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:
At 10:52 AM,
sherene said…
Your point is not entirely clear in the post you just made. But 'the one rule fits all' is necessarily the stance all large-scale systems tend to take, because of the sheer magnitude of everyday cases. Do note that special cases such as the Tuong Huan one do come under the microscope, thereby bending the 'one rule fits all' situation.
At 3:03 AM,
Usha said…
point is simple- when we talk law, or disucss justice, crime why do we ignore the human factor. why is efficiency more important than humanitarianism?
About the microscpoe case, though i and many otehrs have spoken up agianst the law of one law fits all..it hasnt changed the fate of this one man in anyway. What is the point then of this discussion when there is no room for change?
At 1:22 AM,
Sudarshan. A. G. said…
leisure read eh??
me thinks not.. :)
At 3:20 PM,
Archie said…
Wow. The stuff I write isn't nearly half as thought provoking as this. Check out my brand new location on MySpace: http://blog.myspace.com/sexandtheuniversity
At 6:41 PM,
Usha said…
Thanks edd. the blogs inquisitive cos i am! just a few things i ponder abt
archie- i read your blog every once in a while, find it amusing
Post a Comment
<< Home