This week’s topic in focus discusses the purpose of the criminal justice system in Singapore with regard to the form of punishments meted out to offenders. There are four main sentencing pillars in Singapore which guide the Courts in deliberating the appropriate sentence to each offender: (i) prevention; (ii) deterrence; (iii) retribution; and (iv) rehabilitation.
The above principles play an integral role in delivering strong and restorative justice in Singapore.
Shifts in Singapore’s criminal justice system
As exhibited through the death penalty punishment for capital and drug trafficking offences, Singapore’s criminal justice system weighs towards the retribution and deterrence principles.
However, in light of the recent formulation of criminal justice policies and laws through the amendment of some of its mandatory death penalty laws to a discretionary one, Singapore is slowly adopting a more rehabilitative system. This is evidenced in the greater support and supervision for drug offenders as shown in the article here.
Taken together, these amendments are designed to create a fairer criminal justice system in Singapore. By empowering courts to take into account the different circumstances of each case, thereby granting them greater discretion in the use of the death penalty, this allows the courts to take into account the entire circumstances of each case. Furthermore, the shift towards rehabilitation will purportedly lower reoffending rates, thereby creating a ripple effect for a safer community. As shown in the prominent example of Norway’s justice system, an emphasis on the rehabilitative principle in its criminal justice system has created one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world.
Deterrence and prevention still evident
However, it is possible that the core of the abovementioned reforms ultimately hinge upon the tenets of deterrence and prevention. While a greater discretion is granted to the courts, once found guilty of possessing a specified weight of drugs, the death sentence stands uncompromised. Singapore’s rehabilitation proposals for drug consumption offences ultimately comes at a cost of a greater loss of freedom through longer periods of mandatory supervision and incarceration for drug consumption cases. Therefore, it is evident that amendments above illustrate that the principles of deterrence and prevention are still at the forefront of the government’s thinking in its formulation of criminal justice policies.
Questions for further personal evaluation:
- What are the disadvantages to a rehabilitative criminal justice system?
- Do you think it is possible to always ensure that the punishment fit the crime?
Useful vocabulary:
- ‘meted’: to distribute or apportion by measure
- ‘recidivism’: a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior
- ‘formulation’: to devise or develop, as a method, system, etc.
- “tenets”: one of the principles on which a belief or theory is based:
- “incarceration”: to put or keep someone in prison or in a place used as a prison
Here are more related articles for further reading:
- Today Online: This commentary discusses the presence of the death penalty issue in Singapore and the future possibility of reform.
“The Singapore Government has been firm in its stance on the death penalty for drug offences.
Last year, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam spoke out against the “romantic” notions portrayed by those who oppose it.
Urging anti-death penalty activists to look at the big picture, instead of focusing on the individual getting hanged, Mr Shanmugam said: “What they do not focus on are the thousands of people whose lives are ruined, whose families are ruined, and the undoubted number of deaths that will occur if you take a more liberal approach towards drugs.”
- The Conversation: This commentary discusses and advocates the benefits of a rehabilitative system.
“This is not to suggest that criminal behaviour shouldn’t be punished – only that we should not rely on punishment by itself to change behaviour. We need to create a true system of rehabilitation that can enhance the corrective impact of punishment-based approaches. It also doesn’t mean that punishment never works. It may work reasonably well with some people – perhaps those who are future-oriented, have good self-monitoring and regulation skills, and who can make the connection between their behaviour and negative consequences months later.
Unfortunately, many people in prison simply aren’t like this. The challenge, then, is two-fold: to find ways to make punishment more effective and to tackle the causes of offending through high-quality rehabilitation.”
Picture credits:https://unsplash.com/photos/BWRY6qXMxfU