Thou shall not kill – a logical argument

Firstly I apologize for an extended time away from my blog. I just can’t seem to find the passion or conviction to put my thoughts in words. Anyway, here is my latest attempt.

The impending execution of drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong made the headlines in the papers today. His lawyers are challenging the validity of the conviction, insisting that Yong was not fully aware of drugs he was carrying when police apprehended him at the checkpoints. Yong claimed that he was only following instructions from his employer, helping to deliver "presents" to Singapore. Human rights campaigners all over the world rallied to the cause of the convicted man and accused Singapore’s government of double-standards, citing her “hypocritical” approach of executing traffickers on one hand and discreetly liaising with well-known drug lords on the other.

I am a proponent of Singapore’s tough drug laws. I believe the harsh legislation against drug crimes of any sort is a main reason to Singapore’s reputation as a drug-free state. However, I think the implementation of the death penalty goes beyond the mere function of prevention and deterrence against the dangers of illegal drugs. Sadly I think capital punishment is a by-product of the typical Singaporean attitude to conform to existing norms and resist deviation from traditional practices, as well as the ruling classes’ insensitivity and intolerance to the less fortunate populace. Sensibility, compassion or rationality count for little in this issue. Let me explain.

In my opinion, the penal code serves 2 primary social functions. The first is to protect the general society from probable future harm by segregating the likely offenders through imprisonment. The prerequisite of identification of such probable offenders is through their track record of lawful civilian behavior. Therefore we jail individuals that break the law, for a certain length of time, until the probability of these people harming society becomes unlikely. Repeat offenders get longer and longer sentences as statistically, they are more likely to harm society if they are not confined within the prison system and more time is needed to reduce that likelihood, either through rehabilitation or otherwise, before any release should be considered. The enforcement of tough laws against drug crimes from this perspective is therefore logically valid and convincing as we know the extremely harmful effects drugs have on individuals, family and ultimately the society.

The second primary function is that of deterrence. The death penalty was implemented ages ago to combat Singapore’s then rampant drug problems. The idea is to implement extreme tough punitive measures to deter individuals from such crimes. However with the passage of time and consequent progress of society worldwide, the castigatory divide between life imprisonment and the death penalty begins to narrow. Increasingly in a world where freedom is paramount and hope springs eternal, the prospect of spending the rest of your life behind bars is not significantly different from that of a death sentence. A potential trafficker would not view life imprisonment as a significantly more attractive alternative to a death sentence. As such, the death sentence starts to lose its validity as the ultimate deterrence mechanism when there is the alternative of life imprisonment.

As the logic of implementing the death sentence fails, the reasons for its abolishment gains credence. There are a couple of reasons for it. Firstly, proponents for capital punishment increasingly look like the bloodthirsty vindictive kind that desires vengeance instead of justice. Life imprisonment serves the 2 main functions to society just as effectively as the capital punishment, with the only difference being a lack of the element of retribution. The government, being a secular guardian of our society’s well-being and enforcer of our impartial judiciary system should rightly only consider the 2 factors I outlined above, instead of seeking retribution in the pretext of maintaining justice. Secondly, the capital punishment is a permanent chastisement with no future means of repeal. In the event that an individual is wrongly convicted of drug trafficking, the capital punishment is the most cruel and un-constitutional form of torture that is ironically endorsed by the weight of our judicial system. On the basis of compassion, justice and basic human decency, we need to at all cost preserve the sanctity and sacredness of human life and the abolishment of capital punishment is a good place to start.

In a land where we have multi-millionaire politicians and sky-rocketing public housing, costs of maintenance of human life within a state-funded prison system, cannot and should never be the principal factor determining the right of individuals to live. I am not a Christian but I can the validity of what the Bible preaches when it tells us that “thou shall not kill”. Because at the end of the day, we do not want blood, innocent or not, on our hands, particularly when we have a better and more logical alternative.