Alternatives for death penalty

THE move to abolish the death penalty in Malaysia, which was announced by the then government in June last year, has offered some reassurance to convicted inmates on death row.

Abolition of the death penalty, which will be replaced by alternative sentencing options, marks the recognition by the authorities that it is an extreme and inhumane punishment and has no place in a civilised nation.

Currently, 33 types of offences attract the death penalty in this country. Eleven, including drug trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA) 1952, carry the mandatory death sentence by hanging upon conviction.

While avenues for appeal through the Pardons Board exist, the chances of being granted a reprieve are slim. The process is also complex and time-consuming.

At present, it is estimated that there are more than 1,000 inmates on death row in Malaysia. Many were convicted of drug trafficking. This is not surprising because the threshold for being considered a drug trafficker is low. Possession of just 15g of heroin, for example, is enough to warrant prosecution as a drug trafficker.

The majority are desperate individuals who were scammed into being drug mules with promises of hefty payments in return for their services.

Despite criticisms at home and abroad, the Malaysian authorities had clung doggedly to the death penalty, which was introduced during the British administration era. It was believed to be a deterrent to violent offences like murder and other activities such as drug trafficking that undermined the fabric of society.

The death penalty for drug-related offences is particularly distressing given the fact that the majority of convictions involved individuals indicted for possessing small amounts of prohibited substances.

It is worth remembering that the international movement against the death penalty is also concerned about long prison terms being used as a substitute. Lengthy imprisonment without options for serving reduced terms or parole will not only result in overcrowded prisons but also contravene human rights.

Abolishing the death penalty in convictions for possession of small quantities of drugs should therefore be followed by well-designed programmes aimed at equipping the prisoner with useful skills, which they can use when they are released on parole.

Good behaviour should also be considered for shortening lengthy jail sentences.

Attempts to abolish the death penalty have often stumbled in the face of public opinion that seemingly want to preserve it. A 2020 survey of 500 Malaysians (nationwide and aged 18 or above) indicated that 60% wanted the death penalty to stay.

Further analysis showed that while 85% favoured the death penalty for murder, only 61% favoured it for drug “kingpins”, 38% for intentional “drug carriers” and just 15% for “drug mules”.

Thus, 85% would favour abolishing the death penalty for most of the prisoners on death row for drug-related crimes who are just low-level drug mules.

It is worth recalling that in the United Kingdom and many European countries, the death penalty was abolished despite the fact that public opinion favoured its retention (for many types of crimes) although there is no convincing evidence that it significantly deters crime.

I for one welcome the move to abolish the death penalty, particularly for non-violent offences such as low-level drug trafficking. But in substituting it with imprisonment, adequate attention must be given to avoid overcrowding in prisons.

One avenue is to create options for shortening long sentences by imposing good behaviour bonds, providing rehabilitation measures to facilitate parole, and reintegrating individuals convicted of minor cases of drug possession back into society.