At 17 I was captain of my high-school football team and on my way to college. But in November 1992 I went to a birthday party with friends. We were tussling around, and the chaperones threw us out. One of them knocked me to the ground, and I felt ashamed and angry. My friend had a gun in his car. I got it, came back, and fired three shots, killing one of the chaperones. I was convicted of murder and given 10 to 25 years in prison.
I grew up in an area known for gun violence and drugs. Like a lot of boys, I looked up to tough men who could fight and had been in prison. My first arrest came when I was 12: I stole my grandmother’s gun and took it to school. At 14 I was sent to a boys’ home. I studied hard and won a full scholarship to attend the University of Detroit high school. I excelled there, but my thinking was twisted. I didn’t know how to manage my anger. As a result, a man lost his life the night of that party.
On the day I was to begin Marygrove College, I started a prison term instead. I was 18 and had hope: I could be paroled when I was still a relatively young man. I spent six of my 12 years in prison in solitary confinement. I promised myself I would read 1,000 books. I read 1,300. I became certified as a carpenter, plumber, electrician, and paralegal.
I was released from prison in 2004 after my third parole hearing. I received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from University of Detroit Mercy. I started a motivational-speaking and fitness-training company. As a community-reintegration coordinator, I help other ex-offenders start anew. I’m proof that people, especially teens, can’t be judged by the worst thing they ever did.
There are countless examples of former juvenile offenders like myself who, given the opportunity to be contributing members of society, have done great things. Former senator Alan Simpson committed a serious federal offense as a juvenile (destroying government property) but became a GOP leader. Terry Ray was a violent repeat offender but became an assistant U.S. attorney. Charles Dutton was convicted of manslaughter at 17 but became a respected actor and director. Dozens of studies show that overwhelming majorities of juvenile offenders mature out of committing crimes.
Next month the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida,two cases that will decide if it’s constitutional to sentence teens to life in prison without parole. The court should give people like me a reason to keep improving themselves. Individuals who have committed crimes as teens should be allowed to have their sentences reviewed. Teenagers change. Adolescents, even more than adults, have enormous capacity for redemption. I know.
In Singapore, Yong Vui Kong, a 21-year-old Malaysian is sentenced to death and will be executed for drug trafficking. He was 19 when he was caught for drug trafficking in June 2007.
Singapore is estimated to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world.
A mandatory death sentence in Singapore is a cruel and inhuman punishment because even if the defendant’s lawyer is able to adduce fresh evidence or canvass a new argument which has merits, in both situations, after an appeal has been heard by the Court of Appeal, the court system in Singapore, does not have the power to re-open a case where an appeal had already been heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Some may argue for the case on grounds of social expediency, while some may even be insouciant about it, but I think everyone would choose to stand for the abolishment of mandatory death penalty and support the call for the Courts to be granted revisionary powers over all cases which carry the death penalty IF THE PERSON FACING THE DEATH PENALTY WAS YOU!!
Your reticence is tantamount to a consent to kill.
The difficulty of the task (appeal against mandatory death penalty) does not annul the necessity. Everybody deserves a second chance.
Article Courtesy of Newsweek; Excerpts from “World Day Against the Death Penalty – A Singapore Forum“, theOnlineCitizen.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 18, 2009 at 4:36 pm
aug
sometimes people enact what are deemed as ‘wrongdoings’ because of their social orientation, and they could not receive guidance on the what are deemed ‘right’ things to do. and i think very honestly it’s never always effective to give advice all the time because sometimes advice falls on deaf ears. it seems to sound bad but i guess humans need to fall and learn to pick themselves up, that’s where the realisation and determination not to repeat a mistake comes. but it’s unfortunate the law penalises you. even though eg in Singapore the prison services undertake rehabilitation so that offenders can re-integrate into society after they are released. yet there’s still that condemning mark left which kinda makes the whole thing so ironic! :S
October 19, 2009 at 12:46 am
lohwenjie
I share your sentiments, but i think the problem does not lie squarely on our judiciary system, alot of it also hinges on the attitude of the common folks, who are often too quick to judge and dismiss a person based on their past wrongdoings. Its not like we are in America, if we’ve committed a crime in Chicago, we could go to LA to start anew. But in Singapore moving from Jurong to Changi will not spare you from the constant finger-pointing, since almost everyone knows everyone in Singapore. We need to educate the people. And talking about Ris Low, i think she should know better what she was getting herself into, i wouldnt have the cheek to represent Singapore if i was an ex-offender, less i’ve redeemed myself with some sterling credentials. But what Phua Chu Kang did to have a dig at Ris Low was plain wrong, it was both degrading and condescending. Nevertheless, i was quite relieved when she gave up her crown lah… hahaha… heng ah.. if not.. xia suay man….
October 18, 2009 at 4:39 pm
aug
the ris low thing.. it’s also so ironic.. ‘contestants of beauty paegants should not have criminal records’. and neither shld ris rep sg because she has been convicted. it’s quite telling about the world’s attitude towards offenders, as if saying, ‘offenders / ex-offenders do not deserve to be beauty queens regardless of what good they do / can do’