Harder to show proof under hudud

The current criminal law is better because it is easier to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, says DAP’s Karpal Singh.

Athi Shankar, FMT

Potential criminals will not fear the Islamic hudud law because its burden of proof was harder than current criminal law in the country, DAP chairman Karpal Singhs said today.

Hence, he said hudud law could not serve public interests well because if it was applied, virtually no one could be convicted of crime.

Under hudud, it would be practically impossible to prove a case against an accused without a shadow of doubt.
Comparatively, he suggested that it could be easier to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt under the current criminal law.

For instance, he said the requirement that there must be four witnesses to prove a rape case under hudud would make it impossible to convict a person.

Thus, it would not be able to deter crime and criminals, he said.

“Under hudud, you have to prove a case beyond a shadow of doubt… practically 100%, unlike the present criminal law, which is beyond reasonable doubt.

“Criminals and potential criminals will not fear hudud because they know it will be difficult to prove the charge against them. Hudud law cannot be a deterrent,” he said.

He also said he was never “anti-Islam” because as a MP, he had accepted the Federal Constitution that stipulated the status of Islam as the official religion of the country.

He said he was only opposing the implementation of an Islamic state and hudud law because it was unconstitutional.

Karpal has said that he would sue Bachok MP Nasharuddin Mat Isa for labelling him as “anti-Islam”.

He said he was also ready to face any counter suit to be brought by Nasharuddin. “I am prepared to face him in any court, anywhere,” he said.