Capital Punishment

[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 1
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN MALAYSIA AND GLOBALLY: A

TOOL FOR JUSTICE OR A WEAPON AGAINST HUMANITY.
by
Guru Dhillon*, Dr Noor Mohammad**, Ng Yih Miin***
Introduction
The death sentence or capital punishment has been commonly applied for
centuries. The death sentence can be dated back to ancient history
although no one can pinpoint where such an idea actually originated
from. This draconian sentence once haunted society on a global scale and
is well rooted in the national law. The death sentence is a punishment
applied to a wide variety of offences spanning from the most severe cases
to even petty theft. Capital punishment has been carried out through
various methods and include, amongst others; the guillotine,
[1]

crucifixion,
[2]
boiling in oil,
[3]
death by hanging,
[4]
lethal injection,
[5]

electric chair,
[6]
shooting
[7]
and stoning to death.
[8]

In the last 50 years, however, the global society has started to move away
from a pro-execution mindset to a new revolution of abolishing death
sentencing. Over the years, more activists and jurists around the world
have voiced concerns against this brutal, ruthless and senseless
sentencing and method of punishment. The main reason behind the
success of abolishing the death sentence is when citizens around the
globe become more aware of the importance of their constitutional rights
in the country they reside in. Most of these constitutions have provisions
such as right to life and other provisions that discourage death
sentencing. Such provisions include Art 2 of the European Charter of
Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as ECHR) implemented since 1950
by the Council of Europe.

Article 2 protects the right of every person to their life. The first
paragraph of the article contains an exception in respect of lawful
executions, while the second paragraph provides that death resulting from
defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or
suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when
the use of force involved is no more than absolutely necessary.
Protocol 13 of the ECHR suggests abolishment of the death sentence
completely. It must be noted that this is a statute binding on countries in
the European Union.
Similarly, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982 reads as
follows
[9]
:-
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person
and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with
the principles of fundamental justice.
Further, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[10]
provides the
following provision:-
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Thus, there is direction to modern society for the total abolishment of the
death sentence.
One of the earliest countries to abolish the death sentence was Portugal in
1867. Almost all the countries which are part of the European Union have
abolished the death sentence as they abide closely with the ECHR
provision under Protocol 6 but for Belarus. Most of these countries have
stated vehemently that capital punishment ought only to be invoked
during war time. To further illustrate this, Portugal had abolished the
death sentence in 1868, however, executions resumed during World War I
to punish people for espionage and treason.

On the other hand, capital punishment is still stably rooted in Asian
countries. 44% or 24 countries in Asia still impose the death penalty and
this includes Malaysia and Singapore. There are only a handful of
countries that are known to have abolished this penalty such as Bhutan
and Timor Liste
[11]
Debates about abolishing capital punishment or the
death sentence have been continuing and show no signs of slowing down
since the turn of the last century. Even in Asia, Amnesty International
[12]

is vigorously and relentlessly pleading to countries in Asia to abolish
capital punishment as their counterparts in Europe have done.
In Malaysia, the death penalty applies to various offences. The statistics
are staggering where between 1979 till 2001, 359 people have been
executed in Malaysia alone. As the countries around the globe have done
away with the death punishment, Malaysia and Singapore cling
vehemently to capital punishment.
This paper will provide an insight into the effectiveness of the death
penalty as compared to the abolishment by comparing the statistics of
different countries and their legislations respectively.
Table 1 below shows the different mandatory penalty convictions in
Malaysia with its relevant provision in the statutes. The method is death
by hanging once the accused is found guilty.
Table 1: Mandatory Death Penalty in Malaysia
Offence Legal Provision which provides
for mandatory death penalty
Trafficking in dangerous drugs
Discharging a firearm in the
commission of a scheduled offence
Section 39(B) of the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1952
Section 3 of the Firearms
(Increased Penalties) Act 1971

Trafficking in dangerous drugs

Section 39(B) of the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1952

Offences in Security Areas for
possession of fire-arms,
ammunition and explosives
Section 57(1) of the Internal
Security Act 1960
Offences in Security Areas for
possession of fire-arms,
ammunition and explosives
Accomplices in case of discharge
of firearm
Section 3A of the Firearms
(Increased Penalties) Act 1971

