From decapitation to hanging, capital punishment has evolved from grisly public spectacles in the past to the morbidity

of observing a death row inmates last moments in the modern world. Capital punishment exists in many states around the world today, though it faces tremendous hostility from its raucous opponents, who habitually raise the hackneyed old argument that the death penalty denies an individual the rights to live. This raises the question of what the basis for the death penalty is and whether this is valid in the light of its opponents arguments.

In Singapore, capital punishment is meant for most severe of crimes, such as murder, treason and drug trafficking. The death penalty for the latter is mandatory when involving drugs exceeding a certain amount. Like many countries, the basis for capital punishment is to mainly enforce a commensurate punishment for an offender, serve as a deterrent and as a form of reparation to the families of victims. More importantly, it vindicates criminal laws so that justice is upheld.

The much clichd argument made by abolitionists about the death penalty is that no one has the right to rule over the fate of anothers life and therefore, it is inappropriate for the death penalty to be enforced by the state. Based on this assumption, abolitionists regard the court to be hypocritical when the death penalty is served upon a murderer, since the court is committing the same crime as the offender. Most abolitionists also adduce the Bible to support their opinion that murder, whether by the state or the individual, should not be tolerated. To sum up their argument, two wrongs dont make a right.

The fact is that abolitionists are missing the point. Indeed, both the death penalty and murder both involve the taking of a life. However, there is a need to consider the nature of these killings. In the case of the death penalty, its main objective is to ensure that justice is served by meting out a commensurate sentence to an offender who has committed a crime of the upmost severity, as opposed to murder, whereby the perpetrators justifications for his actions may be irrational and untenable. In the Bible, while it states, Thou shalt not kill, it also commands that the death penalty should be given to acts such as murder as a form of retribution. In essence, the death penalty can be justified and should not constitute a wrong in the first place.

In addition, abolitionists assert that life is sacrosanct and should be venerated. By meting out the death sentence to an offender, the state is violating this principle. Clearly, this is a parochial and self-seeking interpretation of the death penalty. Consider this: when a murderer takes the life of someone, he has disregarded the fundamental right of that person to live. By exacting a lowered penalty for rape, it also demonstrates an indifference to the misery of the victim and a consequent degradation to the value of life. Therefore, the state can only rightfully accord human life the highest value if it enforces the death penalty.

More often than not, opponents of the death penalty also argue that there are more humane ways of upholding the tenets that the death penalty stands for, such as incarceration or rehabilitation. However, what they do not realise is that the death penalty is irreplaceable, for it is the only form of punishment that can entirely eradicate the possibility for recidivism. Statistics released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation show that recidivism rates for murder (for offenders who were not sentenced to death) in California in 2004 was 4.26% (out of 47 offenders), which is substantial, considering the size of the group of offenders. Moreover, Singapore has the lowest homicide rates in the world, with only 0.3 intentional murders per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012. This furthers the argument for the death penalty, as a form of deterrence, as rehabilitation and incarceration works only for penitent offenders. From a utilitarian point of view, why risk the deaths of innocent victims, when there already exists a pre-emptive method to eradicate this risk?

It is important to note that in Singapore, the death sentence is mandatory, especially for drug trafficking of drugs exceeding a certain amount, which has been vehemently deplored by various human rights organisations because of its infringement of international laws that establish that drug offences should not be considered capital crimes. Nonetheless, capital punishment remains for severe drugrelated offences, such as those committed by Nguyen Van Tuong and Johannes van Damme, and for good reason. Singapore is located near the Golden Triangle, which is one of the worlds most extensive opium-producing areas and a major cogwheel of the global drug trade. By enforcing the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking, this would further accentuate the countrys uncompromising stance on drug

trafficking and deter the establishment of drug syndicates in Singapore in the presence of the Golden Triangle. Statistics in the UN Illicit Drug Trends Report 2003 show that Singapore has one of the least prevalence of drug abuse in the world, which offers further justification for the death penalty. Where many other countries have failed, Singapore has succeeded in keeping the drug menace under control.

While hardline abolitionists have raised numerous concerns about the death penalty, there exists a greater need than ever to take an uncompromising stand towards serious offences and to carry out pre-emptive intervention of recidivism. As Theodore Sendak, former Indiana Attorney-General, once said, we must ask ourselves which action will serve the true humanitarian purpose of criminal law. We should weigh the death of the convicted murders against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility of potential victims to murder.