Download death penalty: maintenance or removal and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!
DEATH PENALTY: MAINTENANCE OR REMOVAL
ACCESS FROM SINGAPORE AND PHILIPPINES EXPENRIENCE
Tran Dang Ngoc Son - Nguyen Kim Minh Chau School of Law, VNU Email: sontdn.hsvkl@gmail.com
Summary: The article analyzes the view on the application or not to apply the death penalty according to the experience of two countries, Singapore and the Philippines. The article focuses on the current situation of application, clarifying the factors affecting the decision to maintain or eliminate the death penalty and the trend of implementing the death penalty in these countries in the coming time. The article also focuses on comparing the factors influencing the decision to abolish or maintain the death penalty in Singapore and the Philippines to clarify the context of the factors, the content of the dominant factors, and the consequences. of the execution or failure to enforce the death penalty with society, thereby giving some recommendations to Vietnam on applying the death penalty in the country in the future.
Abstract: The paper examines the views on the application or not to apply the death penalty according to the experience of two countries, Singapore and the Philippines. The article focuses on the current situation of application, clarifying the factors affecting the decision to maintain or eliminate the death penalty and the trend of implementing the death penalty in these countries in the coming time. The paper also focuses on utilizing the factors influencing the decision to abolish/maintain the death penalty in Singapore and the Philippines to clarify the context of the factors, the content of the factors that govern, and the consequences. of the decision to maintain/abolish the death penalty for society, to provide some recommendations for Vietnam on the application of the death penalty in the country in the future.
1. Introduction "Death penalty" is the most severe criminal sanction applied to human crimes of, particularly serious crimes. This punishment is recognized throughout the history of human development, from bold forms such as mausoleums, four-horse-braided horse, thick elephant ... to modern forms such as injections. electric chair ... According to the development of mankind and the emergence of the rule of law, capital punishment has become an accepted punishment in almost all national legal systems. However, at present, many countries around the world that apply the mechanism of suspending the execution of the death penalty and abolishing the implementation in both practice and law. The trend of abolishing the death penalty is also recognized in the international legal framework of the United Nations through international conventions such as the Convention on Civil and Primary Rights (ICCPR), which recognizes the right to life of the person as a supreme right. High and especially the Decree on the Abolition of the Capital of December 1989 directed member states to take the necessary measures to completely abolish the death
penalty both in law and in practice. The number of countries ratifying and participating in the above protocol on the abolition of the death penalty is increasing. However, there are still two lines of opinion in the world about "should the death penalty be abolished or maintained?!". The two streams of opinion are stated as follows: (1) Many countries have moved to abolish the death penalty in the legal system or do not apply the death penalty in practice, (2) Part of the country continue to maintain the death penalty application and adopt more modern and humane practices.
According to many scientific reports, Asia is the region that is recorded as the place where 90% of judicial executions in the world occur, also where many countries still record, including developed countries like Singapore. , Japan, China is still applying the death penalty in the legal system and practice. However, with the vast geographical characteristics, cultural diversity, and political system, in Asia, there are a few countries that have implemented the elimination of the death penalty from the law such as the Philippines, Nepal.. The question arises: "So what are the decisive factors in the maintenance or abolition of the death penalty in Asian countries?". Answering this question will help to clarify the internal problems of each country, from the political perspective, legal awareness, and social realities of the death penalty policy. To focus on clarifying the above question, the article focuses on two countries, Singapore and the Philippines, which represent two existing points of view in the world on the abolition or maintenance of sentences. death. In these countries themselves, there are still conflicting views as Singapore is known as a developed country in Asia that is still maintaining the death penalty in reality and the laws of the countries are on a downward trend. the execution of the death penalty to the lowest level; The Philippines has been a member of the 2007 Abolition Protocol, but in recent statements by the Philippine leaders, it is ready to restore the death penalty to enforce social stability and fight against crime. The study, identification, and review of the case of the two above countries will clarify the factors that influence the decision whether or not to execute the death penalty, thereby assessing the necessity of "maintaining or not. abolish the death penalty ”in each country.
2. Theory of the "death penalty" 2.1 Concept: The term "Death penalty" (Capital punishment) is derived from the Latin word "capitalis ", which is derived from the word caput, meaning head, with the implication that the head is the part associated with life, head-loss punishment is depriving of an individual's life. "The death penalty" is the most severe criminal sanctions of a state, resulting in deprivation of the right to life, permanently excluding an individual from society.[1].
