Mandatory death penalty for drugs in Singapore: what's wrong with the communitarian rationale?
This paper critically examines Singapore's reliance on capital punishment for drug trafficking offences within the context of its communitarian framework. While the death penalty appears justified under communitarianism through retributive and reductionist justifications, closer scrutiny rev...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Final Year Project |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Nanyang Technological University
2024
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/180879 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
Summary: | This paper critically examines Singapore's reliance on capital punishment for drug trafficking
offences within the context of its communitarian framework. While the death penalty appears
justified under communitarianism through retributive and reductionist justifications, closer
scrutiny reveals that it internally conflicts with the framework by implicitly prioritising collective
welfare over individual rights, fundamentally undermining communitarian ideals. Given that
neither the reductive nor the retributive justifications meet Singapore’s core communitarian goals,
their combined rationale fails to provide a robust justification for retaining the death penalty. This
paper then argues for a re-evaluation of capital punishment, proposing that Singapore adopt a more
balanced version of communitarianism, one that reconciles collective welfare with respect for
individual rights. This approach not only avoids the ethical pitfalls associated with the death
penalty but also demonstrates that communitarianism can respect individual rights without
sacrificing communal order. The analysis unfolds in four sections: first, an overview of Western
communitarianism; second, an exploration of the adoption of communitarian principles in
Singapore and their implications for capital punishment; third, a critical examination of the
reductionist and retributive justifications for the death penalty; and finally, a proposal for a
reimagined communitarianism that fosters a more just and equitable legal framework. |
---|