The Long Drop

"Hong Kong only abolished capital punishment in 1993"

Last Friday (28th July), Singapore executed 45-year-old Saridewi Binte Djamani for drug trafficking, marking the city-state's first execution of a woman in nearly 20 years. The sentence was carried out by long-drop hanging.

Singapore has hanged 15 people since resuming executions last year after ending a two-year hiatus due to the pandemic. The current rate is one hanging a month. Djamani, caught with 31 grams of heroin, is the first woman executed in nearly 20 years. Singapore last hung a woman in 2004, when Yen May Woen, a 36-year-old hairdresser, faced the long drop.

The death penalty remains controversial, with solid arguments for and against it. One of the main justifications for the death penalty is that it is a deterrent to potential criminals. Advocates argue that the threat of capital punishment may deter some people from committing serious crimes. Likewise, supporters claim it provides a sense of justice to victims and their families by punishing the offender and making them pay for their crimes.

Also, proponents contend that it is less expensive than keeping someone in prison for life. They say that the cost of housing, feeding, and providing medical care for a prisoner for decades is much higher than that of a single execution.

Those objecting to the death penalty cite that it is irreversible. If someone is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, there is no way to undo the punishment. After all, the criminal justice system always has the possibility of human error; mistakes or omissions can occur during a case's investigation, trial, and sentencing. 

Furthermore, opponents cite research that the death penalty has no discernible impact on crime levels. Lastly, the death penalty is seen by some as cruel and inhumane. The methods used to carry out executions, such as electrocution, can be painful and cause suffering.

It may come as a surprise, but Hong Kong only abolished capital punishment in 1993. Offences of murder, kidnapping and piracy attracted the death penalty, with the last execution on 16 November 1966. Wong Kai-kei (黃啟基), aged 25, was hanged at Stanley Prison after his conviction for murdering a security guard in July that year. 

An outcry arose demanding that Hong Kong follow Britain, which stopped all executions in 1965. Thus, the Governor would subsequently commute all death penalties to life imprisonment. Then in 1993, the death penalty was removed as a sentencing option. 

Retaining an independent legal system, even after the handover in 1997, Hong Kong didn't reintroduce the death penalty. Still, in recent decades, five Hong Kongers have been sentenced to death; four in Singapore and one in the USA. 

Serial killer Charles NG Chi-tat (吳志達) remains on death row in California. Females Poon Yuen Chung (潘婉聪), Tong Ching Man (唐清雯), Elke Tsang Kai-mong (張凱夢) and male Lam Cheuk Wang (林灼宏) were executed in Singapore during the 1990s after drug trafficking convictions. Poon, Tong and Lam were hung on the same day, 21 April 1995, along with Nigerian and Singaporean men.

Looking to the philosophers for guidance on the death penalty gives a mixed set of views that reflects the divided stance across humankind. Socrates said capital punishment is a symbolic sanction to express society's abhorrence for heinous crimes. Even on the eve of his execution, he argued that the state is correct when, in its best judgment and within the bounds of a justice system, it declares on principle, "We think right to destroy you."

The law of retaliation advocated in the Old Testament shaped the view of many. Immanuel Kant took a similar line. He argued that if you kill someone, you simply deserve to die. Kant went so far as to assert that even if the death penalty has no deterrent effect, it is still appropriate punishment. 

Hegel argues that punishment is rational if it is equal to the crime and isn't in a "barbaric form of an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".

In contrast, George Orwell, having witnessed an execution in 1931 in Burma, stated: "It is curious, but till that moment, I had never realised what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide."

In the simplest form, the death penalty debate centres on two positions. First, retention — this stance is generally argued around victims' feelings and the deterrence effects expected by execution. The second position is abolition, pleaded through appeals to the cruelty of execution and the possibility of misjudgments in the trial.

Disconcertingly, it is not easy to decide between these two stances, one that says killing a killer is a proportionate, justified act, and the other that sees an "unspeakable wrongness" in taking a life, even the life of a murderer. 

Emotions, morality, societal context and the practice of the legal system inevitably surround the debate. Good luck chewing your way through that lot because a fair amount of gristle will need masticating. 

Still, I'd argue that the balance of the argument pivots on societal values. And on that score, a 2018 survey found 90% of Singaporeans supported the use of the death penalty for intentional murder, drug trafficking and non-lethal discharge of a firearm when committing crimes. 

Thus, I don't have much truck with those criticising Singapore, although the penalties for drug offences may seem harsh by international standards.

And Lee Kuen Yew, Singapore's robust funding father, had no time for others dictating their values. He made that clear in this linked interview.