An amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was passed today to remove the mandatory death penalty for drug offences and to instead give judges full discretion in sentencing.
The amendments were passed on the last day of the current Dewan Rakyat meeting via a majority voice vote after Putrajaya altered a provision in the amendment bill that was criticised by Opposition members and the Bar Council.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman tabled an alteration to the bill to give full discretion to judges in sentencing drug convicts.
The previous version of the amendment bill said that the judge could only exercise their discretion if the Public Prosecutor issued a certificate declaring that the convict had cooperated with authorities.
A great step forward for social humanity in Malaysia.
But better still. abolish capital punishment. To those of you who are religious and devoted to the Almighty, don't you believe it's God's prerogative to decide on a human being's life?
Why ignore the reality that state capital punishment is legalised murder under some pretext of 'protection' for society?
It's more of a Biblical (or Quranic) 'an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth'.
It should not be for mortals to determine whether a man should live or die - that's the prerogative of the Almighty so don't usurp His Rights.
'Protection' for society can be to confine a person convicted of a heinous crime to real-term 'life imprisonment', meaning he or she will not be paroled or ever released from jail.
Still, it's a humongous leap forward from our previous draconian automatic death penalty without due proper judgement of a trained and experienced judge or judges.
I wonder whether this humane step forward could have happened if Mahathir were still the PM? Well, it didn't in his 22-years reign.
You are subtlely praising MO1? Why you also not say it didn't happen during Pak Lah time?
ReplyDeleteYou for an atheist how to leave the prerogative to the almighty?
Wakakaka.........
as an atheist, you should note that I wrote above: "To those of you who are religious and devoted to the Almighty, don't you believe it's God's prerogative to decide on a human being's life?"
Deletewakakaka
by the by, wasn't the amendment a cabinet decision (and managed by Azalina Othman)? now it's MO1 when in Forex, it's a cabinet decision, wakakaka
DeleteLikewise, if there were no amendments done during Mahathir's 22-years reign as PM that's bcoz there was NOT cabinet decision le!
DeleteSo why u r still trying to stick the label solely on mamak lah?
Mouth working faster than brain?? Or u r selective in yr 'fair' judgement?
Wakakakaka...
here we go again, the inevitable dig, don't you get tired? I do reading it
ReplyDeletedrug abuse is still a major problem for the country, they had to implement some kind of deterrent but eventually they realized only mules, some blackmailed, some ignorant, some tricked, paying the price which was why they said those who assist the authorities would be spared the death penalty
Yes, so says Ktemoc the Najib promoter.
DeleteAt one point in the 1980's , about 10 people per day were dying on Penang streets due to heroin overdose and side-effects of drug addiction.
DeleteThe death penalty for drug trafficking received wide public support as a deterrent and it was not a politicised legislation. DAP supported it, as I remember.
Each of us has a personal view of how society should deal with criminals. I personally do not believe in executing a human being. If he/she is a danger to society, then lock him/her up for real life - Malaysia can legislate to that effect. We should not use the Western society's more lenient (so-called) 'life imprisonment' as an excuse.
DeleteBut the upshot is we should not kill an already caught person.
I'm with you on this one, life in prison should mean just that, no parole
DeleteThe key criteria SHOULD be based on Prime Directive on evolution of humanity!
DeleteIf a society is culturally matured & advanced, then a battery of heinous crimes SHOULDN'T likely to happened. Their developed mental/social stages deter the occurrences of such anti-societal behaviors.
Even if atrocious crime happened, it would be exceptional than norm - possibly due to some mental defects that's nature occurrence rather than nurture through deviant indoctrination.
The people is more likely to be compassionated & open-minded. They r rational!
Only at that stage of humanity revolution can then capital punishments be totally abolished.
At our current humanity development, many heinous crimes r INDUCED via nurturing by societal influences, as seen in those zombieic teachings.
The inflictor has evil aims while the inflictees, most of the time, r plain innocent bystanders.
Besides, the next of kins will not accept any other judgement except an-eye-for-an-eye. That's natural in the current human behavioural framework. To act otherwise, IS asking for utopian endeavors!
