The country has moved towards limiting the death penalty after the Dewan Rakyat recently passed the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Bill 2023.
The bill effectively removed the mandatory death penalty provision for 11 offences, including drug trafficking, murder, treason and terrorism.
On April 11, Dewan Negara ratified this and with a moratorium on executions in place since 2018, Malaysia has not executed a prisoner for nearly six years.
There is also an indication that the country may move towards total death penalty abolition in the future.
For now, the new laws do not eliminate the death penalty altogether but will instead, allow judges to use their discretion in imposing penalties that are proportionate to the crime that was committed, including the death penalty, where necessary.
While death penalty proponents have held campaigns to oppose such amendments, Malaysian Mental Health Association president Dr Andrew Mohanraj is one who feels that support for the death penalty is misplaced, even in cases involving murder.
Grieving families need psychological support
“Often, grieving families feel the execution of the killer will lead to closure and perceive a sense of justice.
“In such cases, grieving families must be assisted in the process of healing and closure through psychological support as the closure is essential to move forward,” Andrew told Malaysiakini.
However, he said it is also important to acknowledge that not all families in a similar situation may feel the same about closure even if they harbour frustration towards the criminal justice system.
“There have been few studies done to show that even if the perpetrator of a crime (killer) is executed, the grieving family continues to exhibit psychological decompensation, with the execution not having a bearing on them accepting their loss,” he explained.
Andrew said that compromised evidence-gathering might well be a factor in deciding a defendant’s guilt.
Until the day comes when Malaysians are sure that a confession was not extracted through beatings, or was evidence planted in the case - then to proceed with executions is fundamentally flawed, he added.
“In my private practice, I once encountered the case of a mother whose son was executed and she could not come to terms with the sentencing.
“She was convinced her child was innocent and the siblings too shared the view.
“The mother was treated for depression but responded poorly and died soon after. In close-knit families, their loss may continue as trauma and interpersonal conflicts rather than getting closure and moving on,” the psychiatrist shared.
“Even for the families of the assumed killer, execution may not give them closure to dissociate from the crime and sentenced criminal, and further move on with their lives,” Andrew added.
He said there is potential for the miscarriage of justice where an innocent person can be sentenced to death.
“At least in life imprisonment, the sentence can always be reviewed upon discovery of new evidence,” he added.
Universiti Malaya’s Law Faculty criminologist Haezreena Begum also urges an improvement to the process.
“At the moment, we do not have any data on wrongful convictions. And to have that data, there must be a revisit of the old files.
“We should start opening up cold case files or even revisiting cases of those who have been sentenced to death,” she said.
Haezreena pointed out that with technological advancement and the use of DNA, some convicts may be proven to be innocent.
“We have this DNA Identification Act to provide for the establishment of a Forensic DNA Databank Malaysia, samples, forensic analysis and the use of DNA profiles.
“So if they open up these cold case files, we might see that in some cases, there were wrongful convictions,” said the deputy dean of the Law Faculty.
A system of restorative justice
Haezreena said that anti-abolitionists do have the right to object to the abolishment. However, she feels that a system of restorative justice would serve the community better.
“Perhaps, they believe that the only reasonable punishment for someone who has committed a heinous crime like murder should be capital punishment.
“You can’t blame them because we had this law for decades, and the death penalty has been around for centuries.
“People tend to think that, having the perpetrator sent to the gallows would probably give them some closure, but the reality is whatever punishment is meted out, it cannot bring back their loved ones,” she told Malaysiakini.
This is why many criminologists and human rights activists advocate for restorative justice, she said.
“By restoring justice, it does not mean that the state needs to inflict harm.
“Restorative justice may even include the payment of some blood money, which we do have in Islamic law but not civil law,” she added.
Repeat offenders, a possibility?
In tabling the bill last week, Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Ramkarpal Singh said data has shown there is no recidivism rate for criminals who were let off the death sentence.
He added that there has been no research that proves the efficacy of the death sentence in preventing crimes.
Haezreena said despite having the death penalty for many years, it does not deter people from committing a capital crime.
“When it comes to drug trafficking, the sad part is that most who are convicted are those who are from the lower socio-economic background, who maybe cannot afford legal representation or don’t know their rights and might be more desperate,” she added.
The academic urged the government to review its objectives when framing laws.
“Is the target actually to rehabilitate people, and to integrate them back into society to make them better citizens?
“Another issue in terms of rehabilitation is the person convicted would have a criminal record and there's a stigma attached to this person.
“If they struggle to get jobs, they might be desperate enough to return to crime,” Haezreena said.
“Of course victims and the victim families have been hurt and the problem might be attributed to our adversarial system which does not give room for victims and the victim families to confront the accused and thrash it out.
“So the harm, the hurt, the injury and trauma is still there within the victim and victims’ families. Understandably, they are full of anger and want the presumed person to be killed,” she added.
Haezreena resided for a while in New Zealand where she furthered her studies. The country first abolished the death penalty in 1941, but restored it briefly in 1949, with the last execution taking place in 1957.
“I believe it’s a positive move. New Zealand does have life imprisonment and they did sentence Brenton Harrison Tarrant who committed acts of terrorism in the mosque in 2019, killing 51 people. He was given life imprisonment without parole.
“Plus, they do have life imprisonment but with parole and they advocate a lot on restorative justice, particularly in the Maori courts in the tribunals, because they do believe that they have seen death penalty does not work,” she added.
Haezreena said if there was a system where victims and their families can actually confront the accused, there would be better understanding and stronger chances of healing.
Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that victims’ families and many citizens, in general, are not happy with the possibility of rehabilitation at the taxpayer’s cost.
“Yes, sometimes they do not understand the concept of rehabilitation… they are more into punishment.
“It’s because we are brought up to think that if somebody does something wrong, there must be consequences. There's punishment but rehabilitation is more humane than state-sanctioned executions,” she said.
Furthermore, Malaysian prisons are already overcrowded.
“Prison overcrowding is another area where we need reforms, a big issue that we are facing.
“One of the biggest problems is that we have nonviolent offenders and also those who cannot afford bail like remand offenders in prisons,” she said.
Total abolition may take years
On the total abolishment of the death penalty, Andrew believes Malaysia is on the right track.
“There is nothing wrong with taking things one step at a time. Total abolition would also mean a concurrent review of what constitutes a life sentence in terms of total years spent in prison.
“A life sentence must be seen to be robust enough to replace the death sentence. Otherwise, it will not appease grieving families who may continue to feel frustrated and cheated.
“I do believe that total abolition in coming years is an ideal situation,” he said.
Haezreena concurred, calling it a good and progressive move.
She said while it's not total abolishment of the death penalty, this gives more discretion to the judge, though the judge can still sentence the person to death.
“We can give them ongoing training and elevate their knowledge on the death penalty and its effects. It shows that our country is going towards the right direction and in line with human rights principles and norms.
“We still have the capital punishment, which is state-sanctioned torture. But still, we are still going on the right track.
“I’m hoping that in the next three to five years, we can have discussions about the total abolition of the death penalty,” she added. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.