From Mr Wang's Site

The following is a digest of the comments I originally posted on Mr Wang’s excellent soci-political commentary blog,
http://commentarysingapore.blogspot.com/2005/11/on-capital-punishment.html

Mr Wang’s entry really set me thinking so I decided to participate in an online discussion with Mr Wang’s other readers. It has been a real eye opener, exchanging views with fellow Singaporeans and bloggers from all over the world. Please do read through all the comments posted there if you want to have a full picture and a balanced view of the issue.

(1) An overview of my stand

My proposition is for the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty and in its place, impose long jail terms, mandatory caning and discretionary fines (“strict penalties”) for the offence of drug trafficking.

(1)(a) Deterrence value of death penalty

As a form of personal deterrence to the drug courier, executing the drug courier is the ultimate and extreme form of personal deterrence. Imposing strict penalties should be sufficient to discourage the drug courier from future drug trafficking. The drug courier should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. Someway along the way, everyone is bound to take a wrong turn in life. We all make mistakes. By killing the drug courier, we ignore his desperate plea for a second chance in life.

As a form of public deterrence, there are no figures supporting the added deterrence value of the death penalty. There is no proven greater deterrence value of the death penalty compared to strict penalties. I have tried to point out other important reasons why our streets have stayed relatively drug-free (See (2) Hypothesis on deterrence value of death penalty).

The onus is on supporters of the death penalty to prove that there is an added deterrence value to justify the killing of the drug courier.

(1)(b) Proportionate punishment

It may be argued that the death penalty somehow works better than strict penalties as a form of public deterrence.

However, I do not believe that this ‘intangible’ public deterrence value is sufficient justification for the taking away of human lives. As a moral retributivist, I look at the moral culpability of the offender. Drug traffickers are far removed from murderers in mental blame. Moreover, punishing the drug trafficker with death is disproportionate to the harm caused by drugs. Therefore, this intangible deterrence value of the death penalty should not override a person’s right to live. I do not subscribe to the utilitarian belief that a person’s life should be sacrificed for the greater good. The "ultimate punishment" should not be imposed lightly.

Someone said: "Well, the facts is that drugs do kill, just not in the same quick way as with guns or knives."

Some people seem to think that the punishment (death penalty) for drug trafficking is not disproportionate when compared to crimes like murder.

Well, smoking cigarettes kill too, just not in the quick way as with guns or knives. I'm not trivializing the harmful effects of drugs; the cigarettes comparison is an extreme but necessary extrapolation of your logical fallacy.

Status quo: Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, anyone caught in possession of more than 15 grams of heroin (amongst other drugs) is presumed guilty of being a drug trafficker and attracts a mandatory death sentence.

Is 15g of heroin comparable to the lethal and extremely grave consequences of an intentional crime committed with guns and knives (i.e murder)?


(2) Hypothesis on deterrence value of death penalty

Dear Singaporean (a blog commentator),

I fully agree with you on point (1) - Drugs are evil, highly addictive and destroys families.

I disagree with you on points (2) and (3).

Point (2)

There is scarce availability of drugs in Singapore. This must be a sign that the death penalty for drug trafficking is an effective deterrence. (I paraphrased you)

Of course, there is a deterrence effect to any punishment for drug trafficking. Strict penalties and swift enforcement would greatly deter drug trafficking. We should take a tough stand on drug trafficking. It is a horrible crime that must not go unpunished.

However, the rational question remains: Will imposing lengthy jail terms, harsh fines and more caning be equally effective (and more humane) as the death penalty in deterring drug trafficking?

At first glance, there is a simple co-relation between the scarce availability of drugs and the death penalty. However, there is no empirical evidence which proves that the death penalty DOES CAUSE a decrease in the availability of drugs. For example, the observation that dark clouds exist on rainy days: this observation is not helpful because we do not know if dark clouds do actually cause rain (See “Steven Levitt: Freakonomics: A Rouge Economist Explores The Hidden Side Of Everything” for a more eloquent explanation)

Therefore, the death penalty may not be the cause of scarce availability of drugs in SG. They could simply co-exist, analogous to the co-existence of dark clouds and rain. Could there be more direct causes?

• a) Increased vigilance in customs inspection for drugs
• b) Improved use of technology in drugs detection
• c) Increased police manpower for Central Narcotics Bureau
• d) Increased collaboration within ASEAN on sharing of information on drug syndicates
• e) Stricter penalties against personal drugs consumption
• f) Increased public education on dangers of drugs consumption
• g) Improving social conditions in SG (conditions that encourage drug use)

I deliberately ignored the effect of ANY punishment for drug trafficking on the availability of drugs.

Factors (a) to (d) directly reduce the supply of drugs into SG. Factors (e) to (g) directly reduces demand for drugs, ergo, resulting in less supply of drugs because of fewer incentives for drug-rings to risk trafficking drugs into SG.

Despite the perceived effectiveness of our death penalty, I have tried to illustrate other factors that do cause a substantial reduction in the availability of drugs.

Point (3)

From the drug mule point of view, if the penalty is death, they can refuse to do the job even if someone point a gun at his head. There has to be some amount of stupidity for Nguyen (or his handlers) to needlessly choose Singapore as a transit point, or perhaps he was set up to be caught anyway.

Let us take the strongest case for the proposition that death penalty should be imposed for drug traffickers: Nguyen was caught smuggling drugs INTO SG and not using SG merely as a transit point.

What if Nguyen did not know of the death penalty before he embarked on his mission? Well, tough luck for him, since ignorance of our national laws is no excuse. But here, the effectiveness of the death penalty is highly suspect: how would the death penalty deter the unknowing and foolish Nguyen?

Ultimately, I do not believe that drug trafficking is a crime so morally reprehensible that every Nguyen deserves to die. The objective of promoting social, communal and Singaporean interests should not justify the taking away of Nguyen’s right to live.


(3) Wrong mentality?

There does not seem to be much disagreement that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment for drug trafficking, especially when viewed in the context of the crime committed.

Yet the same people who readily admit so are quick to arrive at their conclusion that the death penalty is justified on the basis of protecting our society. That somehow, the death penalty has worked to prevent drugs from entering SG. That somehow, drugs will start pouring into SG if we replace the death penalty with life imprisonment. They fear the impact that abolishing death penalty will have on the availability of drugs inside SG. They demand figures to prove otherwise in order for the status quo to change.

Why adopt the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality towards laws? If a law is flawed, we should fix it. Why this “better safe, than sorry” attitude to the issue of a human’s right to live?

Are we essentially being selfish when it comes to protecting our self-interests (i.e. I-would-never-be-in-Nyugen’s-situation). Are we pandering to our unfounded fears?

(4) Inconsistency?

I support the death penalty for murderers while opposing it for drug traffickers.

I do not believe in absolutes. One can support the death penalty for murderers and at the same time oppose the death penalty for drug traffickers. Drugs do not take lives as murderers do. Capital punishment for drug trafficking is way out of proportion with the crime committed.

Thus, although I believe that a murderer who fails to establish any legal defence (therefore kills without excuse) deserves the death penalty, it is not inconsistent for me to oppose the death penalty for drug trafficking, simply because there is no proportionality between the crime and the punishment.

Furthermore, it just feels (moral/ethical) wrong to hang someone for trafficking drugs. The drugs trade will exist as long as there is a demand for drugs. Shooting (killing) the messenger (trafficker) does not address the root cause of the drugs problem. There will always be folks desperate enough to be exploited by the drug lords, regardless of the harshness of the death penalty.

As a deterrence to would-be drug traffickers, I feel the death penalty fails miserably. I agree Singapore should adopt a firm stand on the drugs problem, but a mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers is an unduly harsh and cruel punishment.