News Australian Man to be Executed in Singapore

[Townsend]

And he retains his free will, and therefore responsibility for his own actions, whether or not he fulfills his duties.

I was always assuming that the police, judge and whoever else is involved is being honest and obeying the laws in doing their duty.

Here is my argument in D_{sl} as best I could make it.

All officials involved are honest = HO
crime = c
caught = ca
p = prosecuted
fg=found guilty
PU=criminal is punished

(c^ca^HO) -> p
(p^fg^HO) -> PU
c
ca
fg
HO
-----------
therefore PU

I realize there are other premises needed and so this is an enthymeme
.
My original point is that if we hold that HO is always true, then the only propositions that can vary are c, ca and fg. Since fg is dependent on the case presented by the prosecution which is based on evidence and we are again assuming that HO is true then the only person with control over this variable is the criminal. All that is left are c and ca, which are entirely up to the criminal.


Naturally we cannot say that every official will always act in an honest manner but we base our laws on the assumption that they will.

I was always assuming that we hold HO constant and I even mentioned it in post #33. Even if you hold open the option that HO can be true or false, the individual still has complete control over c and ca and so carries a significant portion of the burden of PU.

[edit]Even if HO is false any offical only bears responsibility for PU if HO is false and PU is true. So the criminals sentence actually has almost nothing to do with any of the officals involved.[/edit]

 

[Lisa!]

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.

Do you think we should value someone's life when s/he doesn't value other humans' lives? I think 'yes' because we don't want to be like him and we cinsider ourselves as moral and wise people. BUT we're not politicians and we're not in charge of lots of other people's lives. Perhaps that's why I have no wish to be a politician. Sometimes I hear some people(especially those who have an addict around them) complain if there was bigger puishments for smugglers, we wouldn't have so much problems with drug abuse.( If there's a death penalty for some crimes in some countries, it's people's will who live in that country most of the time.)
I don't agree with them because I think it's not all about that. As you see even death penalty wasn't able to prevent this guy from smuggling heroin.
But well at least others learn not to traffic heroin in Singapore. Perhaps numbers could speak better. I mean we should see whether death penalty for smuggling's been able to decrease drug abuse in Singapore or not.

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?

I felt the same at first. I mean I read 1 of smurf's post and thought what a pointless post, but you know he's not always the same. Sometimes(once in a million ) he makes good points in his posts. Anyway you shouldn't blame people around here because of their behaviour, they're just too interested in people who don't visit here frequently.

To smurf: Now you owe me 1. I prefer you never pay me back and just make no comment on this post in return. And I think I told you that before "be careful when you're talking to someone who doesn't know you long enough".

 

[Smurf]

To smurf: Now you owe me 1. I prefer you never pay me back but make no comment on this post.

Owe you one? I consider most of that post to be an insult. Oh I'll pay you back alright.

 

[Smurf]

"be careful when you're talking to someone who doesn't know you long enough".

And, like last time, I'll respond with "If I don't talk to people who don't know me, they won't ever get to know me"

 

[Anttech]

So becuase I have no common ground with you politically it means I am a bleeding heart liberal?? Funny, and actually rather idiotic.

Actually it solves the problem of this guy smuggling heroin through Singapore in the future, now doesn't it?

And locking him up wont? Killing him isn't going to deter other people either, so what does it solve? Nothing..

For decades, murder has been more common in states with capital punish-ment than in those where it is not used. Data from 1973 to 1984 show that murder rates in the states without the death penalty were consistently lower and averaged only 63% of the corresponding rates in the states retaining it.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:fHIlX6nFCRoJ:www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf+evidence+capital+punishment+doesnt+work&hl=en&client=firefox-a

 

[PerennialII]

Do you think we should value someone's life when s/he doesn't value other humans' lives? I think 'yes' because we don't want to be like him and we cinsider ourselves as moral and wise people. BUT we're not politicians and we're not in charge of lots of other people's lives. Perhaps that's why I have no wish to be a politician. Sometimes I hear some people(especially those who have an addict around them) complain if there was bigger puishments for smugglers, we wouldn't have so much problems with drug abuse.( If there's a death penalty for some crimes in some countries, it's people's will who live in that country most of the time.)
I don't agree with them because I think it's not all about that. As you see even death penalty wasn't able to prevent this guy from smuggling heroin.
But well at least others learn not to traffic heroin in Singapore. Perhaps numbers could speak better. I mean we should see whether death penalty for smuggling's been able to decrease drug abuse in Singapore or not.

Yes, imho we should also ---- plus can think of many reasons to avoid the political landscape . Actually I'd say that the respect for other's lives is, irrespective of their actions that is, one of the corner-stones of our society. Would say that it is a necessity for the rationalism of our ethical constructs - why would our moral obligations be lessened by the fact that someone breaks the 'rules', this appears quite foolish if we believe our own ethical system valuing mutual respect is 'right' in the first place (without clauses).

Quite often see these 'cases' made on the grounds that a punishment is required, graver & longer and so forth, but punishment is 'just' means, not the purpose (imho as usual). Also the 'revenge' aspect doesn't belong to a judicial system, it's natural for humans to 'feel' strongly and demand longer sentences etc., but revenge as a basis of constructing a judicial system leads to a neverending 'spin' of crime and total hopelessness for those who have broken the law (imho)(let alone the ethical implications). Also locking people up and executing people is just a means as said above, it is the purpose that matters -> I'd say one the purposes of a society is to have all (perhaps even 'willingly') participate in its running, and the ones who are unable & break the rules, should be gotten back in line if anyway possible (do we have any other choice if we desire to follow the moral concepts we've put up ourselves - and if we don't, what do we say of the value of those 'concepts' in the first place...). Often you just hear 'the demand' that punishment is the key, whilst the idea of administering a punishment as I see it would be a 100% rehabilitation to society, without the 'need' to ever administer a punishment of any kind to that individual again. The fact that it takes time, and this time is also a deterrent, is as I see it just a sub-plot.

And then there is the death penalty as an issue altogether .

 

[alexandra]

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.

On Australian news tonight, it was reported that his motivation was to raise money to pay off his twin brother's $20 000 debt. That's all they said (I don't know who the brother owes the debt to). They interviewed his mother, who only speaks rudimentary English; I think he comes from a fairly poor background.
But this person's case does not bother me as much as the fate of another Australian (because at least one can't argue the Singapore prisoner didn't break the law; he broke the law, whether it's a law one agrees with or not). It is a different matter regarding the Australian I am really concerned about, but I'll start another thread about that...
alex

 

[alexandra]

It is very simple as far as I can tell. A person does something with known risk then they are entirely to blame for whatever happens to them.

There is, however, always a context within which individuals act. Just for argument's sake, at least one of the 'Bali Nine' (similar situation - facing the death penalty in Indonesia for smuggling heroin) claimed that their family's safety had been threatened if they did not do as they were told. Again, these kids did not come from wealthy backgrounds. One has to wonder what one would do in similar circumstances. Would you risk your family's lives? It seems to me that people are forced to make complex decisions sometimes...

alex

 

[Townsend]

There is, however, always a context within which individuals act. Just for argument's sake, at least one of the 'Bali Nine' (similar situation - facing the death penalty in Indonesia for smuggling heroin) claimed that their family's safety had been threatened if they did not do as they were told. Again, these kids did not come from wealthy backgrounds. One has to wonder what one would do in similar circumstances. Would you risk your family's lives? It seems to me that people are forced to make complex decisions sometimes...
alex

Which is another reason why I don't completely support the death penalty. However the police, judges and whom ever else is involved should uphold the letter of the law even in circumstances where the person had no choice but to commit a crime. Perhaps we could have a law about a person being innocent of a crime they committed under certain circumstances.

I guess you could say I am a lot like a Vogan in that respect. However I detest the idea of having so much bureaucracy like the Vogan's do.

 

[alexandra]

Which is another reason why I don't completely support the death penalty. However the police, judges and whom ever else is involved should uphold the letter of the law even in circumstances where the person had no choice but to commit a crime. Perhaps we could have a law about a person being innocent of a crime they committed under certain circumstances.
I guess you could say I am a lot like a Vogan in that respect. However I detest the idea of having so much bureaucracy like the Vogan's do.

