Blood on our hands

In most developed nations, there has been absolute abolishment of the death penalty. One such developed nation that has not followed this trend is Singapore. Indeed, not only is the death sentence a mandatory sentence for criminals convicted of homicide, but also for drug traffickers (if their cursed cargo exceeds a certain specified limit) and other 'serious crimes'.

While most of the population do not seem to have an issue with the death penalty, feeling that it is this an appropriate punishment for people who breach such laws, given the perceived seriousness of homicide and drug trafficking. Righteously, they feel that such people should be punished and it will serve as a deterrent to prevent other people from attempting to commit such heinous crime.

But I do not wish to attempt a critical measure if the death penalty is proportional or appropriate response to the crime committed, or if the criminals deserve what they get as they had or should have full knowledge of the punishment awaiting them. Neither is this a consideration if the very concepts of human rights, in this case the most fundamental right of them all, the right to life, should be adhered to in Singapore. What I wish to question is the very ethics of the death penalty itself, since the death penalty is effectively an intentional termination of one's life.

Granted, murdering someone or ruining peoples lives by drug trafficking in itself is not ethical and is a bane to society, but to impose a death penalty is akin to an 'eye for an eye' mentality, which as we know, results in everyone becoming blind. By imposing the death penalty, a judge* is effectively playing God since he decides if a person lives or die under his hammer. In other words, it is akin to cold blooded murder, albeit with 'justification under the law'. Just as I would never want to be put in the position of a potential murderer, I similarly would not be inclined to be put in the position of the judge. Both ways, I have blood on my hands, albeit in very different circumstances.

*Of course, a judge has to abide by the laws of the State, so he does not have absolute discretion per se. The President has a theoretical power to pardon but of course, there is social and political pressure and therefore it is not an absolute discretion as well. Thus there is a contributory responsibility of the law enactors (Parliament) and the judiciary.

While the actions of criminals who warrant a death penalty are usually heinous and contemptible, for the State to impose a death penalty is stooping to the low level of the criminals themselves as the State is effectively conciously and intentionally taking away a life. Just like a murder victim has no right to take away the life of his victim, why should a State have the right to take away the murderer's life? It would be highly dangerous to proclaim a 'he deserves death for his dastardly deeds' mentality as it is this self-righteous and hard-line mentality which is the primary cause of much strife and wars of the past.

The bottomline is, just like in a war, in spite of the fact that you can take lives in the name of territorial defence, ultimately, there will still be blood in your hands, whether the person's whose life you take similarly has blood on his hands. (In case you are wondering, that is why I am against war too. Too much blood on one's hands).

Being part of the global equation, Singapore cannot take an absolutist 'mind your own business, we'll enact our own laws' attitude. For our global society to progress, the first thing to do is to stop infighting and killing fellow beings within the human race. Anything that justifies intentional death of a fellow human being falls within the ambit. This will include both wars and death penalties in any part of the world. Of course, for wars and death penalties to be completely eliminated from our world will probably not happen within our lifetimes, if ever. There is, however, no doubt that this is the path for our species' advancement in which we, as a global (as opposed to territorial) race, should take. Archaic laws such as the death penalty may have served well in times past, but they should be gradually phased out and replaced with laws (such as life sentences without possibility for parole, perhaps?) which will better suit the modern social climate.