The document discusses the goals of punishment in relation to the death penalty. It analyzes whether the death penalty achieves the goals of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. It also provides an overview of the death penalty in Malaysia, including the offenses that carry the death penalty and recent proposals to reform it. While the death penalty can achieve retribution and deterrence, its ability to further incapacitation and rehabilitation is debated. Restoration is incompatible with the death penalty. The document concludes by noting public support for the death penalty in Malaysia but acknowledges reforms remain at the government's discretion.

1. DEATH PENALTY
(GOALS OF PUNISHMENT)
Sarah Shahimah Bt Ibrahim
(G1715550)
Wan Nurul Hayyu Bt W. Mahmood
(G1817684)
Siti Nur Jannah Bt Hasanuddin
(G1813858)

2. Contents
a) Introduction
b) Goals of Punishment
- Retribution
- Deterrence
- Incapacitation
- Rehabilitation
- Restoration
c) Death Penalty in Malaysia
d) Conclusion

3. a) INTRODUCTION
• Death penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a person is killed by
the state as a punishment for a crime.
• The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death
sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution.
• Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital
offences, and they commonly include offences such as murder, mass murder,
terrorism, treason, espionage, offenses against the State, such as attempting to
overthrow government, piracy, drug trafficking, war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide, but may include a wide range of offences depending on a
country.
• Death penalty is a matter of active controversy in several countries and states, and
positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region

4. b) GOALS OF PUNISHMENT
1. Retribution
• Cambridge Dictionary - Retribution is punishment for a crime,
especially punishment which is carried out by someone other
than the official authorities.
• Supporters of the death penalty argued that death penalty is
morally justified when applied in murder especially with
aggravating elements such as for murder of multiple homicide
and mass killing such as terrorism, massacre and etc.
• New York Law School's Professor Robert Blecker- “Every
murderer deserves to die on the grounds that loss of life is
incomparable to any jail term”.

5. • Death penalty is justified under the principle of lex talionis, or 'an
eye for an eye' with the belief that punishment should fit the crime.
• Retribution serves justice for murder victims and their survivors.
• murderers should be executed in retribution for their crimes and
that such retribution serves justice for murder victims and their
survivors.
• Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to
the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings
closure to the murderer's crime (and closure to the ordeal for the
victim's family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more
victims.

6. • For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which
the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst
punishment under our system of law, and that is the death
penalty.
• Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society
places on protecting lives.
 Thus, death penalty does serve the aim of
punishment that is retributive in nature.

7. 2. Deterrence
• To prevent offenders from re-offending from
committing similar offence (specific deterrence)
and preventing those who may be contemplating
an offence they plan to commit from actually
committing it (general deterrence)
• Deterrence sentence is appropriate where the
offender committed the offence rationally and
premeditatedly.
• But deterrent will not be efficient if, the likelihood
of being caught and prosecuted is remote or there
is fairly low risk of detection.

8. • Criticism - the number of people convicted for crime does
not decrease as a result of more severe punishment.
• There are two principle objections to the deterrent goal
namely philosophical and empirical
• Philosophical objection - no offender should be sacrificed
over perceived benefits of crime reduction
• Empirically - no cogent data that deterrent sentence
reduces crime or makes community safer for example death
penalty punishment.
 So does death penalty fit the goal of deterrence in
punishment? Logically yes it deters because the
punishment cause fear to the offenders and society. But
evidently it is undetermined whether it reduce crime rate.
 But the answer is generally debatable as neither side had
shown they have empirical support for their view.

9. 3. Incapacitation
• The offender will be physically confined or need
to 'removed‘. Their freedom in the community
will be restricted. To prevent the offenders from
committing further crimes and obviously to
protect the society.
• Through means - Imprisonment or incarceration,
banishment, community based sentence
(supervision).

10. • Criticisms
- focuses on predictions of dangerousness rather
than on the rights of the accused.
- imprisonment will left the prisoner criminogenic
 Incapacitation goal - unfit for death penalty
punishment.
However it can be argue that incapacitation
goal does play a little role in exercising death
penalty punishment whereby the offender will
be in imprison until death penalty punishment
be executed.

11. 4. Rehabilitation
• The process of re-educating and retraining those
who commit crime.
• Encourages offender to be abide law and
become responsible citizen.
• It is hoped that the offenders will repent and do
not repeat the offence again.
• criticisms - lengthy restrictions of liberty (to
allow time for diagnosis and treatment) and
broad assumptions of governmental power over
offenders

12. Theoretically death penalty is completely
irrelevant to rehabilitation.
But it is questionable. - evidently there are
brutal murderers being rehabilitated on death
row. They have the opportunity before
execution to repent, express remorse, and
experience profound spiritual rehabilitation.
It is argue that death penalty will eliminates
forever the chance for offenders to redeem
themselves.

13. 5. Restoration
• focuses on healing or repairing the harm of criminal
wrongdoing, rather than punishing criminals for their
misbehaviour
• The foundational principles of restorative justice have
been summarized as follows:
Crime causes harm and justice should focus on repairing
that harm.
The people most affected by the crime should be able to
participate in its resolution.
The responsibility of the government is to maintain order
and of the community to build peace.
 No relation to death penalty which aim to give harsh
punishment for grave crime

14. c) DEATH PENALTY IN MALAYSIA
• Malaysia is among the only seven countries in the world
where the death penalty is known to have been
implemented for drug-related offences in 2016.
• As of 15 October 2018, 1,267 prisoners on death row
• Laws which provide death penalty : Section 302 of the
Penal Code; the Firearms (Heavier Penalties) Act 1971; the
Firearms Act 1960; the Kidnapping Act 1961; the Armed
Forces Act 1972; the Water Services Industries Act 2006;
the Strategic Trade Act 2010 and the Dangerous Drugs Act
1952
• Only the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong and Sultans of each state
have the power to grant clemency to death row prisoners,
through a pardons board to commute their sentence to life
imprisonment in which the inmates will serve time for a
minimum of 30 years

15. LATEST PROGRESS (14 March 2019)
- The government proposed to abolish the mandatory death penalty
for 11 offences.
- They suggest replacing the mandatory death penalty as provided for
in the Penal Code and Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act with the
death penalty on the court’s discretion.
- By abolishing the death penalty, there is some suggestion;
a) total abolition of the death penalty for 33 criminal offences and
replacing it with life imprisonment.
b) removal of the mandatory death sentence
c) removal of the discretionary powers of the court under the
Dangerous Drugs Act

16. JUSTIFICATION
- There should be proportionate to the severity of the offence
committed
- Malaysia is neither a party to the International Convention on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) nor its Second Optional Protocol aiming at
the abolition of the death penalty (1989)
- drug menace was serious and a threat to the security of the nation
- statistic shown strong support for capital punishment in Malaysia
- if abolished, unjust legal system. Focus on criminal more than
welfare of citizens

17. Criticisms
- carry out executions in secrecy
- prisoners had been abandoned by their families
- still high number of drug-related cases
- miscarriage of justice

18. d) CONCLUSION
• Death penalty well suited the goals of retribution and
deterrence.
• Whilst the goals of incapacitation and rehabilitation are
debatable as it depends on how the goals is view and
apply to a certain degree. Yet generally both goals are
unfit with death penalty.
• As for restoration goal, death penalty obviously does not
suit with the concept.
• Based on the findings, a large majority in favour of the
death penalty regardless mandatory or discretionary.
• However it really depends on the current government
whether to abolish with giving discretion to the court or
to abolished it totally or to remain the punishment.