Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking: A matter of both principles and facts

During the High-Level Side Event at the 69th Session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on Moving Away from the Death Penalty: National Leadership on 25 September 2014, UN officials called on countries to abolish the death penalty.

The Straits Times reports on some of the remarks made in "S'pore's position set out after UN call for end to capital punishment" (27 September 2014):

In his opening remarks, UN deputy secretary-general Jan Eliasson called on world leaders to do away with capital punishment in their countries, saying it was "incompatible with life in the 21st century". He also asked states to ratify a protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, created in 1989, which seeks to abolish the death penalty worldwide.

... 

Earlier, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said judicial systems with the death penalty were based on vengeance, and that "revenge alone is not justice".

In response, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, explained Singapore's position on the death penalty for drug trafficking. The Business Times carries his remarks in "Death penalty for drug traffickers is to protect society" (30 September 2014):

THERE needs to be a more careful assessment of the facts (on the death penalty) and the different situations in different countries. The approach of a sweeping statement that can apply to all is counterproductive. 

Let me share with you, in this context, Singapore's experience, where the death penalty is targeted at drug traffickers. 

There are major drug trafficking centres in the region: Afghanistan, South-east Asia, amongst others. Drug production and transportation is now a major sophisticated multi-national corporation activity run by cold, calculating, ruthless operators who trade the lives of their victims for profit. Millions of drug victims in our region. We would be a natural front for drugs to come in on a large scale, because we are a wealthy city-state with lots of young people and a major logistics hub, from where drugs can be easily distributed throughout the world, from Singapore. 

If you look at major cities in developed countries, you will find entire neighbourhoods that have been destroyed by drugs and drug-related activities, including theft. Entire lives and generations are destroyed. Young people born in such slums have no access to education and the drug culture completely prevents them from having meaningful human existence. 

Globally, drug use kills between 100,000-250,000 people, mostly young people. Singapore is probably either the only country, or one of the few countries in the world, which has successfully fought this drug problem. For those who ask for whom the death penalty can be a deterrent, I say to them, come and see for yourself in Singapore, and compare the region and the rest of the world. 

Death penalty for traffickers, in our experience, has been an effective deterrent, as part of a framework of laws, coupled with effective enforcement based on rule of law. Drug traffickers stay out of Singapore now largely because of the knowledge: first, that there is a highly professional and incorruptible police force and there is a high probability that they will get caught; and second, there is rule of law, an independent judiciary and a high probability that, based on the laws, they will face the death penalty. So we do not have slums, ghettoes, no-go zones for the police, or syringes in our playgrounds. 

People know the story of Singapore - a story based on rule of law, human development, quality of life - that can be compared to the experience of any country around this table or any other table. You can send your 10-year-old child on public transport at any time of the day and night and not have to worry whether your child will return. 

One of the main reasons that our society is probably one of the safest in the world is that we take a very tough approach on drugs. If a drug trafficker traffics in a quantity which can supply 300 drug abusers for a week, he could face the death penalty. This is not revenge; this is not vengeance. This is based on the principle of deterrence and clear rule of law. 

We see a lot of focus on people who face the death penalty but you don't see enough focus on their victims. 

Drug traffickers impose immense penalties, including the death penalty, on their victims. Thousands of people die. We have stopped that in Singapore. We want to protect our people from becoming victims, and to protect our society. 

This debate often proceeds on generalised statements and ideology. If we want to make progress, I suggest we engage in a discussion that looks at facts; focusing, among other things, on the victims of the drug trade - and the nexus between the drug trafficker and his thousands of victims. 

Let's move away from rhetoric and let's focus on facts. To portray the debate as one of taking lives versus not taking lives is a straw man argument. 

No civilised society can glorify in the taking of life. The question is whether, in very limited circumstances, it is legitimate to have the death penalty so that the larger interest of society is served. We imposed the death penalty in relation to drug trafficking and our laws provide for the death penalty in a limited number of other offences.

Shanmugam's points have been quite eloquently made.

Discerning the right basis for laws: Separating the wheat from the chaff

While I do not agree with the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore, in particular for mere drug runners, part of justifying good laws is to discern the right basis upon which they ought to stand. It is crucial to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Firstly, the argument that the death penalty is "incompatible with life in the 21st century", as a standalone argument, commits the fallacy of argumentum ab annis, also known as chronological snobbery. It attempts to invalidate an argument (or in this case, the argument for the death penalty) because of its age. The age of a proposition is simply irrelevant to the truth or falsity of that proposition. To argue that the death penalty is "incompatible with life in the 21st century" does nothing advance the argument.

Secondly, the argument that judicial systems with the death penalty are based on "vengeance" is not necessarily accurate. The MacMillan Dictionary defines vengeance as "the act of harming or killing someone because they have done something bad to you". But the death penalty does not quite fit within this definition. For a judicially executed death penalty, the State is not meting out the death penalty as an act of vengeance on its own behalf, but on behalf of the victim or public interest, if any. Furthermore, there are other relevant principles, such as deterrence, a principle Shanmugam appealed to when explaining that the death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore is "based on the principle of deterrence and clear rule of law."

This is why Shanmugam was right to emphasise the importance of "a discussion that looks at facts" rather than merely basing the discussion on "generalised statements and ideology".

A matter of both principles and facts

However, the point here is that both are important. Both principles and facts are important in a discussion on the death penalty.

As a matter of principle, the starting point should be the right to life, and the value of human life as compared with other values. Does human life have intrinsic value? Or does human life have instrumental value? Or is it something in between?

On this first question, Article 6(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide:

Article 6 

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.  

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

Each of these words is heavily loaded, and there could be considerable disagreement as a matter of principle. For example, what does it mean to be "arbitrarily" deprived of life? What are the "most serious crimes"? Do we accept deterrence or retribution as valid considerations?

This automatically attracts the second question, one of fact. Suppose if we were to accept the value of deterrence. Would the death penalty deter? On this, Shanmugam seems to think the answer is yes.