Editing Capital punishment (section)

===Human rights===
Abolitionists believe capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the [[right to life]] is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a [[psychological torture]]. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment". Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate irreversible denial of Human Rights".<ref name="Abolish the death penalty">{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty|title=Abolish the death penalty|publisher=Amnesty International|access-date=23 August 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100830062328/http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty|archive-date=30 August 2010}}</ref> [[Albert Camus]] wrote in a 1956 book called ''Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death'':

{{Blockquote|An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. [...] For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/ |title=Death Penalty News & Updates |publisher=People.smu.edu |access-date=14 April 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130413081015/http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/ |archive-date=13 April 2013}}</ref>}}

In the classic doctrine of natural rights as expounded by for instance [[John Locke|Locke]] and [[William Blackstone|Blackstone]], on the other hand, it is an important idea that the right to life can be forfeited, as most other rights can be given [[due process]] is observed, such as the [[right to property]] and the [[habeas corpus|right to freedom]], [[remand (detention)|including provisionally]], in anticipation of an actual verdict.<ref name=feinberg>Joel Feinberg: [http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/feinberg80.pdf Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021073901/http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/feinberg80.pdf |date=21 October 2012 }} [[Tanner Lectures on Human Values|The Tanner Lecture on Human Values]], 1 April 1977.</ref> As [[John Stuart Mill]] explained in a speech given in Parliament against an amendment to abolish capital punishment for murder in 1868:

{{Blockquote|And we may imagine somebody asking how we can teach people not to inflict suffering by ourselves inflicting it? But to this I should answer – all of us would answer – that to deter by suffering from inflicting suffering is not only possible, but the very purpose of penal justice. Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable is it to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself, and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ethics.sandiego.edu/books/Mill/Punishment/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130508233912/http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Mill/Punishment/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=8 May 2013 |title=John Stuart Mill, Speech on Capital Punishment |publisher=Sandiego.edu |access-date=6 July 2014 }}</ref>}}

In one of the most recent cases relating to the [[death penalty in Singapore]], activists like [[Jolovan Wham]], [[Kirsten Han]] and Kokila Annamalai and even the international groups like the [[United Nations]] and [[European Union]] argued for Malaysian drug trafficker [[Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam]], who has been on [[death row]] at Singapore's [[Changi Prison]] since 2010, should not be executed due to an alleged intellectual disability, as they argued that Nagaenthran has low IQ of 69 and a psychiatrist has assessed him to be mentally impaired to an extent that he should not be held liable to his crime and execution. They also cited international law where a country should be prohibiting the execution of mentally and intellectually impaired people in order to push for Singapore to commute Nagaenthran's death penalty to [[life imprisonment]] based on protection of human rights. However, the [[Singapore government]] and both Singapore's [[High Court of Singapore|High Court]] and [[Court of Appeal of Singapore|Court of Appeal]] maintained their firm stance that despite his certified low IQ, it is confirmed that Nagaenthran is not mentally or intellectually disabled based on the joint opinion of three government psychiatrists as he is able to fully understand the magnitude of his actions and has no problem in his daily functioning of life.<ref>{{cite news|date=11 November 2021|title=High Court found Malaysian drug trafficker did not have mild intellectual disability: Singapore envoy|website=The Straits Times|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-found-malaysian-drug-trafficker-did-not-have-mild-intellectual-disability|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref name="straitstimes.com">{{cite news|title=Death penalty protest at Speakers' Corner as it reopens 2 years after Covid-19 closure|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/death-penalty-protest-at-speakers-corner-as-it-reopens-2-years-after-covid-19-closure|website=The Straits Times|date=3 April 2022|access-date=16 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=16 April 2022 |title=Nagaenthran son of K Dharmalingam v Attorney-General |url=https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGCA_26 |website=Singapore Court of Appeal |quote=[31] In Nagaenthran (CM) (at [71] and [75]), the High Court found that the appellant had borderline intellectual functioning; not that he was suffering from mild intellectual disability.}}</ref> Despite the international outcry, Nagaenthran was executed on 27 April 2022.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.todayonline.com/world/singapore-executes-malaysian-drugs-charges-after-rejecting-mental-disability-appeal-1884021|title=Singapore executes Malaysian on drugs charges after rejecting mental disability appeal|website=Today|date=27 April 2022|access-date=27 April 2022|archive-date=27 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220427032144/https://www.todayonline.com/world/singapore-executes-malaysian-drugs-charges-after-rejecting-mental-disability-appeal-1884021|url-status=live}}</ref>