No activist speak up for the victims & families whose life got destroyed by drugs

[Einfield]

Let's face it, Humans are all screw up.

We have a Gov that like to hang drug mule but do business with the Drug lord

We have people who still want to bring drug in knowing that they will die if caught and have to trouble his father and mother to beg for his life

We have idiots who take drugs that create the demand

The Cabinet and Parliament are also humans, aren't they? How come humans can pass mandatory death penalty laws and you expect judges also being humans can't pass a death sentence if it's justified?

 

[jw5]

The Cabinet and Parliament are also humans, aren't they? How come humans can pass mandatory death penalty laws and you expect judges also being humans can't pass a death sentence if it's justified?

That's not an assumption I'm prepared to make.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Meng Seng

How is the clemency process flawed ? I hope you will take note that those against the MDP or those campaigning for Vui Kong find it FLAWED because it does not deliver the result they seek. Forgiveness or clemency for Vui Kong. I will agree with you that the MDP can be replace in some form or improved with greater safeguards and yes there are flaws legal failings in an MDP system. But how is the clemency process flawed ?

The fact that the Cabinet holds the power to decide is that flawed ? The Home Sec in the UK both prosecutes and gives pardons in the name of the crown. The president in the US pardons for crimes and yet is in charge of the Justice Departments and hence federal prosecutors and the courts as well in some form.

One can argue that the process be improved but it does not mean that the process was flawed to begin with.



Locke

 

[jw5]

It is not up for me to say whether one is 100% guilty and whether he deserve death penalty or not. If the society feels that there is a need for Death Penalty in drug trafficking, fine, by all means, have that. However, Mandatory Death Penalty is totally another piece of cake altogether. It has changed the nature and spirit of the law. For example, if evidence shows that this is the Kingpin who has been the big player in drug dealings, fine, hung him by the law. But if he is just a small kid who has been made used of, then it would be better for the judge to use his discretion to decide whether he should be hung.

Whether the judges impose death penalty or not, you must let them use their discretion and wisdom to decide. Else, we only need a robot to be judges in all such cases.

Goh Meng Seng

Nobody is saying that it's up to you or not. Everyone has his views and argument.
You seem to be more concerned about the burden of proof and evidence requirements needed to have a guilty verdict and not so much with the sentencing.

So mandatory death penalty for a person proven to be a drug kingpin is ok?
But no mandatory death penalty for a young kid who could have been a drug mule duped by more savvy and unscrupulous people or he could have been a young kingpin, but there is not enough evidence to ascertain which?

If there was no mandatory death penalty for someone even with overwhelming evidence which prove that he's a drug kingpin, there will be many judges who will not impose the death penalty. What you appear to be in favour of is a higher burden of proof for a guilty verdict and perhaps different degrees of guilt, and not so much the sentencing.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

So mandatory death penalty for a person proven to be a drug kingpin is ok?
But no mandatory death penalty for a young kid who could have been a drug mule duped by more savvy and unscrupulous people or he could have been a young kingpin, but there is not enough evidence to ascertain which?

I think you are not getting it right. Even for a drug kingpin, the law applied is death penalty. The law can also say, the maximum sentence is death penalty. Whether the judge applies the maximum sentence or not, it is within his discretion.

If you have a law that says there is not other sentence and death penalty Must be applied (mandatory), then there is no discretion, whether you are a 18 yr old kid or a drug kingpin.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Ramseth]

gms,

so u mean that idiot is innocent because other people stick drug to his car? he don't know anything?

if that is the case then the police should be hang. but how u know this? u guess only? or u involve in the case?

if the police have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the idiot knows he is trafficking drug, he should be hang.

can u make yourself clear gms? u want to save that idiot because u believe he is innocent (meaning u doubt police work)? or u want to save him knowing and admitting the fact that he did traffic the drugs but with blah blah mitigating factors.

pls make it clear.

Well said. The case has gone through police investigation and court trial. Questioning the validity of verdict and sentence is not questioning the powers-that-be in the clemency appellate process. It's questioning the integrity of police and court through the whole process.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Meng Seng

The fact that the Cabinet holds the power to decide is that flawed ? The Home Sec in the UK both prosecutes and gives pardons in the name of the crown. The president in the US pardons for crimes and yet is in charge of the Justice Departments and hence federal prosecutors and the courts as well in some form.

One can argue that the process be improved but it does not mean that the process was flawed to begin with.
Locke

Whatever other places like UK have as the Clemency process may not indicate that these must be the standards and not flawed. It is in the spirit of Democracy, the idea of separation of powers that I believe it is flawed.

If I were to be the one who design the system, the President will appoint a Tribunal consists of ex-judges, ex-prosecutors and criminal lawyers and they will be depended for advice on the Clemency. The Cabinet must not be involved because they are basically stake holders here; i.e. their Ministry of Law (judges, prosecutors) and the Home Affairs (police, investigators etc) are the ones who are involved in this case. They should stay away from the clemency process as to avoid the conflict of interests.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

The Cabinet and Parliament are also humans, aren't they? How come humans can pass mandatory death penalty laws and you expect judges also being humans can't pass a death sentence if it's justified?

This might not be the best analogy on Earth, but it's the difference between a knife salesman and a chef.

 

[neddy]

Let's face it, Humans are all screw up.

We have a Gov that like to hang drug mule but do business with the Drug lord

We have people who still want to bring drug in knowing that they will die if caught and have to trouble his father and mother to beg for his life

We have idiots who take drugs that create the demand

The drugs are not the problem.

Even the people who produce drugs are not at fault if they are forced to grow/manufacture them. Eg CIA secret drug for cash programme.

Some people are forced to be drug mules to save themselves from debts or other problems.

That is why no matter how we deal with traffickers, we still have problems with drugs. Poverty, bad govts, the drug lords (Burmese junta) and their financiers (eg PAP).

 

[Ramseth]

To appeal for clemency, one must admit to guilt as found by the court first.

One can't appeal for clemency claiming innocence or being framed. That's a matter settled in court already.

The most famous decline to appeal for clemency (known as royal pardon in Malaysia) was of course Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He turned down his lawyers' advice to appeal to the Agung based on his noble rank and past contribution. He said, appeal for that means admit to guilt. They found him guilty but he never admitted to guilt. He'd rather serve his time in prison as decided by the court than to admit guilt to be excused from imprisonment.

 

[jw5]

I think you are not getting it right. Even for a drug kingpin, the law applied is death penalty. The law can also say, the maximum sentence is death penalty. Whether the judge applies the maximum sentence or not, it is within his discretion.

If you have a law that says there is not other sentence and death penalty Must be applied (mandatory), then there is no discretion, whether you are a 18 yr old kid or a drug kingpin.

Goh Meng Seng

What I'm saying is this.
There should be different degrees of guilt based on the amount of evidence and circumstances. And sentencing should be based on the degree of guilt.

Hence, for example, mandatory death sentence for the drug kingpin "first degree drug trafficking".
And for example, maximum death penalty for the young kid "second degree drug trafficking", who may or may not be a drug kingpin or duped mule, but there is insufficient evidence to prove either way. Hence discretion goes to the judge in this case.
There could even be a maximum life sentence for a third degree, with no option even for death sentence.

I understand that you want to leave it to the discretion of the judges. But that could result in no death sentence for many and reprecussions from this, e.g. more willing to take the risk and even drug kingpins continuing to run their empires from prison.
My greater concern is that the level of evidence requirement and the degree of burden of proof needs to be very stringent.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

What you have proposed is essentially in some form how pardon's are decided by states in the US. That does co exists with federal pardons give by the Cabinet through the President.

The separation of powers idea is a political concept which has been oversold and abused by those against the death penalty. We have always been at the unified powers end of the spectrum because our historical colonizers were the British. If you really want the separation of powers ideal then we should have been colonized by the Americans.

Strictly speaking I would not characterize one political arrangement as flawed in any way versus another political arrangements. All political arrangements and constitutions evolve as the society and its people develop.

How much power the cabinet in a unified system choses to give up is really up to the cabinet but that is a political judgement call above all else

Strictly speaking it is the state in any democracy which pays for both the police , prosecutor and the judges courts and legal infrastructure. How does the square with the idea that a state through a head or cabinet also decides on clemency. ?

Well you really have to understand or grasp that the CLEMENCY process is not a LEGAL process. Clemency starts after JUSTICE has ended. It is thus political whether Clemency is given or not. Do note how some presidential pardon's have been controversial even in the US. Because it is non legal and very political , there is really no perfect way for a clemency process and no conflict of interests. If there was a liberal government then heck even Vui Kong might get clemency however with a conservative government like the PAP. it can fairly decide that Vui Kong does not deserve a second chance

Those against the death penalty see it as a means for their hero's to escape death, those for see it in a more limited sense. At the end of the day its really a question of how much power the state choses to give away and the politics of that moment



Locke

 

[mollusk]

moral of the story is..if you wan to traffick drug in singapore...make sure to bring in large quantity eg 1kilo..kana hang also happy..kana hang for 47g..not worth it...

 

[Ramseth]

My greater concern is that the level of evidence requirement and the degree of burden of proof needs to be very stringent.

Very well said and pointed out. The degree of evidence. Under most criminal laws, the degree is for prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Under mandatory death penalty drug laws, the prosecution needs to prove only possession of a certain quantity and it's assumed to be trafficking.

 

[silverfox@]

BTW, I am puzzled. You have made your stand before with regards to this case:

In a posting here (http://www.sammyboy.com/showpost.php?p=524863&postcount=16) you wrote:

"Drug traffickers should be hanged because the drugs they carry, kill and ruin the futures of many others. Families get broken up.

However for those who are very young when they deliver drugs, they could probably be given life imprisonment instead of death sentence."

But now, you turn around and say that



I guess playing of words really mean something different for you.

Goh Meng Seng

I said this before. They could be sentenced to life imprisonment for those who are very young. That was what I perceived before then.

However latter on, Manokie said why should money be wasted to imprison them? (This I admit he made a good point)

(2nd good point by Scroobal which made me think I am too soft on such people)
These people have lived in a bubble or have had a pampered life. They probably never seen the death or destruction it brings to families, friends and even neighbours. They have not heard of entire siblings from families lost to drugs. They have not seen HDB blocks half full of drug addicts. They have not seen girls from well to do families hooked and selling themselves for pittance. I met a farmer who put his only son in a cage to save him from drugs.

These are people who follow fads and can't tell the difference between heroin and ganja. These are people who can't work out how many straws that 15 grams of heroin can make. These are people who think that everyone is an innocent misguided mule.

If the West was offended by the colour blue, these are the people who can be counted to come forward asking for the colour blue to changed.
Whether he is sentenced to hang or he receives pardon and life imprisonment, I will accept

The last point by scroobal made me think on the same line. Whether he is sentenced to hang or he receives pardon and life imprisonment, I will accept.

It's about reasoning. These 2 posts by these 2 posters changed my view on this issue. They managed to convince me because I think they make sense in what they said.

So will you still be stubborn in what you think or be convinced by others?

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

the prosecution needs to prove only possession of a certain quantity and it's assumed to be trafficking.

Hey, double-headed snake, you know the difference between 'assume' and 'presume' or not ?

 

[Ramseth]

you know the difference between 'assume' and 'presume' or not ?

You're right. My mistake. It's presumed, not assumed.

 

[scroobal]

Part of the studies looked into the background of hanged traffickers and it revealed something interesting. The bulk of them actually came from middle income families who had a taste of good and wanted more. Vignes Moorty who was the first poster child of SDP/Ravi took up water skiing and had a very interesting social life. He also travelled to the states quite often.

Most of us associate the drug scene with malays and low income people. These guys smoke ganga and erimin 5. They can't afford heroin. Heroin addicts come from the middle income to high end of society. In the 60s and 70s, before the death sentence kicked in, we had kids from RI principals, police superintendents including towkays sons and daughters that were chasing the dragon. The sons of Swee Kee, Jln Kayu roti prata were all involved The traffickers also came from similar baeckground. Ever heard of Melvyn Seet. A number of them have fled Singapore.

The same story applies to HK where the rich kids are bringing it in. How else you going to pay $50K for a slab.

In fact, if you put the issue across in another way, you will find that most, if not all, of those who were executed did not hail from privileged backgrounds.

 

[littlefish]

Part of the studies looked into the background of hanged traffickers and it revealed something interesting. The bulk of them actually came from middle income families who had a taste of good and wanted more. Vignes Moorty who was the first poster child of SDP/Ravi took up water skiing and had a very interesting social life. He also travelled to the states quite often.

The same story applies to HK where the rich kids are bringing it in. How else you going to pay $50K for a slab.

Middle-class is not equal to privileged background. My point is precisely that when the penalty for drug trafficking becomes very severe, only the desperate will be willing to take the risk. Those people that you mentioned may have gotten rich through drug trafficking. Someone who started off rich will never personally do drug trafficking, they can always hire someone to do so.

Anyway, my main point is that it is wrong for a human to decide whether another should live or die, it is not directly related to the crime of drug trafficking. I also do not agree that this is a western viewpoint. If you believe in the basic premise that it is wrong to kill, you will start questioning about the death penalty. Those who have no issues thinking it is wrong to kill and that it is perfectly alright to sentence someone to death are not being honest to themselves. I am not saying that is bad, a certain degree of pragmatism is always necessary but I don't think they sincerely believe that it is wrong to kill. I believe they will kill anyone if it would benefit them without having to suffer any repercussions.