The public prosecutor and sentencing: drug trafficking and the death penalty in Singapore

Q3 Social Sciences
K. Amirthalingam
{"title":"The public prosecutor and sentencing: drug trafficking and the death penalty in Singapore","authors":"K. Amirthalingam","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2018.1471835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Public Prosecutor has a role to play in assisting the courts in sentencing. However, the extent of this role remains controversial with different jurisdictions drawing the line at different points. It is generally accepted that the Public Prosecutor, as a member of the Executive, should not be empowered to determine the sentence, as doing so would violate the doctrine of the separation of powers. This article examines the role of the Public Prosecutor in sentencing in the context of drug trafficking offences that carry the death penalty in Singapore. The Government has abolished the mandatory death penalty and replaced it with discretionary sentencing when certain conditions are met, one of which is that the Public Prosecutor has certified that the offender has rendered substantive assistance in disrupting drug trafficking activities. This discretionary power is largely protected from judicial review, raising an important constitutional question pertaining to the separation of powers.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2018.1471835","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2018.1471835","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Public Prosecutor has a role to play in assisting the courts in sentencing. However, the extent of this role remains controversial with different jurisdictions drawing the line at different points. It is generally accepted that the Public Prosecutor, as a member of the Executive, should not be empowered to determine the sentence, as doing so would violate the doctrine of the separation of powers. This article examines the role of the Public Prosecutor in sentencing in the context of drug trafficking offences that carry the death penalty in Singapore. The Government has abolished the mandatory death penalty and replaced it with discretionary sentencing when certain conditions are met, one of which is that the Public Prosecutor has certified that the offender has rendered substantive assistance in disrupting drug trafficking activities. This discretionary power is largely protected from judicial review, raising an important constitutional question pertaining to the separation of powers.
公诉人与量刑:新加坡的贩毒与死刑
检察官在协助法院量刑方面发挥着重要作用。然而,这一作用的范围仍然存在争议,不同的司法管辖区在不同的点上划清界限。一般认为,检察官作为行政部门的一员,不应被授权决定量刑,因为这样做会违反三权分立的原则。本文探讨了检察官在新加坡可判处死刑的贩毒罪行的量刑方面的作用。政府废除了强制性死刑,代之以在满足某些条件时的酌定量刑,其中一个条件是,检察官证明罪犯在破坏贩毒活动方面提供了实质性协助。这种自由裁量权在很大程度上受到保护,不受司法审查,这就提出了一个与三权分立有关的重要宪法问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信