In Vietnam's criminal law, the death penalty is the most severe and special kind of punishment in the penalty system. According to Article 40, the Vietnam Penal Code 2015 amended and supplemented in 2017 cites the concept of "death penalty" as follows: "The death penalty is a special penalty only applicable to special offenders." serious is one of the crimes of infringing upon national security, human life, drug-related crimes, corruption and some other particularly serious crimes as stipulated by this Code ”. The death penalty deprives the convicted person of the right to life and is decided by the Court.
The maintenance or elimination of the death penalty has become an ethical and legal controversy around the world. This also leads to the formation of two schools of concept about the death penalty, in which, in terms of support, the argument is invoked on the following elements:[5]
First, the death penalty is based on the concept of "taking atonement" that has existed since ancient times to punish offenders. This argument has had a significant impact on thinking about the death penalty, both ethically and legally. Accordingly, the person sentenced to death must pay the price for his serious offenses and the death penalty is considered necessary compensation for the losses incurred by the victim and their families. Here, the deprivation of the right to life of the convicted person is considered to be of equal value with the consequences of the offense.
Second, the death penalty is a special deterrent, irreplaceable in the prevention of murder or other serious crimes. From the point of view that each person's behavior is affected by fear, so the death penalty countries argue that fear makes those intending to commit crimes to think of the possible consequences. suffer, including the death penalty.
Third, the death penalty is less expensive for society than life imprisonment. Fourth, apply the death penalty to remove the most dangerous criminals from society so that individuals do not have the opportunity to threaten the security and peace of society and the human rights of the subjects. other.
Regarding the idea of abolishing the death penalty, many countries, organizations, and individuals believe that the maintenance of the death penalty is unnecessary, ineffective, and fairly based on the following comments.[6]
First, it is not correct to consider the death penalty as an effective method of deterring crime. Resolution No. 2010 of the United Nations on "suspending the use of the death penalty" stated that "there is no clear evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty", which further affirms the execution of the death penalty is not as effective in preventing crime better than other penalties.
Second, the execution of the death penalty in case of injustice will not be remedied, especially in countries with a weak judiciary.
Third, according to Amnesty International, the application of life imprisonment for criminals that threaten social security has the effect of highly preventing their recidivism, so the application of the death penalty Figure is not required. Also, this organization believes that the execution of people sentenced to death for the reason they took someone else's life is revenge, not justice.[7]. Imposing life imprisonment also allows people convicted of particularly serious offenses to be reinstated if a previous court judgment is dismissed and found guilty (remedial). the wrong cases).
Fourth, the death penalty is not always a compensation for losses to the victim and their families. As many studies have shown, not all victims and their families feel compensated when offenders are executed. Many victims and their families choose to forgive offenders because they believe that taking the life of a person should not be used in response to murder or other serious
crimes. After all the death penalty does not relieve them of suffering, but it prolongs the suffering for the family of the convicted.
Fifth, the notion that the application of the death penalty is less expensive than life imprisonment is not entirely correct because maintaining the death penalty involves a variety of expensive costs such as prosecution costs. chant, execute judgments, bury the executed person.
Sixthly, from the point of view that the State's role is to protect people's lives and property rather than depriving them of their right to life, so the state should not impose the death penalty, even with particularly serious crimes.
2.3.2 Regarding international documents governing the application and abolition of the death penalty in the world
Currently, in the world at the international and regional level, there are many treaties and resolutions of the United Nations on promoting the abolition of the death penalty, of which 2 core international treaties on this issue are ( 1) Article 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and (2) Optional Second Protocol on the Abolition of the Capital Penalty under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1989.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was the first human rights document calling on states to limit the death penalty. Although there are no specific provisions preventing countries from applying the death penalty, in Article 6, ICCPR has affirmed and acknowledged that the right to life is the supreme right protected by law. Article 6, ICCPR also actively sets strict standards for countries still applying the death penalty, specifically: (1) Only the death penalty can be applied to serious crimes. Most of them, according to General Comment No. 36, the most serious crime must be understood very closely and involve only particularly serious crimes, including intentional murder; (2) Is executed only based on a fair judgment pronounced by the Court of Competence; (3) The death penalty is not imposed on offenders under 18 years of age and pregnant women; (4) The convicted person has the right to apply for parole or change of the penalty; (5) Not applicable when rights under ICCPR are violated. It can be seen that Article 6 of ICCPR affirms that criminals if not directly and intentionally cause death, though their nature is serious, cannot be invoked to apply the death penalty under this Article. That excludes the death penalty from criminal groups such as corruption, drug-related crimes, sex, murder, etc.
The second optional protocol on the abolition of the death penalty is currently the only international treaty on the abolition of the death penalty. The objective of the protocol supports the trend to abolish the death penalty, in which through the network of states that ratify it, it aims to promote the general principle of treating the death penalty as a violation of human rights. From its very first provision, the protocol required participating states to prohibit the application of the death penalty and to take measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction. The Protocol also does not allow reservations or strict provisions on enforcement procedures and complaints regarding the use of the death penalty.
