Reforms and Media Depictions of the Death Penalty in Malaysia

• Published date: 01 December 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10575677231200447
• Author: Darshan Singh,O. Hayden Griffin,Megan Webb,Suresh Narayanan,Lindsay Leban
• Date: 01 December 2024
• Subject Matter: Original Articles

Reforms and Media Depictions

of the Death Penalty in Malaysia

Darshan Singh

1

, O. Hayden Griff‌in, III

2

,

Megan Webb

3

, Suresh Narayanan

4

,

and Lindsay Leban

2

Abstract

Malaysia has retained the death penalty for violent crimes and some nonviolent drug offenses. Major

news dailies, controlled by political parties in the ruling coalition, have helped justify this stance in

the past. This situation changed over 22 months when a new coalition, which campaigned on abol-

ishing capital punishment, took off‌ice and sparked renewed public discussion on this issue .

Depictions of the death penalty debate were analyzed by conducting a content analysis of two

major English-language newspapers, The Star and New Straits Times. Our f‌indings suggest that The

Star provided more international coverage and the New Straits Times prioritized domestic coverage.

While both outlets provided comprehensive, and sometimes, critical coverage of executions else-

where, they downplayed the fact that Malaysia engages in the same practice. There was no evidence

to indicate that they were pushing an agenda as neither took a formal position on the issue. Content

to transmit the differing views on the subject, neither functioned as forums to air nor shaped policy

positions. This posture was possibly shaped by preconceived notions of what their readership wants

and/or self-censorship—a legacy of past subjugation that will hopefully change when press freedom

is perceived as a right, not a privilege.

Keywords

death penalty, media, deterrent, Malaysia, drug traff‌icking

Introduction

The death penalty has traditionally been used as a deterrent to serious crimes (such as murder) but

has evolved to become an important weapon in the arsenal of “weapons”used in the “war against

drugs”worldwide (Goode, 2015; Reuter & MacCoun, 2001). This has often resulted in mass incar-

cerations of drug traff‌ickers and users in numerous countries (Patten, 2016). In 2021, 35 countries

1

Centre for Drug Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

2

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

3

Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

4

School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

Corresponding Author:

O. Hayden Griff‌in, III, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1201University Blvd –UBOB

210, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.

Email: hgriff‌in@uab.edu

Original Article

International Criminal Justice Review

2024, Vol. 34(4) 351-369

© 2023 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10575677231200447

journals.sagepub.com/home/icj

had legal provisions providing for the death penalty for drug-related offenses (Harm Reduction

International, 2021). Drug-related offenses generally include possessing, manufacturing, or distrib-

uting (traff‌icking) drugs with the potential for abuse (US Department of Justice, 1994). However,

doubts regarding the effectiveness of harsh punishments in deterring criminal behavior in general

and the drug trade in particular (Leban & Griff‌in, 2020; Pratt et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2016)

have been paralleled by global efforts to reform drug laws (Greer & Ritter, 2019; Levine, 2003;

Taylor et al., 2016). A growing number of countries have either abolished or limited the scope of

crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed (Hammel, 2010; Miao, 2013; Novak, 2016).

Harm Reduction International (2021) has ranked nations that retain the death penalty based on

how often it was utilized for drug convictions. Among seven countries that were identif‌ied as

having a “high application”of the death penalty for drug offenses (China, Indonesia, Iran,

Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Vietnam), f‌ive are located in Asia. And while the

Philippines does not have legislation prescribing the death penalty for drug traff‌ickers and users,

the “war on drugs”promoted by Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte has essentially manifested

itself as a state-sponsored death penalty that has killed thousands (Johnson & Fernquest, 2018;

Reyes, 2016; Simangan, 2018).

It has been asserted that Southeast Asia has a “stronghold on capital punishment”because eight

out of the ten Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states (Brunei, Cambodia,

Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) maintain the

death penalty, although its application has varied across these states. The theoretical justif‌ication for

the death penalty in the region (as elsewhere) rests on the claim that it fulf‌ills three of the four main

objectives of justice: retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation (Petcharamesree et al., 2023). As a

deterrent, executions are perceived to discourage similar crimes (Wright, 2010; Pratt et al., 2006),

while incapacitation—meant to minimize the possibility of reoffending—is achieved by executing

the offender. Finally, retribution implements the “eye for an eye principle”by seeking to execute

an offender who has killed someone. This objective, however, is not served in cases of drug traff‌ick-

ing because no one was murdered. The fourth objective of rehabilitation is largely ignored, possibly

in the belief that those who committed offenses worthy of the death penalty cannot (or should not) be

rehabilitated. Interestingly, other considerations that might have perpetuated capital punishment in

the region such as political factors, religious traditions, population composition, educational attain-

ment, type of government, and level of economic development failed to f‌ind conclusive support

across all countries (Petcharamesree et al., 2023).

There have also been some positive developments in the region. In Vietnam, the number of

offenses that prescribe the death penalty has been reduced from 44 to 18. Additionally, the death

penalty is not permitted for those aged below 18, pregnant women, women with children aged

below 36 months, and anyone aged 75 or older when committing the crimes, during sentencing,

or the nonexecution of the death sentence. Elsewhere, Singapore amended its criminal code in

2012 to allow judicial discretion over some capital crimes while attempts to make the death

penalty nonmandatory for certain crimes were underway in Indonesia, Malaysia (see subsequent dis-

cussion), and Thailand. Nonetheless, the authors noted the absence of any shared policy on the death

penalty among the member states (Petcharamesree et al., 2023).

Media in the region plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion either for or against the death

penalty. This power has been harnessed by the increasingly authoritarian governments that inf‌luence

media in complex and oblique ways (Chan-Gonzaga, 2023). Boosted by promises to clean up poor

past legacies or populist measures, many leaders have accumulated power with apparent popular

consent. This allows policies on capital punishment to be determined by governments, with media

coverage being shaped directly by ruling interests or through self-censorship, to present them as

efforts to keep society safe and prioritize society’s welfare rather than individual (or human)

rights (Chan-Gonzaga, 2023). The claims of public support for the death penalty in several

352 International Criminal Justice Review 34(4)