Is capital punishment right or wrong? Does “a life for a life” still apply? Many countries have already abolished capital punishment and changed the sentence to life imprisonment instead.
The recent case where this guy supposedly raped and murdered a little girl created a lot of controversy. In his appeal to the Court of Appeal, two out of the three judges gave the verdict that he should be hanged, whereas the third judge felt that there was no real evidence that he intended to kill the girl, although there was substantial evidence that he intended to cause her harm.
Thus, if he was to be charged under Voluntarily Causing Hurt, he would be sentenced to just one year imprisonment and fined S$10,000.00 instead. Such a big difference. The girl died after he inflicted her injuries, and even if he did not intend to kill her, he would only need to go to jail for just one year?!
Actually since the majority of the quorum stated that he should be hanged, technically he could be hanged. Only thing is that he could go up to the President himself and plead for clemency. Normally if the Appellate judges had a unanimous verdict on a death sentence, there would be no questions asked.
But in this case, since one judge differed from the other two, there is still a chance of fighting the case and the President can still pardon him from the noose. Which means if this happens, a criminal can then go off scot-free. The things some lawyers do just to win a case really sickens me, even if the person is a murderer.
The thing is that premeditated murder must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt before a criminal will be sentenced to death. The judge who felt that there were some doubts regarding the premeditation stated that there was no proof that he intended to kill the girl, since there was no motive for him to kill her.
Like the sensational case a few years back where the guy asked a teenager to kill his ex-wife in cold blood. In that case, the guy planned out the murder, and the teenager adhered to his plan and stabbed the wife who died.
In this case, there was motive as he could get his daughter, the flat and his wife’s insurance policies as well as money. Thus his appeal was thrown out as all three judges felt there was premeditation and sentenced him to death.
The poor teenager escaped the noose by virtue of his age, but he would be kept in jail until the President pardoned him. A young kid’s life and future ruined just like that.
In this case, as long as there was some doubt that arises from the case that the guy did not intend to kill the girl but probably accidentally causing her death, he need not be hanged, probably just be sentenced to culpable homicide amounting to murder and be imprisoned for life.
Right or wrong as it seems, it is a life. So if he had no intention or motive of killing the girl, he would not be hanged. Due to situations like this, capital punishment has been abolished in many places, even if it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the murderer intended to kill, simply because people feel that they have no right to take away somebody’s life. But has the murderer any right then to take away another person’s life in the first place?
Sentencing a wrong-doer to death may be a cruel thing, but has anyone considered that the murderer killed an innocent person in cold blood just for his / her own benefits? There are so many instances to murder, and many may be justifiable homicide, but to just kill someone no matter what he / she has done to you is just wrong. And for that, the murderer has to pay a price.
Some people will say that it is still a life, but the family and loved ones of the victim will want the murderer to be hanged for killing the victim and causing them extreme grief. Unlike other countries, down here the death penalty is still hanging until the person dies, and nobody except the hangman and another officer can witness the hanging. A depressing job in my opinion.
There are other ways of execution. In England and China (and maybe France), there used to be execution by the axe. The executioner will chop off the person’s head in one swoop in public. What a gory sight. I wonder how anyone could even stomach such a scene.
Some countries have public hanging or lynching where the person will be lynched until he dies. The different American states have their own ways of capital punishment. There is the gas chamber, where the person will be gassed until he dies. There is the electric treatment, where the person will be electrocuted.
What I saw in the movie “The Green Mile” is that the murderer’s head will be covered by a cloth, then a wet sponge will be put on his head connecting with the wires for the electricity to pass through. After everything is set up, the electricity will be switched on and the electric currents will then pass through the body of the murderer until he dies.
Another gory sight. I think that has since been changed to the electric chair where the murderer will be strapped in the chair for electric currents to pass through his body. Whatever ways the capital punishment is, I am glad I never have to witness any real examples of it.
But is it really necessary to take away one’s life in exchange for another? A rather complicating issue actually. No one has a right to judge what is right or wrong, but I think capital punishment is necessary especially for serial hardcore criminals who have no qualms killing people one after another.
True, no one deserves to have their lives taken away by another, but then the victims who have done nothing wrong also have a right to live on, yet their lives have been cruelly cut short by someone who thinks nothing of killing them.
So will that guy be hanged for causing the little girl’s death? Hard to say actually. He did confess the girl died because of him, but he has not given a satisfactory reason or motive as to why he wanted to kill her or how her death would benefit him. And for that alone, it could be said he did not have the intention to kill in the first place. So perhaps he may escape the noose after all.