Offences against the Yang di-
Pertuan Agong
Murder
Section 121A of Penal Code
Section 302 of Penal Code
Table 2 below states the offences that fall under discretionary death
penalty where the decision on death sentencing lies within the discretion
of the judge, the judiciary exercising total independence according to the
Federal Constitution.
Table 2: Discretionary Death Penalty
[13]

Offence
Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting
the waging of war against the Yang di-Pertuan
Agong, a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri
Section 121 of Penal
Code

Consorting with a person carrying or having
possession of arms or explosives
Section 58(1) of
Internal Security Act
1960
Abduction, wrongful restraint, wrongful
confinement for ransom (kidnapping)
Section 3 of Kidnapping
Act 1961

The Dreary Path to the Death Row in Malaysia
The decision on discretionary death sentence will normally rely on the
different circumstances of the case. One of the most important
considerations is the seriousness of the offence. However, the Malaysian
court would adhere to the beyond reasonable doubt rule when it comes
to the ruling on death sentencing as the liberty and life of the accused is
at stake. The prosecution officer will have to prove that the committal of
the said crime was beyond reasonable doubt or else the courts will not
bring about a conviction.
There are insufficient statistics provided by government agencies to the
public regarding the number of death sentences in this country. To date,
the best representation are the statistics provided by the National Human
Rights Commission (Suhakam). The statistics appear to show that since
2001, approximately 159 people are on death row.
[14]
Another statistic is
that provided by the Deputy Home Minister, Zainal Abidin Zin, that 359
death sentences have already been carried out within the period of 31
years from 1970 to October 2001. The findings were that the majority of
cases were convictions for drug trafficking offences.

Arguments For - Retribution with the imposition of the death penalty
Since time immemorial, the death sentence serves as retribution for the
death that was caused. It is a common rooted opinion that the victims
family and friends will have extreme hatred towards the convict that they
would definitely wish for a death sentence in return for the life taken.
Since ancient times there has been the application of the saying, an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
The theory of retribution has raised controversy over the years. Robert
Macy who is the District Attorney of Oklahoma mentioned this:
In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch
as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and
killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a
day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals.
Arguments For - The Correlation between deterrence and the death
penalty
Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, Prof Ernest Van den
Haag, who conducted studies on the correlation of the death penalty to
deterrence commented that:
Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and
perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than
other punishments because people fear death more than anything
else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and
scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to
deter most.
The authors invite readers to compare the findings by Prof Ernest Van
den Haag with real life statistics that were compiled by various
government agencies and bodies.

THE EVIDENCE
Statistics provided by the Royal Malaysia Police on crime cases
related to the death penalty
Graph 1 below is provided by the Royal Malaysia Police in their official
website.
[15]
This is the most complete statistics ever to have been revealed
by the Malaysian Government to this date in 2011.
The graph above confirms the number of incidents from year 2000-2006.
This will include homicides, attempted murder, robbery (unarmed and
armed). As for gang robbery involving firearms, it reveals that cases
reported each year varies from 40 to 100 cases. In contrast, robberies
committed by solo criminals involving firearms have decreased gradually
and consistently from 722 in year 2000 to 247 in year 2006.
In addition, the number of attempted murders doubled from year 2000 to
2005 from 43 cases to 94 cases. Homicide on the other hand fluctuates
and has significantly increased from 2004 to 2006. 2006 recorded the
highest number of homicides at a staggering figure of 604 cases. It has
showed no signs of decreasing over the years even with the enforcement
of the death sentence.


Graph 1
Statistics from United States of America- A Comparative perspective
during a similar period
Graph 2 below portrays the overall national murder rates in States with
the death penalty and States without death penalty in the United States of
America. It is based on murder rates per 100,000 from the Federal Bureau
of Intelligence (FBI Sources). The graph clearly shows that the murder
rates in both death penalty States and murder rates in non death penalty
States have steadily reduced over 17 years from 1990 and 2007.
However, the most important analysis should be that the murder rates in
non-death penalty States are very much lower than the murder rates in
death penalty States.


