TITLE

Death Penalty Singapore-Style: Clinical and Carefree

AUTHOR(S)
Tsun Hang Tey
PUB. DATE
October 2010
SOURCE
Common Law World Review;2010, Vol. 39 Issue 4, p315
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Singapore has developed a jurisprudence that death penalty and capital proceedings are no different from other minor criminal proceedings. Instead of scrutinizing criminal legislation on their substantive fairness, the courts have instead consistently restricted their adjudicative function to one of procedural assessment. In so doing, formalistic and textualist techniques are employed to achieve crime control ends at considerable expense of due process. This paper seeks to discuss the jurisprudence that has been moulded, and examines how much it has deviated from other Commonwealth jurisprudence.
ACCESSION #
55507762

 

Related Articles

  • RUNNING THE GAUNTLET: ONCE ENOUGH WHEN RUNNING FOR YOUR LIFE. Abbuhl, Amber // Denver University Law Review;2003, Vol. 81 Issue 2, p497 

    Explores the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania case and the historical setting that precipitated the Sattazahn Court's ultimate conclusions about double jeopardy and its application to capital punishment. Historical overview of double jeopardy; Summary of the...

  • ONE FOR THE PRICE OF TWO: HOW THE SUPREME COURT GOT IT HALF RIGHT IN RAMDASS V. ANGELDONE. Varas, Christopher // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Winter2001, Vol. 91 Issue 2, p501 

    It is informed that in Ramdass versus Angelone, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to extend its ruling in Simmons versus South Carolina to allow parole-eligible defendants in state capital cases to inform the sentencing jury of their parole-eligibility status. It is informed that states have...

  • MEDICATING TO EXECUTE: SINGLETON V. NORRIS. Brunsvold, Michelle L. // Chicago-Kent Law Review;2004, Vol. 79 Issue 3, p1291 

    Focuses on the decision of the court in the lawsuit, Singleton v. Norris, in the U.S. Overview of the lawsuit; Defense of the court that due process is not violated so long as the state shows that there is an essential state interest that outweighs the inmate's interest in remaining free from...

  • What Do We Know of Punishment?  // America;11/29/1924, Vol. 32 Issue 7, p158 

    The article discusses the different aspects of punishments in the U.S. Capital punishment may not be a powerful preventive, but a fair trial of its power could not make conditions worse and might, possibly, improve them. In Canada they arrange matters differently, laws are not made unless they...

  • DOUBLE JEOPARDY: A PRINCIPLE IN JEOPARDY? Hufnagel, Saskia; Krebs, Johannes // Legaldate;Jul2008, Vol. 20 Issue 3, p6 

    The article discusses the rule of double jeopardy in criminal law. The rule of double jeopardy states that a defendant cannot be tried for the same offence again after a final verdict has been reached. The rule against double jeopardy is regarded as an aspect of the fair trial, which is...

  • FOR MICE OR MEN OR CHILDREN? WILL THE EXPANSION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT IN ATKINS V. VIRGINIA FORCE THE SUPREME COURT TO REEXAMINE THE MINIMUM AGE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY? Hughes, Jamie // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Fall2003, Vol. 93 Issue 4, p973 

    The article argues that the U. S. Supreme Court should accept certiorari for an age-related appeal and re-examine the minimum age of eligibility for the death penalty in the case of Atkins versus Virginia. In May 2003, the Court removed mentally retarded criminals from eligibility for the death...

  • GIVEN HIM A FAIR TRIAL, THEN HANG HIM: THE SUPREME COURT'S MODERN DEATH PENALTY JURISPRUDENCE. Hurwitz, Mark S. // Justice System Journal;2008, Vol. 29 Issue 3, p243 

    In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court ruled the arbitrary and capricious nature of the death penalty rendered it an unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Court held that Georgia's revised death...

  • Psychiatry in the courtroom. Mossman, Douglas // Public Interest;Winter2003, Issue 150, p22 

    Deals with the need for U.S. criminal courts to consider psychiatric evaluations and the understanding of mental disorders in imposing the death penalty. Background on a Supreme Court ruling in 1972 concerning sentences; Question posed to the Supreme Court in the 1980s with regard to death...

  • TACKING TO THE RIGHT. Greenhalgh, William W.; Lobelson, Jeanne N. // ABA Journal;Jan1988, Vol. 74 Issue 1, p35 

    Examines U.S. criminal laws and legislation concerning confrontations and cruel and unusual punishments. Expansion of the scope of the death penalty; Limitations on the scope of the defendant's confrontation clause rights in conspiracy cases; Protection of a defendant's right to be present at...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics