One rule fits all
This is the first time I am venturing to say something colored in national, international politics on this blog, taking issues with the conventional death penalty stance. I wish to do this by highlighting the parochial thinking frames that come with it.
The law is undeterred in Singapore when it seeks to eliminate drug dealers. This got me thinking about some issues that hardliners of the law choose to ignore. When they punish a crime, does it make sense to de-contextualize it and merely judge the act itself? Is the criminal only guilty or non-guilty; is there a grey area in between? If so, what extent, and what parameters of guilt needs to be proven? Is intent a measure of guilt too?
The ordinary yet well-hyped case of Australian Tuong Huan is a case to be studied. I do not intend to sympathize with his circumstances because of my anti-capital punishment stance; however I would still put forward the notion of a context. Doesn’t a marred life due to refugee status and the subsequent metal trauma of dislocation, lost identity deserve any consideration when judging a person like Huan? The convenience of a law that is above such concerns not only simplifies legal procedure but also encourages gross simplification of human beings to fit standards, stereotypes or values. It’s hard to point a finger at one culprit of ethnocentrisms, racial discrimination, religious eccentricities, but by making laws as unbending, all powerful and prejudiced against human differences, we are not making life any better.
It is a globalized world on paper, yet they bicker over national identities of criminals. The political coloring of the whole issue has been extremely misleading. The attack on Singaporean government because of its non-liberal political system is often an excuse to attack the famed PAP and its saga of economic success. The world seems to be at peace with US executing its 1000th criminal; the liberal political system has not stopped them from executing human beings. Thus the pro Huan campaign is far from being purely humanitarian, it is highly politicized, made into an international issue, often at the expense of the issues that the incident is capable of eliciting. These issues of law and civilization, of proving punishable guilt, of dehumanizing effects of law, remain as relevant today as they were 100 years ago when feudal law, imperialist empires existed. Is it better today than back then?
The law is undeterred in Singapore when it seeks to eliminate drug dealers. This got me thinking about some issues that hardliners of the law choose to ignore. When they punish a crime, does it make sense to de-contextualize it and merely judge the act itself? Is the criminal only guilty or non-guilty; is there a grey area in between? If so, what extent, and what parameters of guilt needs to be proven? Is intent a measure of guilt too?
The ordinary yet well-hyped case of Australian Tuong Huan is a case to be studied. I do not intend to sympathize with his circumstances because of my anti-capital punishment stance; however I would still put forward the notion of a context. Doesn’t a marred life due to refugee status and the subsequent metal trauma of dislocation, lost identity deserve any consideration when judging a person like Huan? The convenience of a law that is above such concerns not only simplifies legal procedure but also encourages gross simplification of human beings to fit standards, stereotypes or values. It’s hard to point a finger at one culprit of ethnocentrisms, racial discrimination, religious eccentricities, but by making laws as unbending, all powerful and prejudiced against human differences, we are not making life any better.
It is a globalized world on paper, yet they bicker over national identities of criminals. The political coloring of the whole issue has been extremely misleading. The attack on Singaporean government because of its non-liberal political system is often an excuse to attack the famed PAP and its saga of economic success. The world seems to be at peace with US executing its 1000th criminal; the liberal political system has not stopped them from executing human beings. Thus the pro Huan campaign is far from being purely humanitarian, it is highly politicized, made into an international issue, often at the expense of the issues that the incident is capable of eliciting. These issues of law and civilization, of proving punishable guilt, of dehumanizing effects of law, remain as relevant today as they were 100 years ago when feudal law, imperialist empires existed. Is it better today than back then?
posted by Usha @ 12:46 AM
5 comments