Graph 2
Graph 3 below is a survey that was conducted by the New York Times.
[16]

It proved conclusively that over the period of 20 years, the homicide rates
in States with the death penalty clearly marked 48 to 101 per cent higher
as compared to the non-death penalty States.

Graph 3
These graphs and statistics only highlight a glaring fact that the death
sentence cannot be considered as an absolute deterrent. The authors at
this juncture further raise serious questions to legislators and lawmakers

on the need to continue with capital punishment as life imprisonment
could be opted for as the most serious punishment since this form of a
punishment also acts as a deterrence and is as effective a deterrence as
the death penalty.
Arguments against the Death Penalty - A legal perspective
It is of utmost importance to make reference to the Malaysian Federal
Constitution in the issue of right to life as the author addresses the death
penalty law. Art 5(1) states clearly that:
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, save in
accordance with the law.
The clause covers two areas of concern which is the freedom to live and
also the freedom to live without detention. However, this freedom can be
curtailed by the intervention of the judiciary, whereby such freedom
hinges on the creativity of the judiciary.
This is supported by the 3
rd
principal of A.V. Diceys rule of law,
The rule of law includes the results of judicial decisions
determining the rights of private persons.
Judges should exercise their discretionary power whilst construing any
clauses in the law that will curtail the basic rights of the alleged party,
but in practice, this is seldom ever done.
Hence, the phrase in accordance to law should be also scrutinized as it
gives very wide arbitrary powers to the court to decide when it is
appropriate to have removed the rights of people even in the most drastic
situations that involve the taking of anothers life. When judges are asked
why they act so arbitrarily, their response is usually always that they are
not in the position to answer to the reasonability and morality of the law

as they are required to abide by the laws that have been passed by
Parliament.
The authors are totally against the death penalty and in sync with the
notion of protecting human life which has been echoed by respected
members in the legal fraternity. Lord Diplock in the Privy Councils case
of Ong Ah Chuan [1981]
[17]
held that the mandatory death sentence
should be used very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Diplock further commented in the same case that capital punishment
is unconstitutional as he recognized Art 5(1) that one will be deprived of
life when capital punishment is applied. Another case of mandatory death
sentence, PP v. Lau Kee Hoo
[18]
is being challenged under constitutional
grounds.
The further argument came about whether the international instruments
such as the Universal Declaration of Human rights or ECHR could
influence or be binding to the commonwealth countries constitution.
Lord Diplock contended that:
........ in order to dispose of these appeals ... their Lordships do not
find it necessary to decide whether ... it should be recognized as a
fundamental rule of natural justice under the common law system
of criminal procedure ...
[19]

He further stated that:
......... capital punishment finds no place in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed by the United
Nations in 1948 nor in the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950
(ECPHRFF), notwithstanding the fact that the Public Prosecutor
in Ong Ah Chuans case (p 660), heard earlier had submitted that

UDHR and the European Convention on Human Rights did not
influence the constitution.......
Such stance was also taken in the case of Reyes v. The Queen in 2002.
[20]

Lord Bingham of Cornhill also stated in his Privy Council judgment in
Reyes case that the mandatory death sentence has infringed both the
provision to protect the right to life and protection against inhuman
punishment.
The next provision that is totally against the death penalty is the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
[21]
where it states
that:
Everyone has the rights to life, liberty and security of person and
added that:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment
A contrasting somewhat modified view in relation to capital punishment
is a provision in The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(1966) where it adopts the idea of right to life inherent
[22]
where it
pleads that society should not abolish the death sentence totally but apply
a higher limitation to the application of the death sentence. The Second
Optional Protocol of the above covenant called upon the international
society to abolish the death sentence and to only limit it to war time
crimes for national security purposes.
Arguments against the Death Penalty - Risks of judicial miscarriage
It is a universal truth that Judges and Juries are human and that humans
more often than not make mistakes. Although most of the death sentence
offences require the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt before
a death penalty conviction can be made, it does not guarantee a zero error

