Sunday, September 20, 2020

'Eye for an eye' arguement is FOOLISH and unjust reason for protesting abolition of Mandatory death penalty? Death sentence still possible after mandatory sentence abolished?

EYE FOR AN EYE - for some, this means that if a person kills another, the one who kills will also be killed. For a person who rapes another, should the rapist be raped? For a person who injures another causing him to lose a hand, then cut of the hand of the perpetrator. What about a Minister who 'stole' our money - who commits kleptocracy, etc?

No doubt, criminal need to be punished - should someone who caused the death of another be hanged to death. What about your employer, who did not provide a safe workplace, and it resulted in a worker being killed - kill that employer too? A drunk driver that causing an accident killing someone - hang him to death too?

Mahatma Gandhi allegedly used this phrase in the context of universal harmony: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Coretta Scott King(partner of Martin Luther King,  later used this phrase in the context of racial violence: "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."
Many who take that position of an 'eye for an eye' really may have no friend, family or friend that has been executed - or is waiting to be hanged to death.

Is DEATH a punishment - after death, the criminal fells nothing > Is not long prison term really a worse punishment?

Who decides on the sentence? When it comes to MANDATORY death penalty, Parliament decided that everyone found guilty of murder will face the one and only punishment - HANGED BY THE NECK TO DEATH.

But what about an abused wife, who finally cannot take it - and hits her husband, and he dies. She is guilty of Murder - so, she too will be hanged to death.

A rich man orders or pays A, B and C to kill V. A, B and C gets caught and they are all found guilty of Murder. Now, A was the one who actually killed - B and C followed him, but really may not have not beaten or killed. C was the 19 year old brother of A, and he followed A not even knowing the plan. Mandatory Death Penalty means all 3 will be hanged to death. The judge has NO CHOICE to sentence B and C to a lesser sentence. The rich man usually escapes despite his order or payment to kill.

Why abolish mandatory death penalty? Well, this gives the JUDGE after hearing all the facts and evidence to make a just and appropriate sentence - he may still sentence A(the actual killer to death), and sentence B and C to prison sentences - maybe young C to a lesser prison term. 

Now, if A helps the police identify and provide evidence so that Rich man is also caught and prosecuted. Then maybe, for this 'assistance' - the judge may not sentence A to death but instead to a long prison sentence > so, the abolition of the mandatory death penalty will increase the possibility of those who ordered or paid others to kill to also be caught and prosecuted. After all, A, B and/or C would not have killed anyone if not for the fact they were paid to kill.

Poverty - A may have a family and they have no money for rent, and the following month they may be evicted. So, desperate A agreed to receive maybe RM10,000 from A to kill the victim. Does poor A deserve the death penalty? 

MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY now is there for about 10 offences > and guess what, only about 3 crimes result in the death of the victim - there is no death caused in the other 7 crimes. So, even 'eye for an eye' position cannot be justified for the mantaining of the mandatory death penalty in offences where no one dies.

There are several kinds of mandatory death penalty offences in Malaysia

a) Where death results; and 
b) Where no death results by reason of committing the said offence that carries the mandatory death penalty.

In the first category, where death results, there are really only 3 offences - 

a) Murder(sec. 302 Penal Code), 

b) Committing terrorist acts where the act results in death (sec. 130C (1)(a) ]; and 

c) Hostage taking where the act results in death (sec. 374(a) Penal Code)

In there second category, where death is not the result

a) Drug Trafficking (sec. 39B Dangerous Drugs Act 1952

AND, in certain listed offenses where a firearm is discharged, both the person who discharged the firearm and the accomplices will face the mandatory death penalty [Firearms (Increased Penalties Act 1971 - section 3 and 3A with reference to the Schedule in the Act]

1. Extortion 

2. Robbery.

3. The preventing or resisting by any person, of his own arrest or the arrest of another by a police officer or any other person lawfully empowered to make the arrest.

4. Escaping from lawful custody.

5. Abduction or kidnapping under sections 363 to 367 of the Penal Code and section 3 of the Kidnapping Act 1961 [Act 365].

