Analysis Of Comparative Criminal Law: Singapore Vs Malaysia, Uk, Usa
1. Singapore: Public Prosecutor v. Kho Jabing (2015)
Facts:
Kho Jabing was convicted of murder during a robbery in Singapore.
The case raised debate about mandatory death penalty vs. life imprisonment.
Legal Issues:
Should the mandatory death penalty apply, or should courts consider mitigating factors?
Application of “rarest of rare” principle in Singapore (similar to India).
Decision:
Court initially imposed the death penalty but later reconsidered mitigating circumstances after an appeal.
Death penalty upheld due to brutality and premeditation, but the case led to discussions about judicial discretion.
Implications:
Singapore applies mandatory death penalty for certain murders, but appeals can introduce mitigating factors.
Shows a stricter approach compared to Malaysia, where courts have more discretion.
2. Malaysia: Public Prosecutor v. Kevin Anthony Morais (2015)
Facts:
Kevin Morais, a deputy public prosecutor, was abducted and murdered.
Accused were tried for murder with premeditation.
Legal Issues:
Whether Malaysian courts should apply mandatory death penalty or allow life imprisonment.
Decision:
High Court sentenced main accused to death by hanging.
Court emphasized pre-planned nature of crime and public outrage.
Implications:
Malaysia’s criminal law retains mandatory death penalties for certain offences, but courts have begun considering reform for discretion in sentencing.
Highlights a similar approach to Singapore in terms of deterrence, but with slightly more procedural leniency.
3. UK: R v. Brown (1993)
Facts:
A group engaged in consensual sadomasochistic activities causing bodily harm.
Convicted under Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Legal Issues:
Can consent be a defense for bodily harm?
Balancing individual liberty vs. public policy protection.
Decision:
House of Lords upheld convictions, stating consent is not a defense to actual bodily harm in this context.
Implications:
UK criminal law emphasizes protection of public morals and bodily integrity, even against consensual acts.
Contrasts with Singapore and Malaysia, which focus more on deterrence for violent crimes rather than private consensual conduct.
4. UK: R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)
Facts:
Shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
Tried for murder.
Legal Issues:
Can necessity be a defense for homicide?
Decision:
Court rejected necessity as a defense and sentenced to death (later commuted to six months).
Implications:
Establishes the principle that necessity cannot justify murder in UK law.
Provides contrast to US law where “necessity defense” may apply in extreme circumstances.
5. USA: Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Facts:
Furman accidentally killed someone during a robbery; sentenced to death.
Legal Issues:
Does the death penalty as applied violate the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment)?
Decision:
US Supreme Court ruled the death penalty arbitrary and unconstitutional in many cases.
Temporarily halted capital punishment nationwide, prompting states to revise statutes.
Implications:
US approach emphasizes constitutional protections and procedural fairness.
Contrasts sharply with Singapore and Malaysia, which retain mandatory death penalties for certain crimes.
6. USA: Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Facts:
After Furman, Georgia revised death penalty law with guided discretion and bifurcated trials.
Legal Issues:
Whether revised death penalty statutes comply with the Constitution.
Decision:
Supreme Court reinstated death penalty under guided discretion and procedural safeguards.
Implications:
US emphasizes structured sentencing and judicial discretion, unlike Singapore/Malaysia which are more rigid.
Highlights the balance between deterrence and individual rights.
7. Comparative Insights
| Aspect | Singapore | Malaysia | UK | USA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Death Penalty | Mandatory for certain murders and drug trafficking | Mandatory for certain murders, moving towards reform | Abolished for murder; life imprisonment instead | Allowed with procedural safeguards; guided discretion after Gregg |
| Juvenile Offenders | Separate juvenile justice system, rehabilitation-focused | Juvenile courts exist, emphasis on reform | Juvenile system with rehabilitation focus | Juvenile justice varies by state; Supreme Court restrictions on death penalty for minors |
| Consent & Morality Crimes | Focus on deterrence; public morality laws strict | Similar to Singapore | Consent may not be valid for bodily harm; private morality protected in limited ways | Individual liberty prioritized; consent often a defense unless public harm |
| Procedural Safeguards | Fair trial guaranteed; appeals limited in capital cases | Fair trial; some discretion in sentencing | Extensive procedural safeguards, appeals, and human rights considerations | Strong procedural and constitutional safeguards; appeals system robust |
Key Takeaways
Singapore and Malaysia emphasize deterrence and mandatory penalties, especially for violent or drug-related crimes.
UK law prioritizes public protection and human rights, often abolishing death penalties and restricting liability for extreme necessity cases.
US law balances deterrence with constitutional rights, with guided discretion and procedural safeguards for death penalty cases.
Juvenile justice and rehabilitation are more developed in UK and US, while Singapore/Malaysia are stricter but improving.
Comparative study shows that cultural, constitutional, and historical factors significantly influence criminal law policy, especially regarding punishment severity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments