Pulse
17 June 2024
On May 8, 2024, Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam delivered a ministerial statement in which he declared that Singapore is waging a war against drugs. He stressed that thousands will suffer if the nation-state does not take this war seriously and put up a fight, or if it loses the war.
‘That is why I use the analogy of war,’ said Mr Shanmugam. ‘I am talking about a war against those who profit off the drug trade at the expense of hundreds and thousands of innocent lives.’
In his statement, the minister defended the country’s policy of mandating the death penalty on convicted drug traffickers, arguing that it is an effective deterrent in its war against drugs.
The minister said that it is not easy for policymakers to decide on this policy of capital punishment. ‘But the evidence shows that it is necessary to protect our people, prevent the destruction of thousands of families, and prevent the loss of thousands of lives,’ he adds.
The evidence that the death penalty has deterred traffickers from peddling their wares here is indeed compelling. After the death penalty was introduced in 1990 for trafficking more than 1.2 kg of opium, there was a 66 percent reduction in the new weight of the substance trafficked in the following four years.
Unsurprisingly, Singapore’s tough stance on drug trafficking has come under sharp criticism and even opposition. These detractors have asserted that the criminal justice system in the country is stacked against drug traffickers in an unfair manner.
Mr Shanmugam called out five parties in particular which have voiced their opposition to the policy: the Transformative Justice Collective, The Online Citizen Asia, Mr Andrew Loh, Ms Kirsten Han and Mr Ravi Madasamy.
Singapore’s policy has also been criticised by international bodies. For example, a Reuters article (April 28, 2022) about the execution of the Malaysian, Nagaenthran Dharmalingam for smuggling heroin into Singapore reports that ‘a group of United Nations experts and British Billionaire Richard Branson’ had joined ‘human rights activists to urge Singapore to commute his death sentence.’
It adds that ‘[t]he European Union and Amnesty International were also among several voices that called the punishment “inhumane” and urged Singapore to impose a moratorium on executions.’
The purpose of this article is twofold. The first is to discuss the death penalty from the Christian perspective. The second is to consider the question whether the imposition of the death penalty on drug traffickers is morally defensible.
CHRISTIANS AND THE DEATH PENALTY
Since its inception, the Church has supported the death penalty as a state-sanctioned punishment for specific crimes in the service of justice. This is because capital punishment is sanctioned by Scripture itself as an appropriate form of retributive justice.
Space does not allow a thorough discussion of all the relevant passages in the Bible that helped to shape the Church’s teaching regarding capital punishment. However, a brief analysis of two passages – one from the Old Testament and the other from the New – would prove instructive.
The first passage is Genesis 9:5-6, which states:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
The context of this passage is the great deluge which God brought about as a punishment for human sin and wickedness, which resulted in the destruction of all human beings except the eight who were rescued in the ark: Noah, his three sons, and their wives (Genesis 6-9).
When the flood had receded, and human society was beginning to form once again, God gave instructions on how it should be ordered. Among the instructions is this injunction, which provides the foundation of human government.
Much can be said about the divine institution of the death penalty which this passage records. But for the purposes of this article, I wish to underscore two important points.
Firstly, this passage makes clear that the death penalty for murder was instituted because of the special status of human beings among God’s creatures as the bearers of the divine image (9:6).
Secondly, in executing this punishment, the community or the state is acting on behalf of God, who alone has power over life and death. As the Old Testament scholar, Claus Westermann, explains:
A community is only justified in executing the death penalty in so far as it respects the unique right of God over life and death and in so far as it respects the inviolability of human life and follows therefrom. Every single violation of this limit, be it on national, racial or ideological grounds is to be condemned.
The New Testament passage which is often regarded as the locus classicus on this subject is Romans 13:1-7.
Here, the apostle Paul teaches that it is God who has instituted the governing authorities to which every person (including Christians) must be subjected (13:1). The state is ‘the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer’ and it does so by wielding the sword (13:4).
It is quite clear that the sword here refers to capital punishment. The evangelical Bible expositor and leader, John Stott, explains:
Since the word for “sword” (machaira) has occurred earlier in the letter to indicate death (8:35), and since it was used of execution, it seems clear that Paul means it here as a symbol for capital punishment.
Although the Bile clearly sanctions the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for heinous crimes such as murder, capital punishment is a divisive issue among Christians today.
Christians on both sides of the divide – those who support capital punishment and those who oppose it – have argued their positions on the basis of the teachings of the Bible and Christian moral reasoning.
Christians who oppose the death penalty have often appealed to the biblical teaching that human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that human life is therefore sacred. Although these Christians are of the view that the law must punish serious crimes such as homicide, they argue that the death penalty is not an acceptable way to do so because it violates the dignity of human life.
In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II observes that
there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society.’
While the late pontiff did not insist that capital punishment should be categorically abolished, he argued that it must be employed only ‘in cases of absolute necessity.’
Other Christians point out that the death penalty exacts retribution while the proper response to violent crimes is the restorative way taught and exemplified by Jesus (Matthew 5:38-9).
Thus, while these Christians recognise the need for the law to protect society, they maintain that there are ways of achieving this goal which would allow the criminal a chance to reform. These include placing criminals in a secure facility away from the general population, and ensuring that it is impossible for them to commit further crime.
While these arguments must be taken seriously, it is important to point out that Scripture makes a clear distinction between the taking of innocent lives (for example, by abortion and euthanasia), which clearly violates human dignity, and the State executions of criminals convicted of heinous crimes. As we have seen, the latter was instituted to protect the dignity of the bearers of the divine image (Genesis 9:6).
And while the relationship between restorative and retributive justice in the Bible is indeed complex, Scripture does sanction capital punishment as a form of retributive justice, as we have also seen.
The final objection to capital punishment is the danger of wrongful convictions which would result in the taking of innocent lives.
The Christian recognises that this-worldly justice is imperfect, and that despite our best and noblest efforts there will be wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice. That is why Christians maintain that when our Lord Jesus Christ returns at the close of the age, he will ‘judge the living and the dead’, and God’s perfect justice will prevail.
It must be pointed out that making the death penalty mandatory does not increase the likelihood of wrong convictions. It does mean that it is impossible for the miscarriages of justice to be corrected if they come to light only after the innocent prisoner has been executed. However, it must also be pointed out that the same situation obtains with life imprisonment when the error is discovered only after the wrongly convicted prisoner is deceased.
The fact that miscarriages of justice will most certainly from time to time occur despite our best efforts surely should not lead to the conclusion that harsh punishments for crimes, including the death penalty, should not be imposed. That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The best way to prevent or mitigate miscarriages of justice is to provide a fair and just criminal system, where every individual is subjected to the full due process of the law. In the case of capital cases, additional safeguards should be put in place to ensure that the death penalty is passed only after the case has been put through the most rigorous legal process.
DRUG TRAFFICKING AND THE DEATH PENALTY
We turn now to the question concerning the kind of crimes that is deemed egregious enough to warrant capital punishment, apart from murder. The Bible does not address this question directly, although a principle could be gleaned from its pages that may serve as a reasonable guide.
The principle may be baldly and simply stated thus: capital punishment may be administered for crimes that are as heinous and shockingly evil as murder.
The final decision about which crimes deserve capital punishment should of course be left to each state or nation, based on laws enacted by representatives elected by the people.
Although there are notable variations in different jurisdictions, the crimes that are currently thought to deserve capital punishment include premeditated murder, treason, the attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction, aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, aircraft hijacking, and perjury that results in a person’s death.
Should drug trafficking be included in the list?
In Singapore, the death penalty is applicable for a very limited number of offences which are deemed to cause the most harm to the victims and society, such as homicide. In dispensing the death penalty, the Singapore government is always careful to make the following three considerations: (1) the seriousness of the offence and the extent of the harm it causes; (2) the extent of the offence; and (3) the need for a high degree of deterrence.
Since 1975, Singapore has mandated the death penalty as the punishment for drug trafficking, should the amount of drug exceed a certain capital threshold.
