I refer to the letter “Crucial to substantiate deterrent effects of death penalty” (Oct 6).
The task of sentencing in criminal cases demands from the judge the exercise of moral judgment concomitant with the law. He must strike a balance between competing claims, with all the discretion and perplexities involved.
Legal philosopher HLA Hart called it the problems of the penumbra. He argued that the rationality of such legal arguments and decisions must lie in “a point of intersection between law and morals”.
The right to sanctity of life, which the letter writer asserts, lies within these boundaries and must be seen vis-a-vis the harm of drug trafficking and its consequences on society.
And any intelligent decision involving the death penalty is guided, however uncertainly, by moral aims, said Hart.
Ultimately, two questions must be answered: Will the taking of a life by a sanction of law violate the right of that person? And is the right of the majority (society) to a life free of drug abuse above that of the trafficker who intentionally, for money, creates addiction and death?
Dudley Au
*Article first appeared on TodayOnline Forums (9 Oct 2014)