足球投注网（www.hg108.vip）_Abolishing the mandatory death penalty is the right step
ON June 10, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law) Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar announced that the Malaysian government has agreed to abolish the mandatory death penalty and substitute a sentence at the discretion of the court.
Mandatory death penalty means that if an accused person is found by a judge to be guilty of any offence to which the death penalty is attached, then the judge will have no choice but to sentence that person to death.
In Malaysia, there are currently 11 offences carrying the mandatory death penalty, such as the offence of murder, hostage taking resulting in death, and committing terrorist acts resulting in death.
By abolishing this penalty, the judge will then have the discretion to impose a sentence based on the limits set by the law after taking into consideration the aggravating and/or mitigating factors.
There are three reasons why this should be welcome.
First, since no two cases can be said to be identical, judges should be given the opportunity to hear the case, see the accused person and other witnesses during the trial, and should be given the discretion to decide on what is a suitable and fair punishment to be imposed based on mitigating factors such as the accused persons’ backgrounds, their motives in committing the crime, and so on.
However, under the current law, a person who is guilty of murder, for example, will receive the mandatory death penalty under section 302 of the Penal Code.
The judge will have to impose the same sentence to all who are proven to have committed murder, whether or not if it was committed in a cruel, brutal manner, or if it was done in order to end the suffering of a loved one.
Furthermore, a judge cannot impose any other sentence, even if there are strong mitigating factors.
For example, on October 15, 2021, a single mother with nine children was sentenced to death as she was found guilty of possessing 114g of methamphetamine. This crime carries the mandatory death sentence.
There was an outcry by the public over this, but the judge had no choice but to impose the death sentence, despite there being strong mitigating factors not to impose a heavy punishment.
There was also an outcry in April this year when Singapore executed a Malaysian man for trafficking in drugs even though he is alleged to have been mentally impaired.
Therefore, to ensure that justice is done, mandatory death sentences should be abolished, and judges should be allowed to decide on what is the fairest sentence to be imposed.
Second, the judiciary should be the ones to decide on sentences to be imposed. With Parliament passing laws on crimes that carry the mandatory death penalty, it is in effect Parliament who is deciding on the sentence of the accused persons.
Under the constitutional law doctrine of separation of powers, the three branches of government—Parliament, the executive and the judiciary—should be separated for there to be proper checks and balances in the government.