[1] Science fiction writer William Gibson famously described Singapore as "Disneyland with the death penalty".
[2][a] Some scholars have argued that one of the results of robust regulations and interventions in Singapore is that the nation has one of the lowest incidences of violent crimes in the world.
[3] For most of the 19th century, the criminal law which applied in the Straits Settlements (comprising the Prince of Wales' Island (Penang), Singapore and Malacca) was generally that of the United Kingdom.
In 1883, the Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance 1883 removed the discretion and imposed a mandatory death penalty on all convicted murderers.
In 2012, the penal code was amended for judges to have some discretion in sentencing the death penalty in certain cases of murder.
The Penal Code (Amendment) Act 1984,[6] which came into effect on 31 August 1984, imposed mandatory minimum penalties for certain offences.
[11] The present Criminal Procedure Code[12] was passed by the Legislative Council of the Colony of Singapore on 28 January 1955.
As the public prosecutor, the Attorney-General has prosecutorial discretion and may initiate, conduct or cease any criminal proceeding.
[25][26] The prosecution typically bears the burden of proof and is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
[citation needed] The accused may plea guilty or claim trial at the first mention in the state courts.
"[28] Establishing actus reus in Singaporean criminal jurisprudence follows English precedent such as R v Miller and R v Instan.
In other words, so long as the secondary offenders have mens rea, they need not have committed an actus reus to be found guilty.
When a defence is relied upon, the factual burden shifts from the prosecutor to the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the lack of mens rea.
[39] The rule in Nettleship v Weston, that inexperience is not considered in negligence, has been affirmed in Singaporean criminal law.
[40] Notwithstanding, there is no proximate cause requirement in criminal negligence; the accused need only have substantially contributed to the harm incurred.
[42] A number of general defences exist in Singaporean criminal jurisprudence, such as unsoundness of mind, automatism, and mistake.
Simester regards true defences provided under s 85(2) as "likely to be rare in the extreme" and "those where the intoxication triggers a condition analogous to insanity".
[45] Rather, the court must make a factual finding as to whether the mental impairment had deprived the accused of control over his actions.
[49] On deciding the third criteria, judges consider an accused's conduct in determining whether they had difficulty or inability in controlling themselves.
[50] The ability to make decisions to avoid getting caught, or to continue a criminal activity, are factors that may suggest a lack of substantial impairment.
The subjective limb requires the accused to have actually lost control as a result of the provocation; the objective limb in turn considers whether an ordinary person with the same sex and age as the accused would lose control if they had experienced the "grave and sudden" nature of the provocation.
An accused's attempts at concealing the deceased's body, rather than seeking medical attention, may indicate that they intended for the victim to die.
Anyone caught with more than a certain quantity of heroin, cocaine, morphine, methamphetamine, or cannabis are presumed to be trafficking drugs, and face mandatory capital punishment.
The second exception applies where the trafficker suffered an abnormality of mind that substantially impaired his decision-making ability.
[5] Between 1991 and 2004, 400 people were hanged in Singapore, mostly for drug trafficking, one of the highest per-capita execution rates in the world.