Landmark decision on death penalty sparks legal debate

Associate Professor of Law and former district judge Chandra Mohan commented on the landmark decision last month to hang convicted killer Kho Jabing. The decision had sparked keen discussion among the legal fraternity. In a law blog, Associate Professor Mohan said: "As the dissenting judgments have demonstrated, differences in the findings of facts as to whether the accused had shown a blatant disregard for life, the manner in which he had done so, and considerations of the relevance of the 'other circumstances' could well lead to inconsistencies in sentencing." "Hopefully, future judgments of the Appeals Court will help to curb such inconsistencies," he added. SMU Law graduate Grace Morgan, who is a pupil at law firm Rodyk and Davidson, argued in daily legal news service Singapore Law Watch that the court's assertion that the killer's brutal acts "outraged the feelings of the community" raised the question of what kind of outrage was needed to warrant the death penalty. A more precise alternative could be whether the offender acted in such a way that it "shocks the conscience", she suggested. She argued that this would pitch the standard slightly higher than the current test, and would lessen some of the difficulties involved in trying to find the "precise level of moral culpability in borderline cases such as this (Kho Jabing) case".