Aarghhh - you don't write poetry, do you? Jokes aside, I agree with your statement that one way to address this issue is if, somehow, the legal system could take into account the complexity of life. I guess the jury system goes some way towards addressing this issue (as long as the law itself allows flexibility and does not specify the death sentence, or any other particular sentence, for specific crimes).

 

[quantumdude]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well might be, but it seems to me that there might be a chance.. that is a slight possibility... not to say it's likely or anything... but are you by any chance... a little up-tight today?

Never learned to read into net jargon or emoticons, eh?

"LOL" and "" are meant to show that I'm the exact opposite of uptight.

That's what I was saying, just for some reason no one cares enough to fill in the missing premises and conclusion and only reads my satirical remarks. Such laziness in today's conservatives.

Say what?

No, Smurf, the laziness is on the part of the one who can't be bothered to articulate himself intelligently and clearly.

 

[quantumdude]

So becuase I have no common ground with you politically it means I am a bleeding heart liberal?? Funny, and actually rather idiotic.

Who do you think you are talking to? Either put your attitude in check, or I will put it in check for you.

[edit on 10/24]
Just to avoid any confusion, my comment above only means that instead of responding to any future comments such as this one, I will be deleting them and issuing warnings should the incident repeat itself. I have no intention of doing anything else to "put his attitude in check".
[/edit]

If you read my response to you you will see that I did not call you a bleeding heart liberal. I asked the hypothetical, "What if I responded to you the way you responded to me", referring to the way you labeled me as a "neocon" and called my remarks "savage", in lieu of any properly articulated counterpoint.

And locking him up wont?

Sure it would. Where did I say that it wouldn't? But the fact remains that capital punishment also solves the problem, and that your assertion to the contrary is plainly false.

 

[quantumdude]

On Australian news tonight, it was reported that his motivation was to raise money to pay off his twin brother's $20 000 debt.

I hadn't looked into the guy's background, but I assumed that he was engaged in this activity due to financial need, as opposed to merely being greedy. But my point was that there was some finite value (in this case, $20,000) to which he compared the risk to his own life, and to which he eventually said, "Yes, that would be worth the risk."

 

[Smurf]

No, Smurf, the laziness is on the part of the one who can't be bothered to articulate himself intelligently and clearly.

It's not laziness, it's a conscious choice not to.

 

[Smurf]

I hadn't looked into the guy's background, but I assumed that he was engaged in this activity due to financial need, as opposed to merely being greedy. But my point was that there was some finite value (in this case, $20,000) to which he compared the risk to his own life, and to which he eventually said, "Yes, that would be worth the risk."

Aren't you assuming non-risk alternatives though?

 

[quantumdude]

It's not laziness, it's a conscious choice not to.

Well if you consciously decide not to bother to present yourself well, then it should not be too difficult for you to understand why others would consciously decide not to bother taking your remarks seriously.

Aren't you assuming non-risk alternatives though?

Of course I am assuming that there are non-risk alternatives, or even lesser-risk alternatives. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are other ways to raise money other than by committing capital crimes. Even if he had sold his heroin in Australia, his lot would have been better.

 

[Lisa!]

Owe you one? I consider most of that post to be an insult. Oh I'll pay you back alright.

I just told the truth! Seriously now at first I really thought your posts are all pointless(something like commercials), but now I don't feel like that. In fact I had an almost bad impression of some people(included you) because of our interactions in GD, but this forum's changed changed it alot.

PS I had told you not to make any comment on that post in return, but you did!

And, like last time, I'll respond with ...

I didn't say not to talk to them at all, I just said "be careful". First impression are so important and most of people make their judgment base on it.(don't tell me they're not wise enough and I don't want to interact with them...)
Anyway it's up to you.

 

[Lisa!]

Yes, imho we should also ---- plus can think of many reasons to avoid the political landscape .

Actually I'd say that the respect for other's lives is, irrespective of their actions that is, one of the corner-stones of our society. Would say that it is a necessity for the rationalism of our ethical constructs - why would our moral obligations be lessened by the fact that someone breaks the 'rules', this appears quite foolish if we believe our own ethical system valuing mutual respect is 'right' in the first place (without clauses).

Agree with you. That's what I said in my last post:

Do you think we should value smeone's life when s/he doesn't value other human's lives? I think 'yes' because we don't want to be like him and we consider ourselves as moral and wise people.

