putting someone to death is lawful.
Lets see...
A smuggle drugs "X" into Singapore. A was hanged.
B smuggle drugs "y" into Singapore. B was hanged.
C smuggle drugs "z" into Singapore. C was hanged.
Should Mr Shanmugam Murugesu get an exception just because he has two kids? Hey those other guys had families I bet. Is having two kids a free "get out of jail" card?
Do you want to open a gate to escaping criminal liability (tarnishing Singapore's integrity / sovereignty) that YOU and nobody else can ever close?
Heck, people would be getting away with crimes everyday if that would happen. "ooooh, I have two kids!".
It is a mitigating factor for the judge during sentencing (no doubt), but the principles of law behind it is EQUAL TREATMENT BEFORE THE LAW. And if death is a mandatory penalty, then everyone who commits the prohibited act should be equally punished in that way.
As an American you should be familiar with death being capital punishment in your own country. Here you ask, "hey, its only marijuana".
But in your drug-wracked country, you deal with countless drug related crime seemingly without end. Then consider how it is humane and legal in some states to ask doctors for "voluntary death". You look over to Singapore before considering the laws of your own country. Look how peaceful a country Singapore became, with one of the lowest crime-rate in the world. How ironic for you to point to Singapore's inhumane treatment of felons, when you can't look at your own country's demise and legal misdemeanor.
Yes, it is Marijuana.
Marijuana that represents a prohibited substance which entails capital punishment and Mr Shanmugam Murugesu knew the risk of smuggling them here. It is reasonable to believe he virtually foreseen such consequence if anything went wrong. He took that risk, and now, the house wants to claim. Guess he should have taken the law seriously BEFORE you thought of doing something illegal.
And, if you're actually one of those self-proclaimed "activist", go study basic political science and law and the reason and principles behind prohibitions in any country. Self-proclaimed activists don't actually know the substance of what they say most of the time - 80% of them (based on research statistics).
If you just feel sad about Mr Shanmugam Murugesu, don't go on talking about the very foundations of the law of this country. -
Public sentiment. Right.. when there is little avenue for debate of this issue at all.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:No, you are completely wrong and confused about the roles of the judiciary and the legislature.
The judiciary's role is to see to the proper application of the the law. Judges do not make the law nor decide how severe a punishment would be appropriate for a particular crime. It is the legislators who have the responsibility and the right to express society's disapproval of any act by enacting laws and regulations. Parliament is right to maintain the mandatory death sentence for serious crimes such as murder and drug trafficking of class A drugs. They reflect the public's sentiments that such crimes should be punished with the ultimate sanction.
Let's see who "in practice" makes the laws, as opposed to "in theory". Is there an avenue for alternative views about the death penalty to be heard?
Can political hegemony be an accurate gauge of support for certain legislation? Don't forget, this is capital punishment we are talking about. The legislature may make laws, but in this case, the judiciary's hands are tied in it's application.
Mandatory means without a choice, I suggest you and those people who crafted this policy take a crash course in basic grammar to understand what that actually means.
For a government that likes to presume, I hardly think there is any visible hint of popular support, only indulgent flinging of words like "silent majority".
Woohoo, we know why it's silent in the first place. -
You seen the masses
Most support Capital Punishment
I suggest you read most of the replies -
I don't really consider forum sentiments to be fully representative of society as of yet. The liberal and conservative views here are merely a small cross section of the population that is more informed.Originally posted by Mervyn>_<:You seen the masses
Most support Capital Punishment
I suggest you read most of the replies
Secondly, is every citizen informed enough about the death penalty, and that I mean being given the opportunity to reflect on both sides of the argument instead of just being told it's good for them?
We don't have an adequately informed population here, not to mention electorate.
Granted, people here seem informed enough about their position, that's why it's more of a debate here. For the rest of Singapore, do they even get to debate it? Go ask the average Joe in the street, chances are that he won't be informed enough, and only hears the government's point of view on this. -
Again I thank you all for your interesting replies.
I feel the major issue is that marijuana is a popular and 'light-weight' drug. Even being illegal, the penalty should not be very large. My own feeling is it should be legalized and regulated, especially given the large number of smokers world-wide.
Singapore has many good points. I am not really looking at the death penalty issue per se. It is just that there are times when the 'justice' system completely fails. I believe that is what happened with Mr. Murugesu. -
You cant tax what u grow youself... and if you do , this will be another case of XXX vs SG Goverment. Its not like u are going to grow 1 hectares for export.Originally posted by maxtor:dinky, why would the alcohol and cigarettes argument not be valid? both alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all harmful. cigarettes and marijuana even have similar methods of consumption.
I think Laserlordz brought up a very good point about the legalising of drugs. (though he didn't mean it in that context!!)
has anyone ever considered the fact that part of the reason drugs are so highly prized in singapore is due to economics? Supply and demand. The fact that people have an incentive to smuggle drugs into singapore is because no one wants to do it, and therefore the demand is very high for both drugs, and smugglers.
what if we were to legalise marijuana? That takes the edge off the glamour factor, and drugs like marijuana will become like cigarettes. Legal but harmful. Plus, the government could impose a tax on marijuana sales, and earn revenues from it.
Of course there will be the argument of people suffering from the aftermath of the legalisation of drugs. But if our government finds it economically viable, you think they won't do it? If they can bring a casino, sorry, 2 casinos into singapore, they can pretty much do anything. It's all about the money, isn't it?
When we decide what is harmful , you should compare which is more harmful , cigarettes or marijuana. Weight it n ask urself why is something THAT harmful still allowed n taxed. I know its too entrenched . Chewing gum is not highly prized in SG is it ? he he..
What possible benefits does cigarettes give. N what does marijuana give ? Health , medical , usefulness , and fun.
I am not trying to argue anything but by saying marijuana is as harmful as cigarettes is just not appropriate if u read all the research and data's.
If you compare , Marijuana is the LEAST harmful if u compare it with all the drugs including alchohol and cigarettes.
But anyways , i think they are all related. It cannot be seperate if u look in more detail to it dont u agree ?