result to the evidence brought forward. Many times over, there are
numerous factors that promote miscarriages of justice. According to the
study of Columbia University Law School, it was conclusively found that
2/3 of all death sentence trials have substantial errors.
In the Taiwanese case of Chiang Kuo-ching
[23]
Taiwanese prosecutors
came forward to certify that Chiang Kuo-ching who was a private in the
Air Force, had been wrongly executed in August 1997. He was convicted
for the rape and murder of a 5 year old girl at the air force headquarters
compound. It was found that the nine military officers in-charge of
investigating this case had used coercion and torture to extract the
confession.
Society should be mindful that the death sentence has an irreversible
effect. Life taken cannot be replaced or reversed when wrongful
execution is found. The issue that the authors would like to raise here is:
Who ought be responsible for wrongful executions? People are very
quick to condemn wrongful persons to the gallows but very often
disappear into thin air when asked to take responsibility for their
miscalculated actions.
Hence, by acknowledging that judges are humans and there are many
factors beyond the control of humans that could cause wrongful
execution, the public should protect their rights to life by supporting the
abolition of the death sentence so as to reduce the risk to nothing.
Arguments against the Death Penalty - A religious perspective
The Islamic View
As Islam is the official religion in Malaysia as per the Federal
Constitution, the Islamic point of view will be a valuable insight. One of
the most famous verses that is almost always raised when dealing with
death sentences are as follows:
[24]

Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the
due process of law.
This verse has given a clear picture into the underlying principle of Islam
where no one should be given the right to kill anyone unless it is in
accordance to the law. This could be an affirmative statement for the
usage of the death sentence in a legal system in the view of Islam.
However, it would be crucial to bear in mind the question of law where
what could be considered as just to the extent of taking ones life; akin to
our discussion in the preceding chapter earlier, and the important role and
responsibility the judiciary needs to bear when using such types of
sentencing.
The Holy Quran states that:
[25]

We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for
nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal
It portrays the retributive nature that is profoundly brought forward.
Another important verse is found in Surah Ah-nahl,
[26]

And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of
Allah) then punish them with the like of what which you were
afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-
Sabirin
This clause emphasized the virtue of patience instead of retribution
against the one who offended you. Pursuant to this, it is very important to
point out that the victims family could choose to opt for blood money
or compensation or other form of punishment apart from the death
sentence and such an option could be made compulsory for aggrieved
family members of the victim instead of just providing it as an alternative
as per Surah Ah-nahl.

In Islamic law, the members of the victims family can opt for
[27]
a
number of sentences. They can either choose the death sentence, diyah
(blood money) or to pardon the offender for all his crimes. Diyah or
blood money is the compensation by the convicted party to the victims
family for the loss of life. It is good to be aware that the current law can
only offer death by hanging but disregards the welfare of the surviving
spouse or family members that commonly depend on the income by the
deceased.
It is very appropriate to have a system where a young widow with several
children can receive temporary support temporary by an order of diyah by
the court. This can protect the interest of society and at the same time
abide by the principles of most religions against the taking of lives of
others. Another important point to be made against retribution is that the
deceased cannot be brought back to life and the loss of the family cannot
be fully restored even with the sparing of another life for the life that has
been taken away. It is not interchangeable.
Another option is to pardon the alleged convict from the crime. The
option of pardoning should be regarded as a catalyst to homicide where it
should be considered as an option to preserve human life and it would be
helpful to heal the ordeal suffered by family members. Not everyone will
have the intention to take the other lives as retribution. It is important
that the court should decide according to the wishes of the victims
family.
The Christian view
There is a mixed perception of the death sentence from the perspective of
Christianity. It can be traced back to the Old Testament in the book of
Exodus,
[28]
chapter 21, verses 23-36 where it was stated that:

But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a
penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
It was also can be found in the book of Numbers:
[29]

Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only
on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on
the testimony of only one witness.
There is a long list of verses in the Old Testament of the Bible that
support the death penalty. However, as society has evolved, there are
some opinions from jurists as well leaders of Christian society that have
stepped up with a different perspective.
One of the most important statements was by Pope John Paul II
[30]
saying
that:
This is the context in which to place the problem of the death
penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the
Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very
limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem
must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever
more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with Gods
plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment
which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the
offence
And the Pope further added:
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and
extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided
upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender
except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would

not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a
result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal
system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
The Buddhist View
The teaching of Buddhism is strongly rooted to the principle of karma
where bad deeds will be paid back by bad outcomes or consequences. The
Dhammapada, which is one of the most important books of Buddhism
states the following in the final verses of Chapter 10:
Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do.
Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishments;
everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to
kill
Such is the Buddhist view that is clearly against the notion of taking
anothers life, hence demonstrating that all Buddhists, if following the
true nature of their beliefs are against the death penalty as well.
The other book of Buddhism teachings is the Panca-sila:
[31]

Abstaining from the destruction of life encourages the
development of compassion (karuna) for all beings. Everyone has
great spiritual potential waiting to be unleashed no matter how
depraved they might look. All life is to be treasured. It matters not
how lowly such life may seem. Treasuring the lives of those who,
in many cases, have not valued lives of others is an act of spiritual
courage.
This profound verse epitomises that there should be compassion where an
offence has been done irrespective of its severity. People should not
resort to the death sentence as it will mean that there is an unappreciative
attitude of the people towards the value of lives. No matter how low lying

is a life; whether a serial killer or a treason criminal, they should be
given a chance to redeem themselves through rehabilitation and
imprisonment and with good teachings whilst in detention, the idea would
be to provide a new life and chance to these once abhorred beings.
Global Political Views
In Malaysia, countless leaders have expressed their disgust and
dissatisfaction against the current capital punishment laws.
For instance, the Bukit Bendera MP in Penang, Liew Chin Tong, had
boldly came forward with his personal opinion that capital punishment is
a cruel sentence against the human rights and continued explaining that:
Convicts can be prevented from reoffending via life sentence,
without the necessity to take their lives,
He further stated that the death sentence does not serve as an effective
tool for justice.
[32]

Such a stance has been supported by Dato Seri Mohammad Nazri Aziz in
the Sunday Star English newspaper
[33]
who stated:
If it is wrong to take someones life, then the government should
not do it either. No criminal justice system is perfect. You take a
mans life and years later, you find out that another person did the
crime. What can you do?
This is a good explanation to do away with the death sentence as people
are well aware that once a life is taken away, it cannot be retrieved. Who
in this event will have to be responsible if a wrong life is taken? The
other question that arises is that Is it justifiable and worth the price to
take ones life when the main function of punishment was to deter future
repetition of the same offence?

However, there are surprisingly some leaders from the West that have
reverted to the old position to agree with the death sentence.
One of them is the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. He
publicly mentioned that:
there are times where capital punishment is appropriate,
[34]

It was followed by the support by NDP MP Joe Comartin of Canada
saying that viable, useful tool for a society and commented that the
government will keep the option open. The ruling to abolish the death
sentence from the Canadian legal system was made in 2002. However,
there were disagreements from some parties raising the fear of opening
the floodgates to the attack of terrorists in Canada when the death
sentence was abolished.
Vic Toews, who is now Canadas Public Safety Minister said that:
The court has opened up a door to allowing terrorists and
murderers from other jurisdictions to come to Canada
Recently, there was another very important remark by the Justice
Minister of Taiwan, Wang Ching-Feng, who publicly opined against the
death penalty in Taiwan. She boldly resigned from her post after the
failed attempt in reforming the law against the death penalty as the
Taiwanese public failed to show support for her beliefs. She stated:
I would rather step down than sign any death warrant, and
If these convicts can have an opportunity to rehabilitate
themselves, I would be very happy to be executed or even go to hell
in their stead.