Quite often see these 'cases' made on the grounds that a punishment is required, graver & longer and so forth, but punishment is 'just' means, not the purpose (imho as usual). Also the 'revenge' aspect doesn't belong to a judicial system, it's natural for humans to 'feel' strongly and demand longer sentences etc., but revenge as a basis of constructing a judicial system leads to a neverending 'spin' of crime and total hopelessness for those who have broken the law (imho)(let alone the ethical implications). Also locking people up and executing people is just a means as said above, it is the purpose that matters -> I'd say one the purposes of a society is to have all (perhaps even 'willingly') participate in its running, and the ones who are unable & break the rules, should be gotten back in line if anyway possible (do we have any other choice if we desire to follow the moral concepts we've put up ourselves - and if we don't, what do we say of the value of those 'concepts' in the first place...). Often you just hear 'the demand' that punishment is the key, whilst the idea of administering a punishment as I see it would be a 100% rehabilitation to society, without the 'need' to ever administer a punishment of any kind to that individual again. The fact that it takes time, and this time is also a deterrent, is as I see it just a sub-plot.
And then there is the death penalty as an issue altogether .

Again agree with you. I hink socities shoud work on stoping crimes by other means. I mean it's silly we just try to prevent people from doing crimes only by scaring them of punishments. You know most of time, it;s socity that cause some people grow up as a indecent people or criminals. Punishment simply could solve nothing in most cases especially the current type of punishments. What do they do with criminals? "keeping them in prison or death penalty...". They only keep them in prisons without working on them in order to change them to decent people. I have to say in some cases they even change them to a professional one. In death penalty case, we simply clear the problem.
But you know what's the problem? Politicians aren't usually moral.(IMHO, none of them but let's not to generalize)

PS I noticed you use "IMHO" alot. That means you get addicted to it. I had an addiction to ! and now I almost quit it, do you want me to share my experiences ?

 

[PerennialII]

Consension (not concession ) in P&WA ... not an everyday sight !

But you know what's the problem? Politicians aren't usually moral.(IMHO, none of them but let's not to generalize)

Yeah, could say that being a politician requires one to have at least a 'degree' of pragmatism, which 'translates' to placing price tags -> 'occational' moral lapses as some sort of "applied consequentialism".

PS I noticed you use "IMHO" alot. That means you get addicted to it. I had an addiction to ! and now I almost quit it, do you want me to share my experiences ?

Please do! IMHO I've an agreeable phase going, and have been imhoing all over for the last few weeks ---- or then have learned "manners" which would be a really terrifying addiction. I've probably gotten the IMHO from too much studying (since don't remember anyone 'breaking my bones' as of late ), again noticed that "don't know anything about nothing". Don't remember having a '!' addiction ever, how do you contract that one?

 

[alexandra]

Well if you consciously decide not to bother to present yourself well, then it should not be too difficult for you to understand why others would consciously decide not to bother taking your remarks seriously.
Of course I am assuming that there are non-risk alternatives, or even lesser-risk alternatives. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are other ways to raise money other than by committing capital crimes. Even if he had sold his heroin in Australia, his lot would have been better.

Nguyen tried to earn the money through legal means, but had only managed to earn $4000 in two years - working as a waiter, I think (I read this in a hard copy newspaper earlier today, but don't have the newspaper with me right now to check). He hasn't had post-secondary education (too poor). Here's more of his story:

The trial heard that Nguyen agreed to become a drug courier for a Sydney syndicate in a desperate attempt to repay legal debts of more than $30,000 incurred by his twin brother.
If Justice Chiu finds him guilty, he cannot hear anything about Nguyen in mitigation, such as his personal circumstances, his rehabilitation, remorse or even that he has not offended previously.
It will mean nothing, his supporters say, that this young man can live a worthy life, that he has matured greatly since his arrest or that, simply, there is no point in killing him.
Justice Chiu will not be told anything about Nguyen's life in Melbourne since the age of six months, being at St Joseph's Primary School in Springvale, how he became a scout, compered his year 12 valedictory dinner at Mount Waverley Secondary College and passed VCE in 1998, studied and, with friends, started a website and graphic design business that failed.
Justice Chiu may recognise Ms Nguyen in court tomorrow because she attended every day of the trial in November.
But he cannot take into account how she fled Vietnam, gave birth in 1980 in a Thai refugee camp to eventually arrive a single mother in Melbourne, where she cared for her children who suffered under a violent stepfather.
Ms Nguyen worked many jobs to support herself and her sons, working sewing machines at night, packing ice-cream and selling possessions to pay for her own studies.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199362649.html

