Folks,
Recently, The Heat -- a sister newspaper of Focus Malaysia published a commentary (there was some personal stance in the article, hence being unworthy of calling it a 'factual news') that calls for a total abolishment and repeal of capital punishment: death sentence.
Many arguments were presented, and I hve to say that the writer is a little biased. That is totall fine because at the end of the argument, she has to choose a side; but before she decides which side should she choose, a proper understanding of the both sides of the coin should be thoroughly examined.
In her piece, she presented so many arguments "for" the abolishment of the death sentence, but she failed to discuss or even mention the arguments "for" capital punishment.
She even said that Malaysia lags behind many countries for having "this archaic law that is cruel and perverse in its finality".
I totally and absolutely disagree with her statement.
While the law may be archaic, but it is this very law that gives justice to those who lost their loved ones at the hands of the murderers.
Such a careless statement, dear ma'am!
My belief is simple and clear -- justice must be done. It must not be manifestly be seen to be done, but it must be executed so that it is done.
I fully support and endorse the idea that certain crimes should not be punished by death. For instance, in cases related to drugs. I think that whipping is sufficient to teach the carrier a lesson.
In Christianity, there is this argument that says "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
I could not agree more.
It is a universal principle, one that is consistent with the principle of natural justice.
If someone commits a murder for instance, then that person's actions should be rightfully punished by death.
However, since death is the utmost form of punishment, we must clearly define the degree and cause of murder.
If the death of the victim was caused by accidents, then we must factor in many reasons for it.
We must mitigate and consider various reasons from all aspects and sides.
If it is intentional, then one logic question is -- why should we give the murder a (second) chance?
Why should the murder be spared the death sentence and instead walk scot-free?
Why give the murder a so-called 'second chance' for rehabilitation, while the victim didn't get any?
It just baffles me.
The charter by the UN for a total abolishment of death penalty is all nice with 'sweet' principles of justice and human rights; but lest we forget that the victims died did not even get the chance and rights to breathe and enjoy the beautiful life on this planet earth.
I am not saying that the said UN charter is totally flawed, all I am saying is that while the charter is good in promoting human rights, we must look at it from both angles and in totality.
We must not look solely on the basis of 'humans should not play God in taking life away from criminals', but instead we should look at the perspectives of 'how do we retribute justice?'.
On the other hand, we must equally too be very careful in passing down death sentence.
Only deserving criminals should be punished by death sentence. We should not be too quick in handing down sentences so as to avoid wrong persons to be executed.
In conclusion, I truly detest the idea of totally abolishing the death sentence.
We need this law of death sentence, and we need to reform the law so that only certain crimes are punishable by death.
Repealing this law will only makes us look like a fool in bowing to some demands by external parties having complete disregard to the principle of justice.
But at the same, I respect those having different ideas than mine.
