Under our laws, when the State kills someone, it kills that person on my behalf and that of everyone else in this country.
Our criminal laws dictate that when someone commits a crime, it will be a case between that person against the State which represents us all.
It's unlike other laws such as contract (Torts) or family laws where the cases involve disputes between individuals.
Therefore, in matter of enforcing capital punishment, the State represents us in pursuing someone's death over a committed crime.
Personally, I don't want anyone to do that for me.
I don't feel right for the State to kill a criminal for me no matter how heinous the crime he/she committed.
When I was a law student, I got involved in a lot of arguments over this matter.
My Muslim friends said that I was against the teaching of my religion for opposing the death penalty because according to them Islam sanctions such a punishment.
Normally, I pointed to them that under the Islamic laws, the family of the victim is allowed to forgive the person who was found guilty of causing the death of their loved one.
That should mean the death penalty in Islam was meant for the State to punish the offender for those who directly suffer from the death of the victim and not for the rest of society.
I do recognise the right of those who lost their loved ones to demand just retribution, but not others' who got nothing to do with the case.
Honestly, I don't feel that I have the right to demand for the death of anybody the way the laws are being exercise in this country.
So, I do welcome this news,
Malaysia plans to drop mandatory death sentence
I think we are moving in the right direction as a more matured society.
Life is indeed precious and we need to be more careful before passing judgement on whether to end a person's life for a committed crime.
I was very uncomfortable from the start about the mandatory aspect of a death penalty as currently practiced in this country.
It's so final and the courts doesn't have much choice when dealing with an offender who committed such crimes which warrants it to pass such a judgment.
Mandatory death penalty is for the crime of murder, drug trafficking, treason and waging war against Yang DiPertuan Agong.
The courts have very limited discretionary power in such instances.
This to me doesn't serves justice well.
I know of cases where the judge was aware that the person being charged with a crime punishable by a mandatory death penalty was not guilty but have no choice but to pass such a sentence.
One such instance was when a husband adamantly claimed that the drugs found by police in his home belongs to him and not that of his wife while all evidence indicated that the wife was actually the one who was involved in drug trafficking to make ends meet.
The husband, an odd job worker was actually protecting his wife because he loves her and did not want their young children to grow up without their mother.
He also felt guilty that he did not provide enough for the family that his wife had resorted to sell drugs.
So, he decided to take her place at the gallows.
Sadly, the judge knew this was the case but was powerless to pass a lighter sentence on the man.
He had to pass the death sentence because it's mandatory to do so.
Legally speaking, the judge sent the man to death despite knowing of his innocence on behalf of all of us.
The burden of guilt in this instance belong to all of us.
Bear in mind that in cases of death penalty involving drug trafficking, the burden of proof is much lighter for the prosecution because the law which govern them was based on presumption.
The presumption is that a person would be considered to be trafficking drugs if they were in possession of a certain amount of dangerous drugs.
Under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act, those in possession of 15 gm or more heroin and morphine; 1,000 gm or more opium (raw or prepared); 200 gm or more cannabis; and 40 gm or more cocaine will receive the mandatory death sentence.
The burden of proof is actually on the defense to proof innocence.
It's unlike any other crime where the prosecution bears the burden of proof where it has to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offender's guilt to secure a conviction.
So, the possibility of someone being sent to the gallows for drug trafficking is rather high and the courts have no other recourse but to pass the death sentence once guilt has been established.
As far as I'm concerned, that's a rather risky way to decide whether a person should live or die.
If I'm a judge, I don't think I will be able to sleep peacefully at night having to send someone to his/her death under such laws.
Again, bear in mind, technically it's us as a society who are sending people to their death that way.
The judges, as interpreters of laws are merely our representatives.
It's our wakil rakyat in parliament who make those laws and we are the ones who put them there to make such laws on our behalf.
I'm glad that they now may change the laws, at least to make us less callous in passing judgement on whether someone is to live or die.
I hope the amendments will be done as soon as possible.
Justice must be tampered with mercy.
Mandatory death penalty is devoid of that.
Great more African niggers can con Malay girls to become drug mules. It is also good news for Africans, Iranians and other drug traffickers.ReplyDelete
Please try to think before you comment. Thank you.Delete
On the Nigerians or the Malay girls?Delete
girls ~ cindy lauper ~ girls wanted to have funDelete
'I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live. I believe that that death penalty should be used only very rarely, but I believe that no-one should go out certain that no matter how cruel, how vicious, how hideous their murder, they themselves will not suffer the death penalty.'ReplyDelete
- Margaret Thatcher
Just pondering Annoe..was going through pictures of the Paris massacre but couldn't find any...can you lead me to one..ReplyDelete
Please try google image.Delete
Even with the death penalty still in practise and widely enforced, with all the illicit drug trades run rampant together with large number of drug abuse cases among the youths, what made the government think getting rid of mandatory death penalty is such a terrific idea?ReplyDelete
Suicide bombers killing on behalf of God or others? Soldiers killing on behalf of others or self? Membunuh orang yang murtad, zina bawah Undang-undang Syariah, mature society ke?ReplyDelete
Kenapa Rasuah tak dikenakan hukuman gantung sampai mati? Terlalu ramai kut terlibat sampai dah jadi perkara biasa dan kurang keji ke?
Tepok dada dan tanya diri sendiri ...Delete
Menuju negara maju maa aa , Wa ingat memang kena itu macam lea aa , keras punya undang-undang semua kasi buang .
Wa pon atak ingat mungkin lia olang mau pakai itu " Hudud" maa aa .
Jeadi manoosea mao ala adab maa....tak bole sooka suka lampau batas leh ... heheheDelete
In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.ReplyDelete
- Abraham Lincoln
Clinging despairingly to the past, idling vainly about the future, one forgets life is lived now.
Failing to care about the past or future led to living a meaningless selfish life now.Delete
I guess its neither be hopeless nor selfish ... nor judgemental without right.Delete
The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.
- Bertrand Russell
Annie may not publish the following comment, but whatever it is, she would have received it and known how concerned I am of what I write:ReplyDelete
While you all debate the death penalty, I write asking for justice and fairness from Annie for wrongly accusing me having the intention to kill Alvin Tan in the comments to her past post “Massacres were committed by all sorts”
All I did was expressed my concern for non-Muslims desecrating and blaspheming the Muslim Holy Book, the Qur’an, by submitting a comment saying that Arab Muslims might massacre Alvin Tan (in reference to the Paris massacre - and if they can get hold of Alvin) for producing a series of photos on Facebook showing him using a page of the sacred Qur’an as toilet paper. It was so disgusting and seditious to the Muslims that the authorities in Facebook even closed his account.
Annie could have just not publish that comment of mine quietly and the matter would have rested at that – as blog owner, she has that prerogative. But she was nasty, chose to point out to readers that
Anonymous15 November 2015 at 13:21
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
And added the following which constitutes an accusation that I have an intention to kill -
Annie15 November 2015 at 15:54
Please don't express your intention to kill someone in my blog. Not even if the person is Alvin Tan. Thank you.
Clearly she was not fair. She did not publish my immediate two comments one of which gave 5 points explaining that what I said could not possibly be interpreted as an “intention to kill”, including the fact that even the Police could not trace Alvin Tan and serve their arrest warrant until now. When the Police could not trace the fellow, how could Muslim Arabs and even I do so, even if there was an intention to kill the fellow.
Annie mentions her “law student days”, implying that she presumably qualified in law but chose journalism as a profession. What a pity. She could have learnt about justice and fairness if she had practised law and might not have made wrong accusations against people.
Until now she has not expressed an apology or even any regret for being insensitive to the concern of Muslims for fellows like Alvin Tan desecrating and blaspheming the sacred book of Muslims, the Qur’an. Instead, she appeared to be defending Alvin Tan.
I’m asking her to confirm or deny if my interpretation of her acts and omissions pertaining to this case in the comments there are correct.
She published my other comments thereafter in that post. But publishing those does not constitute acceptance of what I said or regret for what she said and for her insensitivity to the concern of Muslims on the sanctity and the sacredness of the Holy Qur’an.
I'm hoping for her to apologize or at least express regret for that insensitivity and unfair accusation.
I agree with you Annie that MANDATORY death sentence should be abolished. Discretionary death sentence however should be allowed but for the judge to pass such sentence must be agreed by at least 2 other judges.ReplyDelete
"Mandatory death penalty is for the crime of murder, drug trafficking, treason and waging war against Yang DiPertuan Agong." Let us not forget under hudud law of PAS, murtad and zina is also punishable by death. Crazy right? We are moving backwards!
Please note that Quran never specify death as penalty for murtad or zina!! Humans and in our current modern world, Muslims particularly are so blood thirsty that they are willing to defy Quran to feed their addiction!
First abolish ISA now abolish mandatory death penalty.ReplyDelete
Can Malaysia please stop making Singapore look bad?
Narrated Ibn Abbas RA that the Prophet SAW commented,
( Book 60 Commentary of al-Quran, Hadith Sahih No 25 )
The law of Qisas retribution was prescribed for the children of Israel, but the Diya of damages paid was not ordained for them but for this Nation. Allah SWT said to this Nation (al-Q, 2.178):
" O ye who believe! The law of equality al-Qisas is prescribed to you in cases of murder; the free for the free the slave for the slave and the woman for the woman.
But if any remission Diya is made by the brother of the slain then grant any reasonable demand and compensate him with handsome damages; this is a concession for Muslims and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits of shall be in grave penalty. "
( cannot kill after taking Diya as damages )
-- Sahih Bukhari
Al-Qisas and Diya can be included in the Penal Code as can Hudud, kan?
Haji M Zin
Alor Gajah DPH
Our law is based on British common law, not religion.
Common law is based on many sources, Sdr ANON 06:45
including many such as from Sodom in the bible and al-Quran.
Syaria enactments are based on both common law and religion. Hudud punishments can be passed by Parliament in-sya-Allah to be included in the Penal Code.
Haji M Zin
Alor Gajah DPH
Haiyoo ... how to do hududReplyDelete
Putting convicts behind bars for the rest of their lives is far more stressful for them.ReplyDelete
But it's good.
I agree with Annie. To me when its involve drugs cases its more important to cure than kill.Killing doesnt solve this problem. Its not a problem but more like a diseases.I once watch documentary about this. "How to become rich selling drugs". Lots of former drug dealer said its better to cure than using force to stop this issue.ReplyDelete