It seems to me that this young man was desperate to do something to help his mother (more than his brother, I'd say). Then again, I don't know how his brother accumulated such a high legal debt... I just think it's inhumane not to take the full picture into consideration when the penalty is so... final and irrevocable.

 

[Anttech]

Sure it would. Where did I say that it wouldn't? But the fact remains that capital punishment also solves the problem, and that your assertion to the contrary is plainly false.

Tom, this is the details, and you missed my point because of this. If I am allowed to counter this I will.
Excuting someone for comitting this crime, does not do what the law is trying to enforce.
The Law is so harsh so that it is ment to deter others from smuggling Heroin. Right? Or is it like that just so they can remove 1 smuggler at a time, as you pointed out it does do?
Executing people doesn't work in the way it has been engineered to do, and it clearly causes more problems than it solves. (If I need to eliberate then I will)..
So my assertion in my opinion is not "false" Perhaps I assumed that you would understand my point, but I don't think you did...

 

[quantumdude]

Tom, this is the details, and you missed my point because of this. If I am allowed to counter this I will.

Indeed, I would prefer that you offer counterpoints.

Excuting someone for comitting this crime, does not do what the law is trying to enforce.
The Law is so harsh so that it is ment to deter others from smuggling Heroin. Right? Or is it like that just so they can remove 1 smuggler at a time, as you pointed out it does do?
Executing people doesn't work in the way it has been engineered to do, and it clearly causes more problems than it solves. (If I need to eliberate then I will)..

Let me see if I've got this straight. What you are saying is that since the law was designed to deter drug smuggling, and since it failed to deter the smuggling in this case (and indeed in many other cases), then the law should not be applied. Am I reading you correctly?

If so, then the problems I have with this position are threefold.

First, I do not see how it can be said definitively that capital punishment is a failure as a deterrant. The reason for this is that I do not see how the number of crimes that were not committed could possibly be quantified.

Second, even if the value of capital punishment as a deterrent is low, surely it would be even less if it were a hollow threat.

And third, deterrence is not the only function of capital punishment. The other function is, as the name says, for punishment.

So my assertion in my opinion is not "false" Perhaps I assumed that you would understand my point, but I don't think you did...

Well, I can only respond to the words you write. If you meant something other than what you wrote, then I could not possibly know about that.

But it remains the case that the universal proposition, "Capital punishment solves nothing!" is false. It implies that there does not exist even one problem that can be solved by capital punishment. Such universal propositions can be overturned by a single counterexample. I provided one, but you seemed to dismiss it as a "detail". But that is precisely what a counterexample is.

 

[Anttech]

Let me see if I've got this straight. What you are saying is that since the law was designed to deter drug smuggling, and since it failed to deter the smuggling in this case (and indeed in many other cases), then the law should not be applied. Am I reading you correctly?

Almost, the law should be ammended so it works better, and as it has shown throughout almost the whole of the western world (bar a few states in the US). Capital punishment does not deter people from comitting crimes, so a better and more human deterent should be used.

First, I do not see how it can be said definitively that capital punishment is a failure as a deterrant. The reason for this is that I do not see how the number of crimes that were not committed could possibly be quantified.

Why would you need to? You can quanitfy the amount of crimes being comitted, then use this statistic to see if it is > or < than a place where there isn't captial punishment... I gave an example of murder rates in different states in the US, and it backs up my statememt.

Second, even if the value of capital punishment as a deterrent is low, surely it would be even less if it were a hollow threat.

I never said substitute it with a "hollow threat" rather use the measure that (at least where I am from) the punishment fits the crime. I would suggest life in prision is sufficent for drug smuggling.

And third, deterrence is not the only function of capital punishment. The other function is, as the name says, for punishment.

How does killing someone punish them, if they can't feel the after-effects of the punishment? You are not punishing someone by killing them, you are playing God. Anyway isn't the end result of punishment to correct a behaviour? How can you correct a behaviour of a dead person?

Well, I can only respond to the words you write. If you meant something other than what you wrote, then I could not possibly know about that.

I ment exactly what I wrote, I think that you have got lost in the details of what I wrote rather than the overall picture I was trying to paint. The statement I made doesn't need to be put through a logic gate. But you should step back and look at the bigger picture... Which many Judges have done in Europe at least and have desided Captial Punishment is not needed

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I don't see your point at all. It is very simple as far as I can tell. A person does something with known risk then they are entirely to blame for whatever happens to them. When as a society we make the assignment of how to react to someone actions we did not decide who would make the actions. The person who's action cause the reaction are completely responsible for the reactions since they knew that if caught this would be the reaction.

How do we know it was a known risk and he knew exactly what the consequence would be? I would think, that coming from a society that's not off to the gallows for infractions like these, that he might take it for granted and not figure he might wind up hanging when he chose his actions. Then what?

 

[Smurf]

I didn't say not to talk to them at all, I just said "be careful". First impression are so important and most of people make their judgment base on it.(don't tell me they're not wise enough and I don't want to interact with them...)
Anyway it's up to you.

Indeed it IS up to me. I think I'll stick with the tried and true approach "**** 'em if they can't take a joke"

 

[Townsend]

How do we know it was a known risk and he knew exactly what the consequence would be?

We don't know that which is why I said I was assuming that the person does know the consequences.

I think it is reasonable to assume that in most cases the criminal is well aware of the possible consequences for their actions. Of course that is not always true.

 

[Anttech]

I think it is reasonable to assume that in most cases the criminal is well aware of the possible consequences for their actions

Why is it reasonable to assume that?

 

[Townsend]

Why is it reasonable to assume that?

Because I find it an unreasonable assumption that people don't know that trafficking drugs are illegal and yet they are doing everything possible to not get caught.

If someone doesn't know something is illegal then what reason do they have to be secret about it?

 

[quantumdude]

Why would you need to? You can quanitfy the amount of crimes being comitted, then use this statistic to see if it is > or < than a place where there isn't captial punishment... I gave an example of murder rates in different states in the US, and it backs up my statememt.

Comparing murder rates in different states doesn't reveal anything, because there are differing socioeconomic conditions from state to state, and even from region to region within a state. It would be more revealing to examine one state at a time, in the few years before and after a change in its death penalty laws. However your link indicates that this has been done, and that the results were the same.

However, a well-known phenomenon with the death penalty in the US is that it is not applied consistently. A defendant in a murder case who has a good defense attorney is more likely to get a plea bargain than someone who has to use a public defender. When a person who can afford a good attorney has it in mind to commit a capital offense, he will certainly be less deterred by capital punishment if he does not believe that such punishment will ever be visited upon him. Your link does not say how this phenomenon enters the analysis.

But anyway, as I told Perennial I was not trying to get into the death penalty debate in general, nor about the death penalty in the US. I was talking about an Australian man in Singapore who chose to commit what is construed by that country as a capital crime. I still say that he threw his own life away.

I never said substitute it with a "hollow threat" rather use the measure that (at least where I am from) the punishment fits the crime. I would suggest life in prision is sufficent for drug smuggling.

OK, but at the moment the law is what it is. The government of Singapore is obligated to pursue it. And if Mr. Nguyen didn't consider all of this before he got himself into this mess, then he should have.

How does killing someone punish them, if they can't feel the after-effects of the punishment? You are not punishing someone by killing them, you are playing God.

The view that capital punishment is not punishment is not universally held. Some see capital punishment as the ultimate punishment. Whatever value judgment you attach to capital punishment, it is still the right of a society to write it into its own social contract, and it is still the responsibility of people within the borders of that society to observed the contract.

Anyway isn't the end result of punishment to correct a behaviour? How can you correct a behaviour of a dead person?

It is universally acknowledged that capital punishment is not corrective, but rather it is punative.

I ment exactly what I wrote, I think that you have got lost in the details of what I wrote rather than the overall picture I was trying to paint. The statement I made doesn't need to be put through a logic gate.

