Singapore's 'death sentence' via Zoom: Abhorrent or Legitimate?

On a cursory glance of the headline 'Man sentenced to death in Singapore on Zoom call', it might be easy to feel aggrieved by the manner in which Punithan Genasan was informed about the Singaporean High Court's decision to have him hanged from his throat until he dies.

The manner in which the sentence was delivered to the 37-year old Malaysian has raised the ire of many human rights activists and invoked a feeling of uneasiness amongst the majority of the public concerning what has been perceived to be a cold, distant and inhumane manner in delivering a sentence of such weight and magnitude.

While I could understand the uneasiness that many might feel regarding the decision to sentence Punithan Genasan to death through the use of a virtual screen, I can't help but notice that there may be a lack of understanding regarding the actual purpose of the Zoom video conference and what had actually occurred during the said hearing.

The simple gist of the criticism against the use of the video-conferencing platform for the hearing is that the online approach can be deemed to be quite dehumanising compared to what would appear to be a more personal approach if the hearing was conducted in person. However, I do believe this view is too simplistic and there are other nuances surrounding the hearing that has been overlooked.

Can the video-conference be a ground of appeal against conviction?

The most accurate answer would be it depends.

As mentioned by Punithan Genasan's lawyer, Peter Fernando to Reuters, no further legal arguments were presented during the hearing and he did not have any objection to the use of a video conferencing platform. The judge had already made up his mind as to Punithan Genasan's guilt and the hearing was held solely for the purpose of delivering the verdict and for any further arguments on sentence to be made.

“This has been the arrangement made by the court … with essential hearings conducted via Zoom. We have no complaints,” said Fernando.

In such a scenario, it would be difficult to argue that if the hearing was held in person, the result would have been any different.

The key ground on appeal for any conviction is whether the conviction would be unsafe. It would be difficult to see how the manner in which the sentence was delivered without any other salient legal arguments would render the conviction unsafe if the reasoning that the judge has relied upon to reach that verdict is sound and the process undergone throughout trial is legitimate.

While yes, the use of Zoom to deliver the sentence may seem clinical and insensitive, it is unlikely that the use of the video conferencing platform on its own will be a strong reason to overturn Punithan Genasan's conviction upon appeal.

Although there may be a slight issue concerning the court's decision on sentence if submissions on that point were only heard during the video conference, it is not clear whether there were any further arguments made regarding sentence during the hearing. However, given the factual scenario of the case against Punithan Genasan and the limited factual scenarios under Section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act that allow for sentences other than the death sentence upon a conviction and the lack of objection from the defence, it would be unlikely for arguments on sentence by the defence, if any, to succeed.

Regardless of whether the hearing is conducted in person or through a video conference, the verdict would remain the same (subject to appeal). I am not suggesting that video conference should be the default manner going forward when it comes to dealing out the death sentence but I do wish to highlight that the public concern regarding its use in this particular scenario has perhaps served as a distraction from the real issue at hand, which is the existence of the capital punishment itself.

The bitter pill to swallow is that a substantial amount of people who seem concerned about the way the sentence was delivered, would probably not bat an eye if the sentence was made in person. This line of thought seems strange to me as the act of delivering the judgment whether in the presence of the accused or not leads to the same result. It is also questionable if the public will care as much if it was a person convicted for murder who received the sentence in the same manner.

Death is death and regardless of the manner in which the judge delivers the sentence, the result is still the gruesome loss of human life via long drop hanging, which in my opinion is far more disturbing than delivering the sentence through a Zoom call.

Unlike the infamous quote by George R.R. Martin ("the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword"), when it comes to the criminal justice system and the capital punishment, the judge is quite distant from the execution process. It is arguable that such distance is needed to ensure the independence of the judiciary but the quote still provides an interesting argument that a person who decides the death of another should bear the responsibility of carrying out the execution in order to feel the weight of his decision.

Yes, it would be more appropriate if the person sentencing another to death reads out the judgment in the presence of all parties but rather than debating upon the level of distance that the judiciary should be kept away from the execution process, it would be more fruitful to focus the debate on the abolition of the capital punishment as a whole instead (a topic for another time).