法治 (strictly governed with laws) is the best solution to current human emotional out bursts.
And the ultimate deterrent in any law must be a suitably severe punishment which, unfortunately is death in current humanity evolution.
It's the example that creates the fear to prevent future role playing.
Cruel, but effective in a primitive society. Otherwise, how to govern properly, when emotions r still the guiding force to shape the society/country/culture?
Not true in your "the next of kins will not accept any other judgement except an-eye-for-an-eye."
DeleteAn Aussie dad whose daughter was killed in the Bali bombing some years ago was one of those who objected strongly to the death sentence for the bombers
furthermore, criminologists and sociologists have agreed that capital punishment does NOT deter crimes. Don't tembak lah
Delete"An Aussie dad ....objected strongly to the death sentence for the bombers"....
DeleteVery rare such objections raised...possibly wasn't close to his daughter or did not care much for her...such parents do exist...
Survey conducted in the US among loved ones of victims where
the convicted Killer only received prison sentences shows a majority of a sense of justice not being served..of a penalty not inline with the crime.
Classic case in California of Charles Manson, convicted of masterminding the murder of 9 people, including a 26-year old pregnant mother about 1970.
He died recently at a ripe old aged of 83 in his bed in a prison hospital. Unrepentant of his actions, unrehabilitated to the end.
Justice was NOT served.
U obviously DONT know what's Prime Directive?
DeleteU pick & choose some examples from a slightly 'matured' society to support yr takes!
Banyakx2 pandai le!
Earth is not occupied by this group of bleeding hearts only. Mothership Earth has many other inhabitants of diverse cultures/believes in various degrees of evolution. How could u judge/impose yr rules to a larger groupings who DON'T share yr insights/values?
In fact, even among this slightly tolerating group there r vast disagreement over capital punishment.
Their criminologists and sociologists have agreed that capital punishment does NOT deter crimes. They also agreed that there r not better solution than tough laws!
Who's tough laws? The bleeding hearts'? The sufferees'? Or the next of kins'?
In short, these opinionated criminologists and sociologists have no better solutions based on their one-leg-kick studies.
Read this:
Father of murder victim detonates grenades in Ukraine court killing two people
&
Bosnian war criminal dies after drinking poison in court as he loses Hague appeal
R these rational decisions of the group of people u quoted? Have their leniency in law enforcement reduces unnecessary deaths?
To the sufferers, the justice from the authority has not been done. Thus, they take the drastic actions into their own hand - a very natural human emotive - resulting in more unnecessary deaths!
you are wrong in that criminologists and sociologists have agreed that there r not better solution than tough laws!
DeletePolice experts have stated the best steps to reduce crimes are actions to reduce drugs and place stricter alcohol control (the latter in Western nations like Australia), more police personnel patrolling the streets, community policing (focusing on areas having higher crime rates), keeping kids in schools for as long as possible, behavioural intervention programs, preventing slums and ghettos from being overlooked by authorities.
Studies have shown crime rates are lower in states without the death penalty.
U tau baca ke???
DeletePrime Directive!!!
Different stage of evolution!!!
Don't just quote criminological and sociological studies done on single culture on a different level of maturity lah!
What u have mentioned about those societal treatments DON'T work across the board.
In fact alternative studies have proved that such communal procedure works only piecemeally in small community. Definitely NOT in a country setting, even with small population!
The continual existence of violent crimes in Scandinavia countries, where what u've proposed have been put in practice, proves yr cockagroo tales about these one-leg-kick criminologists and sociologists.
BTW, studies have ALSO shown crime rates are NOT lower in states without the death penalty. There r signs of increasing. Hence many countries, who have removed capital punishment, r ushering it back again!
The ONLY time when capital punishment COULD be removed from the surface of earth is when humanity can react only with rationality & devoid of emotion.
But, by then there r only robots left!!!
Re your "possibly wasn't close to his daughter or did not care much for her...such parents do exist" do you think everyone is like you?
ReplyDeleteCharles Manson was initially sentenced to death but eventually was incarcerated for life (without parole) until he died because California abolished capital punishment. justice had been served in incarcerating the guilty person, denying him the freedom to be amongst society.
