THE reinstatement of mandatory death sentences would not, on its own, deter serious crime, legal practitioners have said, arguing that historical evidence shows violent offences continued even when capital punishment was compulsory in Malaysia.
Lawyer Fahmi Moin told Berita Harian that modern societies, shaped by a borderless digital environment, are exposed to both positive and negative influences, making existing laws sufficient in principle to safeguard public order.
He said the most crucial factor in preventing serious crime lies in the integrity and effectiveness of enforcement agencies, particularly the Royal Malaysia Police.
Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), he added, must play a proactive role in building public confidence by ensuring thorough investigations supported by strong evidence before cases proceed to court.
“If the perpetrator commits a heinous and inhumane offence, investigations must be robust during trial so that ultimately the court can impose a fair and appropriate sentence based on the available facts,” he said in an interview.
His comments come amid growing public debate on social media calling for the return of mandatory death sentences following a recent spike in violent crime cases.
The issue gained further attention after the body of a 19-year-old college student was discovered on Friday with 61 stab wounds, prompting the arrest of four suspects, including two elderly individuals, to assist investigations.
Fahmi said the abolition of mandatory death sentences, which came into force in July last year, does not mean capital punishment has been removed from the legal system.
Instead, he said it provides judges with broader discretion in sentencing under the Mandatory Death Penalty Abolition Act 2023.
“Through the Mandatory Death Penalty Abolition Act 2023, the court now has the option of imposing the death penalty or imprisonment of between 30 and 40 years for serious offences.
“The death penalty is still retained for offences such as murder with intent, drug trafficking, firearm offences and kidnapping for ransom.
“The difference now is that it is no longer mandatory for offenders,” he said.
Fahmi said the reform allows judges to evaluate each case based on its facts and legal context to ensure fairer outcomes aligned with human rights considerations.
Separately, lawyer Sivahnantha Ragava said there remains widespread public misunderstanding that the death penalty has been abolished entirely.
He explained that under the previous legal framework, offences under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder and Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 carried only the mandatory death sentence, leaving no judicial discretion.
“However, after the amendment, the court is given discretion to decide between the death penalty or imprisonment. What has actually been abolished is the mandatory nature of the sentence, not the death penalty itself,” he said.
The lawyers said the focus should instead remain on effective enforcement, strong prosecution, and fair judicial processes rather than assuming harsher mandatory penalties alone will reduce violent crime. - May 4, 2026
