Proposal comes from Law Society, which also wants homosexual acts among consenting men decriminalised

Apr 5, 2007
AsiaOne

The Law Society wants judges to be given the discretion to either sentence offenders to death or to a jail term instead of the mandatory death penalty for crimes such as murder.

This is a key plank in the Law Society's response to proposed changes to the Penal Code by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), according to a report in The Straits Times today.

Judges must now impose the death penalty for all capital punishment cases if a person is convicted.

It is understood that her claims are still being verified.

The Law Society also made other proposals in a 55-page report which was drafted by an ad-hoc committee of 16 lawyers and academics, and endorsed by its council. Another key change calls for homosexual acts among consenting men to be decriminalised.

The society's views which was submitted to the MHA on Friday, were drawn up after being invited by Senior Minister of State (Home Affairs and Law) Ho Peng Kee to study the proposed changes last November..

This report was posted on its website on Tuesday.

In arguing for discretion to be given to judges in dealing with capital punishment cases, the society pointed to a new law mooted by the ministry, which deals with hostage-takers who hold the government or others ransom.

The ministry proposed that a person convicted of breaking this law will be punished by the death penalty or a jail term extending to life and caning or a fine.

The Law Society proposed that this discretion be extended to all capital offences.

It argued that changing the mandatory death penalty for capital offences will not lead to a reduction in deterrance.

"This flexibility in sentencing humanises the law and reflects the evolving standards of decency in Singapore society", said the report.

In addition, the society said that MHA's proposal to retain homosexuality as an offence in Section 377A "cannot be justified". Section 377 of the Penal Code deals with sexual acts "against the order of nature".

It described that the such a retention as "out of step with legal norms in the modern law".

However, the Law Society emphasised that it was not arguing that homosexuality is morally approved, and added that while a "significant minority" wanted the provision to remain, the majority view prevailed.

The MHA's approach is that homosexuality is not widely approved in this society. As such, the ministry has said that it will not be "proactive" in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.

However, the Law Society perceives this as an acknowledgment that the section is 'out-of-step' and 'runs the risk of bringing the law into disrepute'. Thus, it suggests a through review as well as a new chapter in the Penal Code on sexual offences.

Besides expressing its gratitude that the MHA consulted both the public and it, the Law Society also urged the creation of a commission to review the reforms.

An MHA spokesman yesterday said that all views received were being studied.

» Have your say on this and other issues in our forum pages