October 14, 03:47 PM 
514 Chai Chee Lane 03-16, Singapore 469029 Should Singapore abolish the death penalty altogether? Or is there merit for the death penalty to be kept as part of our justice system? Is it a moral issue? Or is there another take on it?
If you always thought this sort of debate is really about philosophy, well, yes it is. But there is also a practical side to things as well because come one day, you may know of a friend of a friend who knows a friend who are involved in drugs. Or maybe not.
Organised by think tank Institute of Policy Studies from Oct 12-Oct 30, two lawyers - Eugene Thuraisingam and Tan Peng Chin - are going head-to-head on this topic of the death penalty online. Both read law from the National University of Singapore but will explore the issue from opposite perspectives.
Debate topic: WE SHOULD ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY IN SINGAPORE
Here's the wheat without the chaff:
|
Eugene Thuraisingam (Yes, we should abolish the death penalty) |
Tan Peng Chin (No, we should keep the death penalty) |
| Eugene commenced practice at Allen & Gledhill in June 2001 and quickly rose through the ranks to be made a partner of the firm in January 2007. He then joined Stamford Law Corporation in 2009 as a Director and was one of the pioneers of its Dispute Resolution Department until he left in 2012 to set up his own practice. He now leads a firm of 5 lawyers specialising in Criminal and Commercial Litigation. | Peng Chin started his legal career with Freshfields when it was the only International law firm that was allowed to practice Singapore laws. He was one of the founding partners and also the Managing Partner of Wong, Yoong, Tan and Molly Lim before he founded Tan Peng Chin & Partners in 1994, which is now known as Tan Peng Chin LLC. Peng Chin is a solicitor specialising in Corporate Finance, Banking, Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate and Commercial laws whose practice includes many substantial cross border transactions. |
| Moral argument: To kill another person is wrong, therefore it should not be any different even if killing takes place in the name of the state. No one has the power to take life away. | Moral argument: An argument against the death penalty is that it is an inhumane or cruel way to die. Is dying by hanging more painful, uncomfortable or traumatic than, say, being bludgeoned to death or dying from a debilitating cancer, where after sometime even the morphine is unable to ameliorate the pain? In most murder cases, did the killer give his victim a painless, comfortable and easy way to die? Is hanging more miserable than dying from a drug overdose? One should also not forget the pain or suffering of family members whose relative had been murdered or destroyed by drugs. |
| Deterrent argument: There is a complete absence of clear or reliable evidence that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than other forms of punishment. In examining the deterrent effect of the death penalty, there is also a need to weigh the drawbacks of capital punishments with its supposed advantages. Are judges more reluctant to find defendants guilty if there is a chance that they might be executed? Does the death penalty affect other innocent third parties more than other types of punishment? | Deterrent argument: The world, including Singapore, has become more civilised, but unfortunately human society is not completely civilised. There are still people who are as comfortable with killing a fellow human being as slaughtering a chicken, and who for profit are prepared to commit the most heinous crimes regardless of the harm or damage it can cause to individuals or society.Fortunately, even though some people may no longer be afraid of the authorities or even God, the same people are still afraid of dying.
Based on my interaction with many prisoners, including hardcore criminals, I have concluded that the only punishment that criminals are afraid of, is the death penalty. |
| Justice system is not infallible: None of us can honestly say that there is any criminal justice system in the world that can claim absolute certainty of guilt in convicting a person. The legal test in common law jurisdictions is one of proving a case beyond reasonable doubt. Human failings and error aside, the very test itself does not contemplate the trier of fact being absolutely certain of guilt. | Deterrent argument (2): The world has become more civilised, but it has also become a lot more competitive, demanding and stressful. It has never been difficult for unscrupulous criminals to make use of simple misguided persons to do their illicit tasks and to hurt others. With modern technology and globalisation it has become even easier for radicals and extremists to sway the disgruntled and perhaps criminally inclined persons to subscribe to their perverted idealogies. As a result, the harm and damage that a really evil person can cause today is tremendous. |
Currently, more readers have supported Eugene's argument. You can watch the full debate and vote here.
If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.
If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.