I was thinking what could happen if judges were given the discretion to impose or not to impose the death sentence in capital offences.
I feel it is not a good idea.
If the judges can choose, then judges who are reluctant to give out the death sentence will generally not do so. This will make the other judges look unfeeling and heartless. Then there will be disparities – a less serious case might get the DS while a more serious one might not get.
Criminals will also try to get their cases heard before the ‘kind’ judges.
And if the person appeals, it will put the appeal judges in a difficult position. In the end, I guess no judge will want to give the death sentence. Or all the judges will come to a consensus themselves – give the DS.
Although there are not many this type of cases and I think there are also not many high court judges, all these are possible, right?
So, either have the death penalty or abolish it, no point giving the judge the discretion. Just my simple view.
3 comments:
I guess the judges' decisions can be quite subjective as they are human after all. So to take some subjectivity out of the judiciary process, the judges are not required to decide on the punishment - the law states what is the mandatory or minimum punishment depending on the severity of the crime. That's why for capital cases, there are always 3 judges, so there can never be a tie in the final verdict.
Hi Vic, I think capital cases also 1 judge, only in appeal cases then got 3 judges.
Oh is that so? Pardon my ignorance.
Post a Comment