The Ministry of Home Affairs explains that:
… drug trafficking causes immense harm to drug abusers, families and communities. The capital sentence thresholds for drug trafficking are high and involve significant quantities of drugs. For example, the capital sentence threshold amount of 15 grammes of pure heroin (diamorphine) is equivalent to 1,250 straws of heroin, which can feed the addiction of 180 drug abusers for a week.
In 2012, the government conducted an extensive review of the imposition of the death penalty in relation to drug related offenses such as trafficking. Changes were made in relation to some trafficking offenses which leaves the imposition of the death penalty to the discretion of the courts.
Is mandating the death penalty for drug trafficking morally defensible from the standpoint of Christian ethics? I believe that it is – based on the principle enunciated above, namely, that ‘capital punishment may be administered for crimes that are as heinous and shockingly evil as murder.’
But is drug trafficking such a crime? It certainly is, even more so!
The statistics provided by Mr Shanmugam in his ministerial statement speak for itself. The World Health Organisation reported 600,000 deaths in 2019 due to drug use. The World Drug Report estimates that in the same year, 31 million years of ‘healthy’ lives were lost due to disability and premature death as a result of drug use.
The minister poignantly adds: ‘These are not mere statistics, but lives – fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters.’
The death penalty for drug trafficking has also proved to be an effective deterrence, and this has the happy consequence of saving lives. However, some detractors have objected to using capital punishment as a utilitarian measure to deter drug crimes, while others have questioned its effectiveness.
It is important to clarify that while deterrence is one of the reasons why Singapore metes out harsh punishments for serious crimes, it is not the only or the main reason for doing so. As pointed out earlier, the main reason why the Singapore government thinks that punishments that correspond to the seriousness of the crime must be meted out is because it is convinced that this approach will serve the interest of justice and the common good.
In this way, the Singapore government’s understanding of the purposes of punishment resonates broadly with those forwarded by the Christian tradition: redressing the disorder caused by the offence; defending public order; deterring future wrongdoing on the part of the offender and others from committing crime; and promoting the reform of those who commit criminal acts.
While the Singapore government does not regard deterrence as the only or main reason for meting out harsh punishments such as the death penalty, it recognises that deterrence is an important consideration nonetheless.
I am aware that there have been a number of studies to ascertain whether harsh punishments have really been effective in deterring criminal behaviour, and that the results have been hitherto inconclusive.
However, I think it is not unreasonable to postulate that the law prescribes certain and appropriate punishment for criminal activity not just to punish the criminal but also to deter criminal activity. When people know that they will be caught and punished, they are less likely to commit crimes. Thus, an appropriate level of punishment for crimes is likely to deter some potential criminals.
The Singapore government believes that the death penalty does deter criminal behaviour. Recent surveys have shown that the majority of the population in the city-state concurs with this view.
For example, in a study conducted in 2020, the Institute of Policy Studies found that 78.2 percent of respondents believe that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to serious crimes. In relation to serious drug related offences such as trafficking, 78.9 percent believe that the death penalty deters people from trafficking substantial amounts of drugs into Singapore.
In his ministerial statement, the minister supplied some statistics based on a 2021 study conducted in the region. It showed that 87 percent of respondents believed that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. 83 percent are of the view that the death penalty is more effective than life imprisonment in discouraging drug trafficking.
The Christian of course can never condone the use of the death penalty merely as a utilitarian measure. Christian ethics, which is based on the truths about God and his will found in the Bible, rejects the Hedonic or Felicific Calculus associated with utilitarian and consequentialist ethics.
However, the observation that the death penalty for serious drug offences such as trafficking has the effect of deterring such crimes is not necessarily tied to or inspired by a utilitarian calculus.
It is simply an acknowledgement that the harsh punishments that were put in place in order to protect Singaporeans and Singapore society from the great harms of the illegal drug trade also have this happy consequence of deterring such crimes. It is merely a statement of the viewpoint that there is empirical evidence that suggests that the death penalty has the desired outcome of discouraging certain types of criminal behaviour.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.