Singapore’s Law Minister K Shanmugam defended the mandatory death penalty in an article in TODAY:
People assume you can have this safety and security without this framework of the law; that you can change it, and yet your safety and security will not be affected,” he said. “But there are always trade-offs. The difficulty the Government has sometimes in explaining this is that the trade-offs are not apparent. The damage to a large number of others is not obvious.“You save one life here, but 10 other lives will be gone. What will your choice be?If a drug mule escapes the death penalty. drug barons will think the signal is that young and vulnerable traffickers will be spared and can be used as drug mules, argued Mr Shanmugam.“Then you’ll get 10 more. There’ll be an unstoppable stream of such people coming through as long as we say we won’t enforce our law
I feel he’s missing the point here. He’s not nipping the problem in the bud by going after the drug mules who sometimes have no idea what they are doing. He should be going after the drug barons instead.
If he say that there are trade offs, which also means that he’s willing to sacrifice the drug mules ‘for the greater good’, then my question is, by doing that, will the drugs stop coming?
This is a very weak and heartless argument for keeping the death penalty.