Singaporean Arrogance

[Taildragger67]

We need to put emotion to one side for a moment here and look at this issue coldly and logically; compassion, sympathy, deservedness, etc. actually have nothing at all to do with it.

There is no doubt Nguyen broke Singaporean law and must therefore submit to it. However as he pleaded guilty, that is not really the issue. The issue is the safety of the death penalty itself and there have been enough incorrect executions around the world for someone to say ‘let’s just hold the horses here for a moment’.

The one major issue standing against the death penalty is its finality. That is, if a conviction is proven to be unsafe at a future date, it’s a touch hard to reverse the sentence. The problem is that the world over, there has been a worrying number of capital sentences carried out where, years later, the conviction has been proven to have been ‘unsafe’. That is, the prosecution evidence, when held up to scrutiny, has been shown wanting. We have all, at some time, held firm beliefs which have been shown to be less than sustainable, but we have believed them nonetheless. Prosecutors, in good faith, may hold the same belief in all their cases. But just as advances like DNA technology have made it easier to prosecute in many instances, so have such advances shown that some convictions were flawed.

The pay-back to the executed in such instances? Re-burial in ‘hallowed ground’. Great, that makes it so much better.

Some cases will have incontrovertible evidence of guilt and the accused (as in this case) may indeed plead guilty. However, the ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument applies: for something as final as capital punishment, unless there is a blanket ‘no’, then over time populist politics will dictate that the number of offences which have a capital sanction will increase. Before long, the net has widened and the risk of unsafe convictions increases. Don’t believe me? Then read your history books; it’s happened before and indeed happens in some jurisdictions still.

This is not ‘bleeding heart’; this is just pure logic.

Moreover, in the instant case, Singapore law does allow for clemency if the accused ‘fesses up smartly and co-operates. Nguyen has done this. If he is executed, what signal does this send to someone else contemplating being a mule for desperate reasons? If one is already in that position, chances are they’ve already thought about the possibility of being nabbed. So rather than put them off, this is actually more likely to make them take an in-for-a-penny, in-for-a-pound line and increase the amount they’re carrying. So if they get through, the problem is greater. Exercise clemency, and you send the message that whilst we reserve the right to stretch your neck, we realise that you are a pawn and if you help us nab the big fish, we may not exercise that right. Also, reduce what you carry and that’ll help you (so if the overlord wants to move a whole kilo, he’s going to have to use more mules, increasing his risk of detection). So in deciding to execute Nguyen, the Singapore authorities (whilst making a statement) are actually making it harder for themselves to achieve their goal of preventing drug trafficking. That is, the next mule, rather than offer any help, will just think “Sod it, you’re going to kill me anyway, so why should I waste my last days helping you?” Again, it’s just pure logic.

For those espousing a religious ‘eye-for-an-eye’ argument, it has been suggested that giving a convicted lifer a number of years to sit in his cell, contemplating what he plans to say to his Maker with increasing trepidation (before the inevitable meeting we will all have), is possibly a greater punishment than hurrying that meeting up. Think about John 15:13 and replace ‘friend’ with ‘brother’.