All capital punishment cases go to appeal upon conviction
automatically. I think your question is why the number of
successful appeals is so low. The reason, I think,
is the nature of the legal process. You can only appeal on point of
law and if the High Court judge has ruled correctly based on the
law, you will lose the appeal. As I have mentioned before, the
problem is that during the investigation and trial, the prosecution
has all the advantage. They can detain the suspect for long
periods, interrogate them without the presence of the defence
lawyer and have access to all the forensic experts. By the time you
go to trial, the defence team has very little to support its case
whilst the prosecution has built up a formidable case against the
accused. This is made worse by the fact that our courts are so
efficient, cases go to hearing so quickly that the busy defence
lawyer often does not have enough time to do a good job at
preparation.
You must understand that in an adversarial system, the judge can
only decide based on which side gives a more convincing argument of
the case. If the prosecution has all the advantage, chances are the
prosecution will win the argument. To be fair, if the prosecution
finds out in the course of their investigation that the accused is
innocent, they will drop the case before going to court.
4) You said, "...so it is wrong theoretically for the majority to
bully the minority into conforming to their view..." But when we
are dealing with an issue like this, when the question is whether
we should retain the death sentence or not, there can be only one
answer, 'yes' or 'no'. If society is divided in its opinion but
with the majority insisting that it should stay, can be it right to
ignore its wishes? Surely in a democratic system, the way to
resolve such a dispute is to put it to the vote and that majority
rules.
One way to know how the population feels about this issue is a
referendum, which our government is always against (for reasons I
do not agree with). Another way is to support opposition parties
who campaign against capital punishments in the General Election.
We may never be sure how Singaporeans will vote on this, short of a
referendum; but judging from coffee-shop talk and the media reports
after the Huang Na case, I don't think you will have much public
support.
5) Your other question, ".. what makes you 100% sure that a guilty
person once released, will commit the same crime again?"
I don't think that is the reason for retaining the death sentence.
It is not fear that the criminal will re-offend that we put someone
to death. I think the main justification for capital punishment is
the belief that there must be retribution for wrongs done. Kind of
karma: whatsoever you sow, you shall reap....an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth. It is what drives the father of a murdered
daughter to insist on witnessing the hanging of the murderer with
his own eyes. Without that, he cannot find closure and society
believes that he should not be denied that satisfaction. In some
societies and cultures, if the State does not perform this duty
adequately, the relatives of a victim will feel a need to avenge
the wrongs done by vigilante action.
Finally, does it mean that if Singaporeans are not sufficiently
educated about an issue, we should decide what is right for them,
instead of allowing them to decide for themselves? That sounds very
much like the paternalistic approach of our government.
