An abiding commitment to the death penalty? Centrality of the rule of law in the administration of capital punishment in Singapore
Singapore Law Journal (Lexicon), Vol: 4, Page: 230
2024
- 515Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage515
- Downloads301
- Abstract Views214
Article Description
Capital punishment remains in use in Singapore. The Singapore government’s position is that the death penalty works in deterring the most serious crimes. Public trust and confidence remains healthy that the death penalty regime in Singapore has the requisite deterrent effect on criminals and has sufficient safeguards to prevent any miscarriage of justice. In 2012, the Singapore Parliament made significant amendments to the Penal Code and the Misuse of Drugs Act, marking a shift from the longstanding mandatory to a discretionary death penalty system for some of the most serious crimes. It demonstrates the authorities’ belief that the mandatory death penalty is not needed for all types of serious crimes. This shift away from the mandatory death penalty is to be welcomed because it demonstrates that there is no abiding commitment to the death penalty. The attraction and force of the mandatory death penalty was its unequivocal demonstration of zero tolerance and resolve in maximum deterrence. This article examines the applicable laws, policies, and jurisprudence on the death penalty regime in Singapore. Singapore’s administration of capital punishment underscores that the adherence to the letter and spirit of the law that applies to persons facing capital charges must be a central tenet in the administration of criminal justice. The constant challenge is to calibrate the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between those who commit serious crimes, the victims and their families, and the rest of society.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know