3. Current situation of the execution of the death penalty in Singapore:
country has made that the death penalty has a strong connection with the deterrence and control of crime in society. Even the death penalty is considered an essential foundation of the criminal justice system and a powerful tool to establish the authority of the criminal system, social order, and suppression of crime. The country itself in the early stage of its establishment has identified itself as vulnerable due to its geographical proximity to high drug crime areas, so it is necessary to have a protection mechanism. A further reinforcing reason for the death penalty in Singapore was that the country invoked the ideal of "collective protection and the sacrifice of individual's rights" into the community. This can be explained that the country prioritizes the maintenance and development of community-based values, and this also allows the state to neglect some individual rights, including the right to life. On the government side, Singapore has stated that the death penalty is only used in the most serious crimes and that the death penalty has kept it the safest place to work and live in the world.. In a report as of May 2020[11] The rate of crime related to guns, kidnappings, and drugs has been reduced significantly when the death penalty is used, and the people surveyed said the death penalty was more effective than the imprisonment. life in crime deterrence. Many reports indicating that Singapore did not carry out an actual execution between 2010, 2012, 2014. This could be explained by the fact that factors that maintained the death penalty were effective in deterrence, stabilizing order, reducing the crime rate in Singapore. Despite going against the current trend of the world to abolish the death penalty, Singapore has also demonstrated certain achievements in crime control, creating a safe environment for people, and stabilizing order. , national security through the maintenance of the death penalty.
4. Current situation of the execution of the death penalty in the Philippines: Unlike Singapore, the Philippines is also a country in Asia but chooses a different direction. This is one of three ASEAN countries that have abolished the death penalty. Since 1986, the Philippines has ratified and became a member of the ICCPR, and in 2007 became a member of the Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty.
The process of abolishing the death penalty in the Philippines is relatively complicated. Initially, from the colonial period of Spain and America, until after independence (1946), the Philippines was still a country applying the maintenance of the death penalty. With the development of the legal system, especially under the leadership of President Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986), the use of the death penalty has been expanded, covering also the illegal trade of narcotics. drug.
However, in 1987, the Philippine Constitution abolished the death penalty, although it still maintains a provision that allows the death penalty to be imposed on extremely cruel crimes. This event marked the Philippines becoming the first country in Asia to abolish the death penalty. By 1999, the death penalty was restored and maintained until 2006, when the President passed Act No. 9346 on the abolition of the death penalty. The Philippine government ratified the Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty in 2007 and abolished the execution of the death penalty in the country for a long time. However, new President Rodrigo Duterte in 2016 said that the restoration of the death penalty is an effective deterrent to criminals. He cited that restoring the death penalty to preserve social order and safety and fight crime. This was also supported by a majority of Filipinos
when 10 people were asked, 6 people, supported the recovery of death sentences related to drugs.[12]. Then, in February 2017, the Philippine House of Representatives passed a bill on the use of the death penalty for several drug-related crimes. Currently, this bill is waiting for the approval of the Senate. Compared to the House of Representatives, the Philippine Senate has a relatively independent stance and has repeatedly rejected some President initiatives. However, the victory of Duterte's allies in the Senate midterm elections has partly helped the President feel more comfortable in implementing his reform projects. With the support of the new president and most Filipinos (67%)[13], the country will likely restore the death penalty.
There are 3 main bases for wanting to restore the death penalty in the Philippines: (1) Socio-political values such as authoritarianism and conservative politics exist strongly in society through a part of the people supporting the establishment of a dictatorial government;
(2) The criminal populism under President Duterte was well promoted in the campaign against drug crime.[14].
(3) There is a belief that the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent. The Philippines is a country with a very high number of drug crimes and drug addicts, but under President Duterte, he had "straightforward" policies to handle this group of people. According to a survey by Social Weather Stations in 2019, 79% of Filipinos expressed satisfaction, believed in this anti-drug campaign, and said that the campaign has contributed to reducing the number of drug crimes. There is also the view that Duterte's treatment policies are a form of unlawful murder and that this straightforward handling is creating the illusion that such killing is legal and effective in eradicating evil. drug abuse as well as reducing the number of users and crimes in the country. There are many views that the maintenance of the death penalty in the Philippines is having serious consequences for society and many issues are not fully considered. First, the indexes of the rule of law of the Philippines have declined since Duterte took power, especially the human rights issue that has received numerous accusations. Many questions raise that "Is there any abuse in the anti-drug campaign to execute people illegally or not?". Second, the death penalty puts great pressure on death row inmates because they are mostly poor and lack legal support. They also do not have adequate access to justice due to insufficient costs to pursue lawsuits. The Philippines judicial system was heavily criticized, its ineffective operations combined with a high rate of errors in judicial adjudication, leading to a very large rate of injustice in death penalty cases, reaching 71.77%. from 1993 to 2004[15]. Third, the increase in crime not only comes from the maintenance or elimination of the death penalty but also from the core causes of crime formation such as poor economic conditions, income inequality. Great entry, lack of a job, not sufficient education. The Philippines' restoration of the death penalty during this period was practically untimely and continues to have alarming consequences for society as justice in this country has not been fully enforced, reducing attracting foreign investment due to human rights abuses, people's distrust of the state apparatus, judicial system overload, and the nation will face international sanctions for violating national laws following the previously approved protocol on the abolition of the death penalty.
