Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Australian Man to be Executed in Singapore

  1. Oct 22, 2005 #1

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051021/wl_nm/crime_australia_singapore_dc [Broken]

    And I thought California's mandatory sentencing laws sucked.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 22, 2005 #2

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Singapore is well-known for their severe drug laws... must have something to do with promoting risk-tourism :devil:
     
  4. Oct 22, 2005 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The truncated title really threw me. I thought for a moment that there might be laws in Australia.
     
  5. Oct 22, 2005 #4
    .... nevermind....
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2005
  6. Oct 22, 2005 #5

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. Oct 22, 2005 #6

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Oct 22, 2005 #7
    really? I thought it was being done by the executioner. Silly me.
     
  9. Oct 22, 2005 #8

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  10. Oct 22, 2005 #9

    Lisa!

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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... :devil: (Remember I didn't say Singapore government is doing the right thing!)
     
  11. Oct 22, 2005 #10

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2005
  12. Oct 22, 2005 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  13. Oct 22, 2005 #12

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Oct 22, 2005 #13

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. Oct 22, 2005 #14

    PerennialII

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  16. Oct 22, 2005 #15
    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.
     
  17. Oct 22, 2005 #16

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Nope.
    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.
     
  18. Oct 22, 2005 #17
    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.
     
  19. Oct 22, 2005 #18

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Nope.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2005
  20. Oct 22, 2005 #19
    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.
     
  21. Oct 22, 2005 #20
    I don't get it. Perhaps I'm just too obtuse to see your point. :confused:
     
  22. Oct 22, 2005 #21
    Another compassionate neocon! I dont know whats more savage this law or that responce. Capital punishent solves nothing!
     
  23. Oct 22, 2005 #22

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Obviously, the executioner who takes his life is the one who finally causes his death. I wouldn't deny that. What I do deny is the statement that the government of Singapore is responsible for cheapening this man's life. He took care of that all by himself when he foolishly risked it on such a base thing as smuggling drugs.

    When a government drafts laws that determine what is and what is not a capital offense, they typically do not have a bunch of offenders in tow waiting to be executed once the law is passed. It's not as though that government ends or even cheapens lives simply by writing such laws into its social contract, because at the time such laws are passed there are no offenders to whom the law applies. In fact I would think that it is safe to assume that governments draft such laws hoping that their penalties will never have to be applied. It only becomes necessary to apply the penalty when people decide to violate the social contract.

    So I suppose my point here is that I don't really disagree with your quote above, but at the same time I take no issue with the decision of the government of Singapore for its decision here. You say that their decision to execute cheapens the smuggler's life. I say that he cheapened his own life, and a failure to execute would be tanatamout to cheapening the law.
     
  24. Oct 22, 2005 #23

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    An insane person, a child or a dog are not considered to be morally responsible for their actions, due to defective rationality/lack of free will as the common arguments try to say..

    A person who is in posession of his mental faculties and free will is, practically by definition, responsible for every single action he does, criminal or not.
     
  25. Oct 22, 2005 #24
    That's not what I was asking. I'm asking you who is responsbile for a person death if they are doing something that is highly risky? Clearly that person could avoid death by not doing such risky actions so I would say they are responsbile for their own death. Would say that no one is responsilbe?

    I was talking about responsiblity.

    You think I thought he wanted to kill himself? What could make you think something like that?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2005
  26. Oct 22, 2005 #25

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    LOL, First Smurf and now you. I know I don't visit this Forum very often, but is the standard for discussion around here really so low? What if I said, "Another bleeding heart liberal!"

    Take a look at Perennial's posts. He knows how to disagree without being disagreeable.

    Actually it solves the problem of this guy smuggling heroin through Singapore in the future, now doesn't it? :smile:
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook