Analysing the reasons for the use of the death penalty in Singapore through Bentham’s utilitarianism : can the noose be loosened?
Up until 2012, Singapore imposed a mandatory drug penalty for drug-related offences. The government claims that this use of death penalty produces a deterrence effect on future-offenders. However, recent studies have shown that the correlation between deterrence and capital punishment is ambiguous....
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Final Year Project |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nanyang Technological University
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/140831 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Up until 2012, Singapore imposed a mandatory drug penalty for drug-related offences. The government claims that this use of death penalty produces a deterrence effect on future-offenders. However, recent studies have shown that the correlation between deterrence and capital punishment is ambiguous. Despite this, Singapore’s retentionist position towards the death penalty raises the question of whether the government’s largely utilitarian attitude towards policymaking and governance can truly be attributed to the greater good of society. By establishing the grounds on which the government retains the death penalty, and analysing this through Bentham’s utilitarian approach towards crime and punishment, this paper establishes that capital punishment is not justified in the government’s war against drug trafficking in the region as the assumptions and defenses given for the use of capital punishment, including the rationale for deterrence, hinder the greater objective of the collective good that the nation is in pursuit of. |
|---|