It is quite an eye-opener for the public to note that a man, Ismil Kadar, was wrongly accused of murder and could have been hanged for it. For a background, here is an article – Atrocious police work: murder conviction overturned
The above is about lax procedures on the part of the police and even the prosecution. This incident inevitably brings up the discussion on the Death Penalty. As expected, campaigners of Death Penalty see this an opportunistic time to highlight the case.
From the Straits Times Discussion forum (dated 12 Jul 2011):
A case for discussion on death penalty
The full article is reproduced below at the end of this post.
Ismil’s case highlights a serious lapse in police and/or prosecution work. An innocent man could have been hanged. However, we shouldn’t see this case as a platform to discuss the Death Penalty.
The Death Penalty is a system in itself. The prosecution procedure on the other hand, is system that is used to prosecute, and for the defendant to defend himself. If the prosecution process is not in order, let’s have that fixed. We should not use this as an excuse to tamper with the Death Penalty, which has been shown to be a very strong deterrent against the most hideous crimes.
I have argued against abolishing the Death Penalty in this blog before. Here is one such post.
Point by point rebuttal against anti-death penalty
There are many arguments to have the Death Penalty abolished. I have discussed that point by point in the link immediately above. Of all points, I find that only one is worthy of discussion – that the executed convict cannot be returned to life. So let’s discuss that point.
Here’s my quick answer to that – If executed convict cannot be returned to life, so can’t the next victim he kills.
Here’s a more detailed discussion. Anti-death penalty campaigners will argue that a life sentence (without parole) would be a good alternative. I am not convinced. What makes anyone so sure Human Rights activists would not pressure the authorities on that too? What makes anyone so sure that the next argument won’t be that the convict deserves to have a life and life sentence without parole is against Human Rights?
There is no guarantee that once the convict who goes on the lose after his term, or if he has his term shortened, won’t go round killing again. And if he does, what cause of action can we take to undo to bring back the life of the innocent if he kills again?
There are two sides to this Death Penalty argument. The same argument, that you cannot bring back to life someone you kill, applies to both the convict and the next victim he kills, should the convict be released from his jail term.
So everything that is discussed about the Death Penaltyis just a judgement call. It is either you argue for the criminal’s right to live, or his next victim’s right to live.
There is no right or wrong. Only who you are more sympathetic towards. The criminal, or his next victim.
Here is the full article published in the Straits Times Forum.
I REFER to last Wednesday’s article (‘Man accused of murder freed after 6 years in jail’).
This case supports Maruah’s position that various aspects of the death penalty in Singapore contravene international human rights norms.
The principle of proportionality requires that the death penalty applies only to the most serious cases.
Singapore also allows someone to be convicted based solely on his confession to the police. It is difficult, if not impossible, for an accused person to prove that his confession was involuntary.
Maruah calls for the death penalty to be unavailable in cases where the conviction was based only on a confession, as well as especially rigorous supervision of police interrogations in potential capital cases, such as having video-recording of interrogations.
More importantly, Ismil Kadar reportedly has an IQ of 73. Maruah is troubled by the apparent lack of safeguards when interrogating persons with mental disabilities, and asks the police to clarify the protections that are in place.
More fundamentally, Maruah believes that it would never be just to hang a person with mental disabilities based solely on his confession.
The recent introduction of criminal discovery, 13 years after the Law Society first called for it in 1998, has addressed the historical disadvantages to the defence in the criminal justice system. But we have to wonder if there had been potential miscarriages of justice before this.
The irreversibility of the death penalty demands the most rigorous of processes before someone is convicted and hanged.
Maruah believes that Singapore needs to have an open and informed debate on whether the death penalty has a place here, and if so, in what shape and form.
Maruah also calls for a moratorium on executions in the interim. Cases like Ismil’s demand that we do this, to ensure that Singapore never comes close to hanging an innocent person.
Peter Low
Death Penalty Committee
Maruah
FORUM NOTE: Maruah is a human rights association in Singapore. The word ‘Maruah’ means dignity in Malay.
