How Noor Atiqah's life is saved without challenging the Death Penalty

In my last article on the issue of Death Penalty, I argued how Singapore's anti-Death Penalty campaigners have the tendency to challenge the interpretation of the Constitution pertaining to the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty rule. I also mentioned how other means like convincing the courts to have the capital charge reduced is not followed up as an appeal. Here is that article - Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

In this post, I shall discuss how a convicted life has been saved without challenging the Death Penalty rule itself. This is the story of Noor Atiqah, convicted and condemned to death for drug trafficking. The case was heard in Malaysia.

Singapore's anti-Death Penalty lobbyists can take a leaf from Malaysia. While our lobbyists have taken the one-track route, ie challenging the legality of the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty, they have totally missed out other more effective and proven ways how lives are saved from the gallows.

Here is Noor Atiqah's story. She was convicted and condemned to death - until a capital charge against her was reduced.

Singapore woman escapes gallows in Malaysia

Noor Atiqah, saved from the gallows not because the defence successfully challenged the Death Penalty, but because the Court decided against the Prosecution and had her charged with a non-capital crime instead of a capital crime.

KUALA LUMPUR - A Singaporean woman sentenced to death in Malaysia for drug trafficking has been spared the gallows, after the charge against her was reduced to possession instead, an offence which does not carry the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia.

Noor Atiqah M. Lasim, 26, will now have to serve a 12-year jail term instead, after she was caught with 370g of heroin and other drugs in her bag at the Sepang airport budget terminal on Jan 5, 2009.

She has maintained all along that she had not known that the bag she was carrying contained drugs.

During the Court of Appeal hearing in Putrajaya on Wednesday morning, the prosecution decided not to contest the appeal against the conviction for trafficking.

I have for countless of times argued with anti-Death Penalty lobbyists that the more effective way to save a condemned person's life is to argue for the capital charge against the accused be reduced. I argued it for Yong Vui Kong's case. The lobbyists' reply has always been the same - ie it is the Prosecutor's prerogative to decide whatever the charge may be.

My reply to that is simple. No one in Singapore has challenged the opinion it is the prosecutor's right to decide the charge. That being the case, why are anti-Death Penalty Campaigners assuming the Courts won't allow the charge be reduced?

Noor Atiqah's case shows that it can be done. Note that it is the Court of Appeal that overrules the High Court. It was the High Court that condemned her to death. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision by having the accused's charge reduced to a non Capital Crime. Note that the Prosecution does not intend to appeal against that.

Back to Singapore's cases of condemned criminals. So why are Singapore's anti-Death Penalty lobbyists not taking the same route? Why are they always stuck in the "let's challenge the interpretation of the constitution" route pertaining to the Death Penalty?

The main idea is to save lives. Of course if the Death Penalty is repealed, it would be a blanket assurance no further lives would be condemned to the gallows. But in the meantime, why is not the safer route, ie capital charge reduced, being pursued?

If anti-Death Penalty lobbyists are serious about saving lives, they can take a leaf from Malaysia's court. Noor Atiqah's case is proof of that.


A deeper analysis of Noor Atiqah' case -

To understand better what is the reason for the Court of Appeal's overturning of Atiqah's case, here's a link to ST's reproduced full report - https://docs.google.com/View?id=df8pj3wz_654csh45ncz
Relevant excerpt here:

When her case went before the Court of Appeal, however, Mr Gobind was given rare permission by the court to introduce fresh evidence.

The lawyer produced a detention order from the Home Ministry stating that Mr Stanley had been operating a drug trafficking syndicate, with details that linked him to Noor Atiqah's case.

This new evidence probably led to the prosecution's decision not to contest the appeal, Mr Gobind told The Straits Times on Thursday.

Anti-Death Penalty lobbyists may argue that in Atiqah's case, there was reason for the downgrading of the charge and hence, the defence appealed for that. My reply is, so what makes you think there isn't any case for Vui Kong's charge to be downgraded?

According to the reports on Atiqah's case, the "new evidence" was that it is shown that Atiqah had been linked to a known drug syndicate operator. As such, her charged was downgraded to possession of drugs, rather than drug trafficking - a crime that does not carry the Death Penalty in Malaysia.

(Personally, I don't buy that new defence argument. Doesn't the link to the syndicate operator actually reinforce that she was trafficking even the more? Anyway, that saved her life.)

In Vui Kong's case, there is no such "new evidence". But the trial judge did recommend a downgrade of charge that does not warrant the Death Penalty. The PP declined. Why didn't the defence contest?

The fact is that the defence in Malaysia did not challenge the sanctity of the Death Penalty, or for that matter Mandatory Death Penalty. The defence worked straight on the issue - Noor Atiqah's case itself. The Court of Appeal hence took the evidence presented by the defence and was in no way distracted by the arduous task of decidiing the legality of the Death Penalty itself. The decision was quick, simple and effective. Atiqah was thus saved from the gallows. Period.


Question time for anti-Death Penalty lobbyists in Singapore -

Now why can't anti-Death Penalty lobbyists in Singapore be just as efficient as that? Why get bogged down challenging the validity of Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty, wasting precious time in their bid to save the condemned?

There is always ample time to campaign to repeal the Death Penalty. But when time is of essence and the condemned's ultimate doom draws near, there isn't the luxury of long, arduous court hearings. The immediate concern is to save the life of the convicted.

Atiqah's case shows that when the defence just sticks to the case itself and not get bogged down by challenging the Death Penalty, things will work out favourably for the accused.


My Conclusion -

The top priority is the lives of the convicted. The campaign to have the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty repealed is secondary. Anti-Death Penalty campaigners in Singapore should keep that in mind.

From the cases we have seen so far, the most effective way is to get the charge reduced to a non-capital charge. We can discuss about repealing the Death Penalty when we have the time do so - after the lives of the convicted have been saved.