Awatif Abdul Ghapar PET090003 Question: Should death penalty be mandatory for drug traffickers?

One year ago in the month of February, Singapore had stirred a controversy when the Government attempted to put a 22 year old Malaysian to death sentence due to drug trafficking of 47.27 grams of heroin. Until 2004, more than 400 people had been hung in Singapore under the same issue (About.com). I personally think regardless of the increasing number of death penalty being imposed, it still does not do much justice to the drug issue nowadays. Thus, I strongly disagree for death penalty to be mandatory for drug traffickers due to the injustice it serves, the no-effects on the issue as well as no man has the right to take another mans life. Death penalty is not proportionate to any crime committed in the world and no one really justifies if another man is really at fault. Though lex talionis or the law of retaliation does exist for death penalty, we are never sure if it should include drug trafficking. This is because drug trafficking itself is not as clear cut as it seems to be. One person may be caught red handed carrying drugs but it is never confirmed if he is at fault. With so many syndicates these days, anyone can be tricked to be the scapegoat. For example, Yong Vui Kong, the Malaysian citizen who was supposed to be hanged in Changi Prison before his 24 th birthday, has raised concerns of many parties on the justice imposed upon him. He was caught at the age of 19, carrying heroin and he himself is illiterate. Many parties argued that his disabilities should deter him from such punishment. In this case, it is difficult to tell if he is at guilt or being tricked. South East Asian is famous for being the Golden Triangle for drugs thus death penalty is common for some of the countries. The question is, is the law of retaliation equivalent to drug trafficking? And if it does, what is the indicator? For some, like in Cambodia and Myanmar where they are abundance of poor people, it is one ways of finding means though it is not morally accepted. Under the Law of Human Rights Committee
of United Nations, they have came to conclusion that death penalty for drug smuggling has failed to meet the condition of most serious crime in which it is only allowed under exceptional measure where there is an intention to kill which results in the loss of life. Hence, death penalty for drug smuggling must not be

mandatory due to the vagueness in the justice it brings. Death penalty should also not be taken as a deterrent factor to drug related crimes or drug abuse because even with death penalty, the number of crimes still continues to rise tremendously and drug trafficking is not the main cause of drug relate deaths. According to Human Rights Watch, despite of

many Asian countries imposing such law, there has not been any credible evidence that death penalty has helped to reduce crime more than any other punishments. A United Nation survey in 2002 on the research
findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates has shown that research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis." Governments who come to conclusion that by inflicting pain or terminating the drug trafficking aid in the reduction of drug abuse should channel their concerns on the issue to other alternatives. There are many other factors that contribute to the increment of crimes such as ignorance, emotional and mental factors as well as availability of substances in the country itself. Thus, the assumption that death penalty combats drug related issues is not relevant. A life is indeed precious that no one has the right to take it away from someone regardless of the superiority of the party. Even a Government has no right to take its citizens life, what more others. It is commonly known that many Malaysians are caught in Australia for drug smuggling including celebrities but then again they can always have round table discussion before imposing the sentence. Due to amiable foreign partnership, most of them managed to get away from the deathly punishment. However, the question is, how fair is that for a human to take another humans life? For a believer, only God has the right to do so. As for a non-believer, death will come when it is time but it does not lie in the hands of men. Life and death are natural life processes and thus should not be determined by men just because they are deemed to possess superiority and power to do so. As a conclusion, death penalty should never be made mandatory because no life is worth giving to another man, drug abuse and the effects are still on rise regardless of the law as well as there is no definite justice in imposing such punishment. Drug related cases should be tackled in other alternatives rather than focusing solely on death sentences. Justice should me give accordingly to the crime conducted without having to take a life because everyone deserves a second chance for them to repent and correct themselves.