consequences related to investment attraction, keeping the confidence of the people, ensuring a competent, effective judicial system, and fully meeting housing criteria. the rule of law while still applying the death penalty.
[1] Vu Cong Giao (2017), "The right to life and the death penalty in international law and Vietnamese law"; Proceedings of the Workshop "Ensuring human rights in legal proceedings" organized by the Faculty of Law, Vinh University, Link: https://bitly.com.vn/y8skdn accessed on February 6, 2021; [2] The concept of "particularly serious crime" is in practice still not uniformly understood between countries, and different invocation of this phrase has led to criminal offenses that can be convicted. Capital punishment varies from country to country. According to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the most serious crimes do not include nonviolent acts such as financial crimes, religious practices or beliefs, or consensual sex between adults. According to ECOSOC's guiding document "Guarantee of the rights of persons facing the death penalty": "In countries that have not yet abolished the death penalty, the death penalty is only applicable to crimes. most serious crimes, and it should be understood that the scope of these crimes does not go beyond international crimes with fatal or other serious consequences ”. Thus, it can be seen from the point of view of the United Nations human rights agencies that the scope of the crime of applying the death penalty is regulated very narrowly, mainly focusing on murder crimes with aggravating circumstances and The general trend of countries today is to reduce and eliminate the death penalty from domestic law.
[3] Center for Human Rights - Citizenship, VNU Law Faculty (2010), "Things to know about the death penalty", Labor Publishing House, Hanoi, p. [4] Assoc.Prof.Dr. Trinh Quoc Toan (2105), "Studying penalties in Vietnamese criminal law in terms of human rights protection", National Political Publishing House, Hanoi, p. [5] Ministry of Justice & European Union & UNDP (2019) Research Report “Possibility of Vietnam's accession to the Second Optional Protocol on Abolition of the Death Penalty under International Covenant on Rights civil and political (ICCPR), p. [6] Ministry of Justice & European Union & UNDP (2019), Research Report "Possibility of Vietnam's Accession to the Second Optional Protocol on Abolition of the Death Penalty under International Covenant on civil and political rights, told; [7] Amnesty International, The death penalty - Answers to your questions, link: https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/death- penalty-your-questions-answered /, accessed 2/10/2021; [8] Ariel Yap and Shih Joo Tan (2020), "Capital Punishment in Singapore: A Critical Analysis of State Justifications From 2004 to 2018", International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 9 (2), ppt
[9] Ho, Peng Kee, Singapore Parliamentary Reports , 11th Parliament, Session 1, Volume 83, 23 October
[10] Baradan Kuppusamy (2007). "Death Penalty-Singapore: Stand at UN Leaves Many Angered", archived on 9/2/2021; [11] Yuen-C, Tham (October 5, 2020). "Parliament: Statistics, studies show death penalty deterred drug trafficking, firearms use, and kidnapping, says Shanmugam", link: https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-statistics-studies-show-death-penalty-deterred- drug- trafficking-firearms-us, archived on 9/2/2020;
[12] Imelda Deinla, Ronald U Mendoza, Ray Paolo J. Santiago (2021), Death Penalty in the Philippines: Evidence on Economics and Efficacy, ASOG WORKING PAPER 21-003, ppt 3; [13] Pulse Asia: Most Filipinos still support the death penalty, https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/894552/pulse- asia-most-filipinos-still-support-death-penalty [14] Imelda Deinla, Ronald U Mendoza, Ray Paolo J. Santiago (2021), Death Penalty in the Philippines: Evidence on Economics and Efficacy, ASOG WORKING PAPER 21-003, ppt 4; [15] Imelda Deinla, Ronald U Mendoza, Ray Paolo J. Santiago (2021), Death Penalty in the Philippines: Evidence on Economics and Efficacy, ASOG WORKING PAPER 21-
