The topic has slightly shifted. The emphasis is now no longer on
human rights group and the death penalty. Rather, it is the
substantiation of our current death penalty system.
I take a pragmatic stand.
As mentioned by foxtrout8, the law is a society utility. Thus, the
law is the extent to which the country values the rights of the
society in contrast to the rights of the individual and this varies
from country to country. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), a
small country like Singapore takes into account the rights of the
society to a great extent.
As such, it must be realised that the law does not only serve
justice onto individuals who infringe the law but what message does
it send to the current public and/or possible offenders. I do
realise that it is possibly an act of desperation (thus, a
mitigating factor) to drive the dad to traffic drugs. However,
although it is understandable due to the current economic situation
in Singapore (another topic for another day 
), it may not be forgivable on the legislation's
part to provide an alternative to the proposed well-used drug
laws.
Should he be given life imprisonment and leniency for his
mitigating factors (there are many including his service to the
nation), the message sent out would be that if you are poor and
desperate with an insufficient ability to provide for your family,
it is allowed to import drugs. The debate should not be whether
drugs are detrimental to the current populace (that issue has been
settled when the drug laws are made) but what would future
offenders do. In making such a decision, a precedence would have
been set in case law which intelligent lawyers would pounce on.
Thus, there may be increasing cases where poor people who do the
same thing. This in turn would result in a vicious cycle as each
successive leniency case would lend strength for future leniency.
This is very clear.
In addition, although I have not been following the above mentioned
case on its daily reports, an important factor has not been
discussed in this subforum. This would be has the dad been doing
this several times? or is it an one-off? Obviously, this cannot be
proven (at least in Singapore) because if its several times, he
would've already been dealt with. However, such a possibility
cannot be ignored which raises the issue. If he has done it more
than once, why didn't he stop? The money earned initially would've
been sufficient to tide him over so he could get a job (many
low-end jobs are still currently available). He may not be happy
about the pay, but at least he would have earnings. Neither would
he have an easy life. Unfortunately, he decided to take a rather
dubious route....which is to traffic drugs.
Assuming its a first-time offense, if he is given a lighter
sentence. Would he be tempted to try it again? Afterall, it is an
easy way to get money. Or would his sons feel that it is ALSO an
easy way?
Therefore, I conclude that the law's hands are tied on this. If you
have committed such an offense, it has already been stated time and
time again and clearly that this would be the sentence you will
get. There are no two ways to this. The only solution would be a
revamp on the law and that would not happen in the near
future.
Long essay la
Hope don't fall asleep when you finish 
Comments?
