It is a legitimate question which any concerned citizen is morally entitled to ponder and, in a free society, to voice.
I REFER to Law Minister K. Shanmugam's speech in Parliament ('An open and hard-headed approach', Jan 20) and Mr Derek da Cunha's letter last Friday, 'Crime statistics: Ask and ye shall receive'. Having read Law Society president Michael Hwang's article in the Law Gazette in full, I believe his views have not been adequately addressed in the attempt to dismiss them.
First, while Mr Shanmugam is right that debating the death penalty often leads to an inconclusive end, this is true only to the extent that we are debating the different justifications of capital punishment. The 'philosophical or ideological' conundrum ceases to be if both parties to the debate have already agreed that deterrence is the principal justification of capital punishment, which is the case between Mr Shanmugam and Mr Hwang.
In questioning the deterrent effect of capital punishment, as I believe was Mr Hwang's point, the debate is actually no longer so much 'philosophical or ideological' as it is empirical and concludable. If not, on what basis is the claim that 'Singapore has kept the drug problem very much under control' founded?
Second, I find it disturbing that the burden is placed on sceptics to point out exactly what statistics need to be published for the death penalty to be justified.
Suppose we catch a doctor practising euthanasia illegally, and in his defence he claims that carrying out euthanasia (on patients who consent) is a social good because it prevents suicide. Surely the burden is on him to provide evidence to justify this empirical claim? Is it even thinkable for the doctor to be presumed innocent, simply because the rest of us cannot decide what type of statistical evidence could justify his claim?
While this analogy is admittedly simplistic, the self-evident moral truth - that the burden of proof necessarily lies with the party taking away human lives - surfaces, and should reasonably bind governments as well.
No one doubts the reality of the safe, drug-free streets we enjoy in Singapore, and for that the Government deserves due credit. The question for the Government, however, is whether the means employed to achieve this outcome are justifiable empirically. It is a legitimate question which any concerned citizen is morally entitled to ponder and, in a free society, to voice.
Koo Zhi Xuan
First published in ST Forum January 29, 2009
Source: Capital punishment: Is it justifiable?
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_331574.html
