Given its record on executions, it is only logical that Singapore would spearhead the fight against this non-binding resolution (see article by Andy Ho, 'The moral case for the death penalty'; ST, Nov 24).

It was the title of the article that prompted me to read it. I even went to the Web and did some further reading on the study quoted by Dr Joanna Shepherd and related literature.

One could say, therefore, that the title served its purpose. However, I must admit the content of the article did not help me at all to see any strong 'moral case' for the death penalty.

All I can conclude is that, if we accept at face value the reliability of the findings of this and other studies - something not beyond debate but which, for the sake of the argument, I don't want to contest here - then there is statistical evidence that supports the deterrent effect of capital punishment and that, therefore, it would make pragmatic sense to use such a deterrent.

I understand Dr Ho when he advocates that 'the penalty should remain on the books, if only to use for the worst of the worst'.

But I fail to see the qualification and logic of his conclusion where he writes: 'This, I think, is the position morally required of all governments because some innocent lives can thereby be saved.'

The contention (or even the fact) that innocent lives could be saved by laws demanding capital punishment for certain crimes does not in itself lead to any moral requirement for a government to enact such a law.

At the most, there might be a demand of logic or expediency, not a moral demand.

What is more: By the same argument - saving some innocent lives - one might very well advocate capital punishment for any form of grossly reckless or dangerous behaviour, like for drink driving when it causes fatalities in an accident.

In sum: It takes more than a good effect before we can justify an extreme remedy, something that could be used 'for the worst of the worst'.

Paul E. Staes