Civil liberty policy has been (to quote):
Murder (through capital punishment) demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. Because life is precious and death irrevocable, murder is abhorrent, and a policy of state-authorized killings is immoral.
It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of violence, rather than reason, as the solution to difficult social problems. Many murder victims do not support state-sponsored violence to avenge the death of their loved one.
Sadly, these victims have often been marginalized by politicians and prosecutors, who would rather publicize the opinions of pro-death penalty family members.
An execution is a violent public spectacle of official homicide, and one that endorses killing to solve social problems – the worst possible example to set for the citizenry, and especially children.
Governments worldwide have often attempted to justify their lethal fury by extolling the purported benefits that such killing would bring to the rest of society. The benefits of capital punishment are illusory, but the bloodshed and the resulting destruction of community decency are real.
Justice, it is often insisted, requires the death penalty as the only suitable retribution for heinous crimes. This claim does not bear scrutiny, however. By its nature, all punishment is retributive. Therefore, whatever legitimacy is to be found in punishment as just retribution can, in principle, be satisfied without recourse to executions.
Some people who have lost a loved one to murder believe that they cannot rest until the murderer is executed. But this sentiment is by no means universal. Coretta Scott King has observed, "As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder and assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder." (Speech to National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1981)
Kerry Kennedy Cuomo, daughter of the slain Senator Robert Kennedy, has written:
"I was eight years old when my father was murdered. It is almost impossible to describe the pain of losing a parent to a senseless murder.…But even as a child one thing was clear to me: I didn't want the killer, in turn, to be killed. I remember lying in bed and praying, 'Please, God. Please don't take his life too.' I saw nothing that could be accomplished in the loss of one life being answered with the loss of another. And I knew, far too vividly, the anguish that would spread through another family – another set of parents, children, brothers, and sisters thrown into grief."(Foreword to Gray and Stanley, A Punishment in Search of A Crime 1989)
Across the nation, many who have survived the murder of a loved one have joined Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation or Murder Victims Families for Human Rights, in the effort to replace anger and hate toward the criminal with a restorative approach to both the offender and the bereaved survivors.
I am being deliberately provocative to challenge your pseudo-humanism liberal writing.
Delete"They only shot back at armed enemies" - that is a sanitised and untruthful picture of armed military service. It only applies to Blue Helmet UN or other peacekeeping missions.
Under normal circumstances, soldiers do get ordered to initiate attacks and ambushes against unsuspecting enemies, call artillery shells to rain down on unprepared opponents, and also attack towns and villages which may be full of civilians ( fortunately has not been a situation faced in modern Malaysia.)
and what war do you think my family members were in?
DeleteYour myriad relatives who joined the Armed Forces, equipped with deadly weapons, were essentially State trained and sanctioned Killers.
ReplyDeleteBut I will never call them Murderers (the way you characterise capital punishment here).
I recognise that under certain circumstances, subject to due process, the State has the right and the responsibility to order a life to be taken.
The defence of the Nation is one.
The penalty upon conviction of a heinous crime is another.
my soldiers/police family members did not kill the enemies when they were caught/captured. They only shot back at armed enemies.
DeleteDo get your wild emotions under control and distinguish between the soldiers fighting armed terrorists and state executioners hanging prisoners
How much more munafik do u want???
Delete1st u play yr crocodile tear about the inhumane in state executioners hanging prisoners l. Then u qualify the necessary of killing in war!
Ehhhh...ain't they all the act of killing?
Tsk.... tsk.....
I am not surprised a person like you are unable to distinguish the difference between armed soldiers at war killing each other and the state executing an unarmed already captive state prisoner
DeleteI'm too not surprised a pseudo bleeding heart like you are trying to categorize killing!
DeleteWhen considering death execution associated with drug abuse, one needs to look at the big picture. How many have died due to narcotics? It should be a trial by jury and I agree to leave it to the judge on the sentencing.
ReplyDeletehumane is it bec hudud no mention of drug offence?
ReplyDelete