And I thought California's mandatory sentencing laws sucked.
Singapore is well-known for their severe drug laws... must have something to do with promoting risk-tourism
The truncated title really threw me. I thought for a moment that there might be laws in Australia.
Death penalty for smuggling :uhh: .... life is cheap :yuck: . Would think the 'picturesque' image of Singapore would also mean some respect for human rights, but well, whatever keeps the streets clean then.
This guy has no one to blame but himself. If his life has been cheapened, then it has been done by himself, with his full knowledge and consent.
really? I thought it was being done by the executioner. Silly me.
What is the death penalty except a decision made by 'someone else' to judge the 'recipient' unworthy to live, as such strip the person of all possible rights as a human?
Although I disagree with death penalty, I have no sympathy for this guy since he was smuggling heroin. Imagine he wasn't arrested and wanted to continue his job... (Remember I didn't say Singapore government is doing the right thing!)
It's not as though the government of Singapore picked this guy out of a crowd and condemned him to death. The decision to smuggle heroin was made by the smuggler. The road to his condemnation starts there.
Singapore has laws, and those laws are to be obeyed on their soil. If someone breaks those laws and he gets caught, then he has to pay the price. What if you don't like Singapore's laws? Then don't live there, don't visit there, and certainly don't traffic heroin through there.
Do you always converse like this, without making any point?
This guy took his chances and his luck ran out. Nothing more to it. He was fully aware of the laws.
This certainly isn't one of those cases where a couple of high school/college kids backpacking in Malaysia get a life/death sentence for carrying weed on them.
Sure, true to the point. Doesn't address the ethical dilemma surrounding death penalty, which has to do with laws of Singapore in the first place and how they value the life of offenders.
Well, I wasn't trying to address the issue of the death penalty in the big picture. I am highlighting the plain fact that somewhere along the way, probably gradually, this guy made a decision that his life was worth no more than the street value of the heroin that he smuggled. He is the one who put a price tag on his own life, and he alone is responsible for cheapening it.
Yep, he did decide to risk it, and the government of Singapore also decided that drug offenders don't have 'the worth' to continue living.
I don't know. Ask around, I'm sure there's some people here who'd like to say a thing or two about me.
The ones who kill him, kill him, and are the ones responsible for his death.
That is an undeniable fact.
Whether or not they are justified in doing so, is quite a different matter.
Isn't that kind of like saying there is no cause and effect?
I mean if someone is racing around on a motorcycle with no helmet at lets say 160 mph, and they crash and die......who's fault is that? Clearly this person was doing something that put his life at danger and that person knew about the risk involved.
If you do something that involves a lot of risk and you understand the risk then who's fault is it when you end up dead?
Basically if you believe that it is the courts who are responsible for killing a man they sentenced to death then it is also their fault for putting people in prision. The criminals who commited the crime are therefore not responsible for the fact that they are behind bars....just the courts who put them there.
It depends upon what imagery you adorn the word "responsible" with.
A person who kills another, is responsible for that action. Whether or not we regard that as a justified action is a different matter.
The type of reactions we as a society regard ourselves entitled to implement differs as to whether or not the acting individual can be considered
a) responsible for his actions,
and if so,
b) what type of actions he did, and whether these were justified or not.
False Analogy. If that person was cruising around without a helmet and someone shot him for it.
It's a question of justifying actions. No matter how much you want to believe it, this man did not intend to kill himself.
I don't get it. Perhaps I'm just too obtuse to see your point.
Separate names with a comma.