In 2011, Japans newly elected Justice Minister, Satsuki Eda, said that he
was personally against the death sentence and will take extra measures
when dealing with these issues.
These are only a few of the recent statements compiled to show that there
is a move to do away with capital punishment at all levels of society. If
the authors were to compile all the statements produced by leaders in
their stand against capital punishment, really, there will be a continuous
wave of attacks against the senseless current laws relating to capital
punishment. Isnt this evidence and stance demonstrated by all levels of
the public strong and valid enough for countries who still practice capital
punishment to review their laws and abolish capital punishment once and
for all?
Conclusion
The authors hope that with inclusion of such comparative graphs into this
paper, coupled with numerous instances and examples on why capital
punishment should be abolished, it is sincerely hoped that legislators and
law makers will take notice and have good reason to conduct more
conclusive surveys and analysis to determine the actual correlation
between the death sentence and the commission of crimes to conclusively
determine whether the death sentence should remain or be abolished once
and for all.
In a nutshell, the authors conclude that the death sentence is archaic and
senseless, not a tool for justice, rather an out dated weapon used
indiscriminately.
____________________________________________________________
* Lecturer in Law, Multimedia University
** Senior Lecturer in Law, Multimedia University

*** Researcher in Law, Multimedia University
Endnotes:
[1]
The most famous being the Halifax Gibbet, a monolithic wooden
structure created from two fifteen foot high uprights capped by a
horizontal beam. The blade was the head of an axe, attached to the
bottom of a four and a half foot wooden block which slid up and down
through grooves in the uprights. This device was mounted on a huge
platform about 4 feet high.

[2]
Crucifixion is an ancient method of painful execution in which the
condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to
hang until dead.

[3]
Death by boiling is a method of execution in which a person is killed
by being immersed in a boiling liquid such as water or oil. While not as
common as other methods of execution, boiling to death has been used in
many parts of Europe and Asia.

[4]
Hanging is the lethal suspension of a person by a ligature. The Oxford
English Dictionary states that hanging in this sense is specifically to put
to death by suspension by the neck, though it formerly also referred to
crucifixion and death by impalement in which the body would remain
hanging. Turvey, Brent (1996). A guide to the physical analysis of
ligature patterns in homicide investigations.
[5]
Lethal injection is done by injecting a fatal dose of drugs (which could
comprise of a barbiturate, paralytic, and potassium solution) for the
express purpose of causing immediate death.
[6]
Execution by electrocution, usually performed using an electric chair,
is an execution method originating in the United States in which the

condemned person is strapped to a specially built wooden chair and
electrocuted through electrodes placed on the body.
[7]
Executed by a firing squad.
[8]
An act where a group throws stones at the convicted person until
he/she dies.
[9]
Section 7
[10]
Article 3
[11]
The Death Penalty Worldwide: developments in 2004. Amnesty
International.
[12]
An international human rights non-governmental organisation with
over 3 million members and supporters around the world. The objective
of the organisation is to conduct research and generate action to prevent
and end grave abuses of human rights, and to demand justice for those
whose rights have been violated.
[13]
Courtesy of Sitham and Associates, Advocates & Solicitors, Penang
[14]
Malaysian Human Rights Report 2001, SUARAM
[15]
On the 30
th
of July 2007
[16]
September 2000
[17]
[1981] 1 MLJ 64
[18]
[1983] MLJ 157
[19]
[2003] 3 MLJ 148
[20]
[2002] AC 235, at p 257
[21]
Article 3

[22]
Article 4
[23]
Dennis Engbarth, No Indictment Over Wrongful Execution - 1
st
of
June 2011 <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=55885>
[24]
(6:151)
[25]
5:45
[26]
Verse 126
[27]
Dr Syed Ahmad SA Alsagoff, Victim Compensation For Homicide
For All Malaysian
[28]
New American Standard Bible
[29]
Chapter 35: verse 30
[30]
Evangelium Vitae: Iaoness Paulus PP II: Paragraph 56
[31]
The Five Precepts: paca-sila, edited by John T. Bullitt. Access to
Insight, 19 September 2010,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html.
Retrieved on 7 February 2012.
[32]
Media statement by DAP MP for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong on
2
nd
April 2011 in George Town, Penang.
[33]
Reported on 9
th
August 2011 in NST <:Malaysian minister says
wrong to use death penalty
http://www.nst.com.my/articles/Malaysianministersays_wrong_tousedeat
hpenalty/Article/#ixzz1UkOJvcR9>
[34]
In an interview with CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge on 18
th
January
2011.

Capital Punishment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capital Punishment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[2012] 1 LNS(A) xx Legal Network Series 1

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN MALAYSIA AND GLOBALLY: A

You might also like