6. House-breaking or house-trespass under sections 454 to 460 of the Penal Code.
** So, one person shoots a gun not even aiming at anyone, he and all accomplices will be sentenced to hang to death if convicted. But if the criminals just brought knives and even slashed a few of the victims, they will not be sentenced to mandatory death > an odd and unjust offence - the intention seems to be against the people getting or having firearms. What about the Altantuya case, where she was allegedly killed with a bomb(C4) - was there any investigation as to who supplied the C4 - was anyone charged?

Interestingly, there are also many other offences where death results that do not even carry the death penalty, or the mandatory death penalty.

THUS, no one should object the abolition of the MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY - trust our judges to impose an appropriate, just sentence.

Mandatory death penalty today only exists in a few countries - Ghana, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Singapore

Abolishing MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY - does not mean that the death sentence is abolished - it will still be a possible sentence, and judges can after hearing the case, and considering all facts/points can still impose the death sentence for those they feel justly deserve the death sentence.

VERY ODD why some Malaysians are opposing the abolition of the mandatory death penalty...

If it is based on their 'eye for an eye' position/value, then not just mandatory death penalty, but also the death penalty MUST be forthwith removed from all offences where no death happens...

Removing the mandatory death penalty, is nothing but a first step towards total abolition of the Death Penalty - the then BN, and the then PH government was taking steps towards abolition...and now this PN government (which is made up of also BN and some former PH) seems to have forgotten about abolition of the mandatory death penalty - REMEMBER, the PH government was supposed to table the Bill abolishing mandatory death penalty during the March 2020 Parliamentary session.

Politicians and political parties sometimes is 'weak' when it comes to their position, values and stances > so easy do they waiver, or even 'change' simply because they fear that they will lose some votes if they push forward # we should reject such politicians and parties > we need politicians and parties that stick to their promises made before election, who will not change positions after they get into power..'Janji Tidak DiTepati' was previously used against BN - could it also now apply to the PH Plus as well.

So, speedily abolish the MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY - ignore the foolish, who simply want every person, despite their age, circumstances, irrespective of whether they were the ones that actually killed or just one who was there with no intention of killing anyone,...

'Eye for an Eye' position > so no more delays to abolish the mandatory death penalty, where the crime does not result in anyone being killed. For such offences, death penalty also must be abolished???


Hard to abolish mandatory death sentence as Malaysians favour ‘eye for an eye’ punishments, says ex-law minister

Padang Rengas MP Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz speaks during an interview at his office in Kuala Lumpur September 15, 2020. — Picture by Ahmad Zamzahuri
Padang Rengas MP Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz speaks during an interview at his office in 
Kuala Lumpur September 15, 2020. — Picture by Ahmad Zamzahuri

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 17 — Former law minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz has admitted that it is difficult to abolish the country’s mandatory death sentence, as Malaysians always demand “an eye for an eye”.

He said ignoring public opinion and pushing through the amendments to the law necessary for its removal would inflict collateral damage on any government of the day.

“Well, I don’t believe in the mandatory death penalty. But then again, if you want to touch the law, you must convince the rakyat and our rakyat still feel that it must be an eye for an eye.

“Yes, it cuts across all races,” Nazri, who is a staunch advocate for the abolishment of the mandatory death sentence, told Malay Mail in an interview recently.

In 2018, the then Pakatan Harapan (PH) government announced that it planned to abolish the death penalty and halted all pending executions — in a move that was hailed by international human rights groups.

The death penalty would then be replaced with a minimum 30-year prison sentence.

But in February this year, the PH government said it was still studying the possibility of abolishing the mandatory death penalty but not capital punishment altogether.

A survey published by research outfit The Centre in June, however, found that most Malaysians feel the mandatory death penalty should be retained, especially for brutal crimes like murder, where the perpetrator exhibited high levels of intention and aggression.

The death penalty is currently applicable to 33 offences in Malaysia, including 12 for which it is the mandatory punishment. They are drug trafficking, murder, offences against the King, five offences pertaining to terrorism, hostage taking, organised crime, firearms offences and rape.

No comments: