« the mrbrown show: heroes of the economy | HomePage | Singapore: Executions since December defy global trend »
14/01/2009
Singapore: Executions since December defy global trend
Listen to this article
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Date: 13 January 2009
Singapore: Executions since December defy global trend
Singapore, estimated to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world, should stop its use of the death penalty and instead join the 138 states throughout the world that have ceased executions in law or practice, said Amnesty International.
The city-state, with a population of 4.6 million, has executed at least 420 people since 1991. Singapore has condemned at least three people to die since 18 December, when the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty”. Singapore strongly criticized the resolution. At least two people have been executed since then.
The media reported the execution of Singaporean Moahammed Ali Johari, on 19 December for murder. Tan Chor Jin, a Singaporean man, was hanged on 9 January for murder. On 30 December, the High Court sentenced to death Chijioke Stephen Obioha, a 20-year old Ghanaian man, for trafficking cannabis. His alleged accomplice, a Zambian woman, was not mentioned in recent media reports, but because drug trafficking carries a mandatory death sentence in Singapore, it is feared that she will be given the death penalty as well.
Amnesty International recognises the seriousness of these crimes and supports all calls for justice. Amnesty International, however, opposes the death penalty in all cases as a violation of the most fundamental human right: the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and there is no escaping the risk of error, which can lead to the execution of an innocent person.
Most death sentences in Singapore follow convictions for drug trafficking. The Misuse of Drugs Act provides for mandatory death sentences for at least 20 different offences and contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence.
The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has called for the death penalty to be eliminated for drug-related offences and has argued that the mandatory nature of the death sentence is a violation of international legal standards.
Singapore’s policies and practice bucks the solid and long-standing trend towards global abolition of the death penalty. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, eight countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Sixty years later, the number stands at 138. Within the Asia Pacific region, Singapore is one of 9 states that retain the death penalty in law and practice. 27 states in the region have either abolished the death penalty or are holding a de facto moratorium.
As not all sentences and executions are reported publicly, it is possible that there have been more death penalty cases in the last few weeks. Amnesty International has requested that the Singapore government make public comprehensive information about the state’s use of the death penalty. Singapore has yet to publicly provide the requested annual statistics covering the period from 1993 to the present day.
10:48 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (12) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this | Tags: singapore, death penalty
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1634275
Comments
The right to life, huh? How about the 10 people that some ****head killed for no reason? What happened to their right to life you morons? This website makes me sick. I would like to know when your 1 year old girl gets raped by a lunatic, how would you feel? Or when your 6 month old baby get kidnapped, abused and then killed, how would you feel? The right to life my ass!!! Anybody who commits these crimes has only one right, to get their head blown off or cut off slowly and surely so that they suffer every second of their ultimate death!!!
Posted by: Abhi Bachan | 07/04/2009
Despite the emotional nature of the above, I do believe the poster has 'got it right'.
The 'touchy-feely' (Amnesty-centered) approach to justice where murder and terror are involved doesn't work
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 08/04/2009
"an eye for an eye only leads to a blind country" Case in point, Singapore the land of revenge.
Pity when some nations can't get above the 6 year old mentality of "but he hit me first" to justify the paradox of revenge hitting.
Posted by: billy bob | 09/04/2009
In the right context (justice) there is absolutely nothing wrong with "revenge". In facr, in certain instances "revenge" is not only (morally) right but necessary.
I use quotes (" ") for revenge because if you remove the silly unnecessary emotional language, "revenge" is nothing but just compensation.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 14/04/2009
I belief that (Justice = justified revenge) is the same thinking that has created many a blood fued in many a nation in the past. After all, he killed my brother, I sought justice/revenge and killed him, his brother sought justice/revenge and killed me, my brother went for justice/revenge and killed his cousin and the Capulet's and Montegue's are born.
I guess the only thing that makes it different in Singapore is "he killed my brother, the gov't killed him so I got no one to kill cause you can't kill a governing body and since the governing body can not be killed then all deaths are good and just" and the story ends. Two graves, one for passion/accident/intention and one for justice. Guess it is all right then
Posted by: billy bob | 14/04/2009
Singapore has been executing murderers since the days of Raffles.
Has the society devolved into a "blood feud"? I think your premise might be wrong.
* Note: I maintain my position on supporting execution for only murder and acts of treason, and only after exhaustive due process, preferably by more than one court and more than one judge. No one should be executed for drug offenses.
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 15/04/2009
Singapore can't go into the blood fued because, like I said, they can not form when the gov't does the killing. However, if blood fued vigilante behavior is considered unacceptable then why should Singapore execution be considered acceptable? But then again, Singapore seems to be the place to go for justice ethical paradoxes. The place where it is against the law to hit or kill people because those actions are so bad that if you break the law the legal justice system will cane your ass till it bleeds or kill you.
- "revenge" is nothing but just compensation. -
how can revenge be compensation. Compensation returns the aggreved party back, or close to, their original position before the crime happened. Revenge does not return the other person back to the original position, or close to it, but only hurts another.
You wreak a person's car, you have to repay or replace the car that you stole = compensation
You wreak a person's car, your car (or if you don't have a car your house) is destroyed = revenge
Don't see how the two can be confused as you do.
Posted by: billy bob | 16/04/2009
> Don't see how the two can be confused as you do. <
Just because you don't agree with my points doesn't make me the "confused" one =)
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 17/04/2009
The thing that is confused is the wording that you are using, not you being confused because of your points. I believe the word that you are using incorrectly in your argument is 'compensation' as in - "revenge" is nothing but just compensation. - I believe the word that you are looking for is more 'retribution'. As I say, compensation "Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service or loss."; retribution is "Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment".
So doesn't retribution fit your idea of punishment for murder instead of compensation? A person takes a life and the state demands that their life be taken in repayment and punishment of that action. Parties are not looking to be returned to the position that they were before the action took place, they just want to have their hatred and revenge blood lust satisfied knowing that the person that caused them pains loved ones are hopefully feeling the same pain and loss that the murder victim's family is feeling. After all, if one good turn deserves another, so must one act of evil.
Posted by: billy bob | 17/04/2009
Revenge is nothing but compensation.
I mean it exactly as I write it.
Don't attempt to tell me what words I'm looking for. You're not qualified to do that :-)
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 19/04/2009
A right to life, for bringing Illegal drugs into Singapore, I think all Counties should execute those kind of people.. People like that are too stupid to live
Posted by: major cane | 24/06/2009
To major cane:
> People like that are too stupid to live <
No, actually. People who deal in drugs provide a market with the necessary goods.
People have been taking drugs — for reasons ranging from therapeutic use to recreational use since the beginning of humanity. Problems emerge when governments declare some drugs "legal" and others "illegal". Problems ALWAYS EMERGE when governments attempt to police morality by PROHIBITION — by passing laws which determine how PEACEFUL people are supposed to conduct themselves with their own life and their own person.
The govt propaganda which claims "drugs destroy society" is completely without proof. Opium — a powerful drug — has been around for thousands of years. Yet at no time in history has there ever been a case where an ENTIRE society has been destroyed because people were getting stoned en masse, and then acting in violent ways (due to the effects of the drugs) to inflict apocalyptic destruction on their nation. To be sure the effects of CERTAIN drugs occurring when the drug in question is used to excess can be detrimental to human life, but IMO it is not the governments business what individuals choose to do to their own bodies.
A final point: even if you think people are too stupid to live, they have a right to remain alive. If they choose to destroy themselves, that is their choice. But no government at anytime has the right to kill (murder) a peaceful individual just because that individual is behaving (in your opinion) "stupidly".
Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 25/06/2009