The recent case where this guy supposedly raped and murdered a little girl created a lot of controversy. In his appeal to the Court of Appeal, two out of the three judges gave the verdict that he should be hanged, whereas the third judge felt that there was no real evidence that he intended to kill the girl, although there was substantial evidence that he intended to cause her harm.
Thus, if he was to be charged under Voluntarily Causing Hurt, he would be sentenced to just one year imprisonment and fined S$10,000.00 instead. Such a big difference. The girl died after he inflicted her injuries, and even if he did not intend to kill her, he would only need to go to jail for just one year?!
Actually since the majority of the quorum stated that he should be hanged, technically he could be hanged. Only thing is that he could go up to the President himself and plead for clemency. Normally if the Appellate judges had a unanimous verdict on a death sentence, there would be no questions asked.
But in this case, since one judge differed from the other two, there is still a chance of fighting the case and the President can still pardon him from the noose. Which means if this happens, a criminal can then go off scot-free. The things some lawyers do just to win a case really sickens me, even if the person is a murderer.
The thing is that premeditated murder must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt before a criminal will be sentenced to death. The judge who felt that there were some doubts regarding the premeditation stated that there was no proof that he intended to kill the girl, since there was no motive for him to kill her.
Like the sensational case a few years back where the guy asked a teenager to kill his ex-wife in cold blood. In that case, the guy planned out the murder, and the teenager adhered to his plan and stabbed the wife who died.
In this case, there was motive as he could get his daughter, the flat and his wife’s insurance policies as well as money. Thus his appeal was thrown out as all three judges felt there was premeditation and sentenced him to death.
The poor teenager escaped the noose by virtue of his age, but he would be kept in jail until the President pardoned him. A young kid’s life and future ruined just like that.
In this case, as long as there was some doubt that arises from the case that the guy did not intend to kill the girl but probably accidentally causing her death, he need not be hanged, probably just be sentenced to culpable homicide amounting to murder and be imprisoned for life.
Right or wrong as it seems, it is a life. So if he had no intention or motive of killing the girl, he would not be hanged. Due to situations like this, capital punishment has been abolished in many places, even if it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the murderer intended to kill, simply because people feel that they have no right to take away somebody’s life. But has the murderer any right then to take away another person’s life in the first place?
Sentencing a wrong-doer to death may be a cruel thing, but has anyone considered that the murderer killed an innocent person in cold blood just for his / her own benefits? There are so many instances to murder, and many may be justifiable homicide, but to just kill someone no matter what he / she has done to you is just wrong. And for that, the murderer has to pay a price.
Some people will say that it is still a life, but the family and loved ones of the victim will want the murderer to be hanged for killing the victim and causing them extreme grief. Unlike other countries, down here the death penalty is still hanging until the person dies, and nobody except the hangman and another officer can witness the hanging. A depressing job in my opinion.
There are other ways of execution. In England and China (and maybe France), there used to be execution by the axe. The executioner will chop off the person’s head in one swoop in public. What a gory sight. I wonder how anyone could even stomach such a scene.
Some countries have public hanging or lynching where the person will be lynched until he dies. The different American states have their own ways of capital punishment. There is the gas chamber, where the person will be gassed until he dies. There is the electric treatment, where the person will be electrocuted.
What I saw in the movie “The Green Mile” is that the murderer’s head will be covered by a cloth, then a wet sponge will be put on his head connecting with the wires for the electricity to pass through. After everything is set up, the electricity will be switched on and the electric currents will then pass through the body of the murderer until he dies.
Another gory sight. I think that has since been changed to the electric chair where the murderer will be strapped in the chair for electric currents to pass through his body. Whatever ways the capital punishment is, I am glad I never have to witness any real examples of it.
But is it really necessary to take away one’s life in exchange for another? A rather complicating issue actually. No one has a right to judge what is right or wrong, but I think capital punishment is necessary especially for serial hardcore criminals who have no qualms killing people one after another.
True, no one deserves to have their lives taken away by another, but then the victims who have done nothing wrong also have a right to live on, yet their lives have been cruelly cut short by someone who thinks nothing of killing them.
So will that guy be hanged for causing the little girl’s death? Hard to say actually. He did confess the girl died because of him, but he has not given a satisfactory reason or motive as to why he wanted to kill her or how her death would benefit him. And for that alone, it could be said he did not have the intention to kill in the first place. So perhaps he may escape the noose after all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment