We have faith the amendment bill will pass the second and third readings in parliament so that the judges will have greater discretion over cases involving capital offenses. This will be a boost to human rights and will avert wrongful convictions.

On Monday Dewan Rakyat tabled for first reading an amendment bill involving the abolition of mandatory death penalty on 11 offenses, seeking to pass the amendment bill in second and third readings on April 3.

Nevertheless, abolition of mandatory death penalty will not automatically make Malaysia the 104th out of a total of 195 member countries (53%) of the United Nations.

Legally speaking, we are still one of the 36 countries that still impose death penalty.

We are of the view that the abolition of mandatory death penalty is at least a positive move for Malaysian judiciary.

Human rights groups concur that this is the right direction for the country’s judicial system while at the same time urging the government to make the further move towards complete abolition of death penalty.

Minister in the PM’s department Azalina Othman Said pointed out earlier in parliament that the amendment bill aims to abolish “mandatory” death penalty, not to completely abolish death penalty, meaning the judges can decide whether to hand down a death sentence or a commuted jail sentence.

The minister said the cabinet had agreed to abolish mandatory death penalty as well as life imprisonment, to be substituted with at least 30-40 years of imprisonment and 12 strokes of caning.

Human rights groups have advocated the abolition of death penalty on the grounds of protecting the human rights of individuals, preventing miscarriage of justice and violent retaliatory crimes perpetrated against innocent victims before felony offenders are arrested.

Psychologists believe that felony offenders will do everything to avert arrest and may even assault the police or hold innocent third-party hostages, knowing that the only sentence awaiting them would be mandatory death.

As such, looking from a different perspective, the abolition of mandatory death could actually protect the public from unnecessary harm inflicted by the criminals.

As for the proponents of death penalty, they believe in an eye for an eye, and an ear for an ear. However, after this judicial reform, a killer will not necessary get killed, depending on the severity of the cases involved.

Prior to the judicial reform, the court has no discretion over an offense that mandates the death penalty, as the only sentence that the judge can impose is a death sentence.

Unfortunately, the judicial reform maintains the mandatory death penalty for individuals carrying small amounts of narcotics under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (15 g or more in weight of heroin and morphine, 1,000 g or more of prepared or raw opium, 200 g or more of cannabis and 40 g or more of cocaine).

As such, innocent drug mules exploited by wicked drug syndicates will not escape the gallows, as the judge has no discretion.

Mandatory death for carrying small amounts of narcotics ought to be given a rethink!

On April 27 last year, Singapore executed a Malaysian trafficker with an IQ of only 69, Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, for bringing into the city-state 42.72 g of Heroin in 2009.

It is very obvious that there was a drug syndicate that would be permanently at large behind this case. It is sad that the Nagaenthran case has failed to get the Malaysian government to look into the predicament of innocent drug mules.

We support the abolition of mandatory death, to allow the judges to have discretion to substitute it with at least 30 to 40 years of imprisonment and at least 12 strokes of caning.

We believe the proponents of death penalty will continue to doubt that the judges will eventually make a fair verdict, and they will also argue that keeping each criminal behind bars for 40 years will cost the government RM365,000 based on the cost of 14,600 days of meals at RM25 a day. They may even question whether the convicts will be freed if they manage to raise that amount of money online like the politicians.

It is time that outdated laws, in particular those involving capital punishment, need to be reviewed and revised.

After the abolition of mandatory death penalty has gone into effect, convicts awaiting execution in prisons across the country now can apply to the court for judicial review of their cases within three months. It will be up to the court to decide whether their death sentences could be commuted to life imprisonment.

Of the 1,324 condemned convicts in the country, the cases of over 400 are being heard while those of 840 others have completed the judicial review process and are into the stage of pardon and commutation.

We have faith the amendment bill will pass the second and third readings in parliament so that the judges will have greater discretion over cases involving capital offenses. This will be a boost to human rights and will avert wrongful convictions.

In view of this, the abolition of mandatory death marks an important milestone in the country’s judicial reform.