Well then the statement you wrote, exactly as you wrote it, is false. If nothing else the execution of a capital criminal solves the problem of ending said criminal's career. There may be side effects to that which you may find objectionable, but the fact remains that something will be accomplished that Singapore presumably wants to accomplish: There will be one less smuggler running drugs through their country.

But you should step back and look at the bigger picture... Which many Judges have done in Europe at least and have desided Captial Punishment is not needed

And there have been other judges elsewhere who have looked at the bigger picture and decided that it is needed. Such is the nature of ethical questions: they are notoriously undecidable.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Townsend:

Well you were arguing that since the smuggler knows he is risking his life doing it then he is responsible for his death. But now you admit that that's not always the case and so that argument is out the window. Now we can consider this as a scenario:

Somebody goes to a bar they never went to before. They had a lousy day and think that some biker dude uttered a diss and he confronts the biker and calls him a jerk. Well the biker is quite offended so he pulls out a baseball bat and bludgeons him to death while everyone watches.

I would aggree that someone ought to know that calling someone a jerk is wrong. But you would argue that the victim here is responsible for what happens to him as a result?

Cause and effect. Cause and effect. yadayadayada.. Like guns don't kill people, people kill people. Or maybe lack of gun control laws kill people. Maybe if there's a murderer then the real culprit may be a vendor who sold a gun illegally. Hell none of them kill people, anoxia kills people. Anyway the point is that generally people say whatever arbitrary point on that cause effect chain to say is responsible for the end result. Usually multiple factors. But in the case of the smuggler's ignorance, the responsible* party would be those who made the law.

*responsible : cause of (in this case the cause of the execution).

 

[Mental Gridlock]

incidentally, what's the deal about a "social contract"? Do we have one of those in the USA? I don't remember aggreeing to any of this!

 

[quantumdude]

It seems to me that this young man was desperate to do something to help his mother (more than his brother, I'd say). Then again, I don't know how his brother accumulated such a high legal debt...

Undoubtedly, the man's situation was difficult. But all the same, are we really to believe that the only two ways that Mr. Nguyen could possibly raise money were by either waiting tables or risking his life by committing a capital offense in a foreign country? The lack of detail in the link you presented reeks of a false dilemma.

I just think it's inhumane not to take the full picture into consideration when the penalty is so... final and irrevocable.

Well, I hope you don't think that I don't appreciate the gravity and finality of the punishment, because I do. And if Mr. Nguyen were shot dead by the police in Singapore while not posing any threat to them, I would find myself agreeing with most of the people in this thread. But Singapore's laws are known, and I have not read anything that would indicate that Mr. Nguyen is incapable of understanding what he was doing. I do believe that there have been death penalty cases about which one should be outraged. I just do not happen to believe that this is one of them.

 

[quantumdude]

incidentally, what's the deal about a "social contract"? Do we have one of those in the USA?

It is just another name for the law. It is also what makes your your biker-in-the-bar analogy inapplicable, because no crime is committed by the one who calls the biker a jerk.

I don't remember aggreeing to any of this!

That is because we do not actually live in a democracy, but rather in a republic, in which we elect legislators to draft the social contract on our behalf.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

So then it's not really a "social contract". Or it's a contract between our government (which none of us decided on) and legislators who we elected. I think "social contract" is a misnomer because there is no aggreement involving the public/society. The only thing we aggree on is which people will be making the aggreements. It should be called a "political contract" or something.

Anyway let me just tweak one itty bitty thing in my example and hopefully it's back on track:

Rather than call him a jerk, the guy gives the biker a little shove in chest.

 

[quantumdude]

I think "social contract" is a misnomer

OK, then I'll just call it "the law".

Anyway let me just tweak one itty bitty thing in my example and hopefully it's back on track:

Rather than call him a jerk, the guy gives the biker a little shove in chest.

The analogy still does not apply. It's easy to see that if you list out the correspondences that are supposed to hold.

Nguyen <--> guy in bar
Government of Singapore <--> biker
smuggling heroin <--> shove in chest
capital punishment <--> bludgeoning with a baseball bat

The law is still missing here. I'm not talking about the law that makes it illegal to shove people around. I'm talking about the law that is issued by the biker. He is the government after all, remember? So one deficiency in your analogy is that no definitive statement was ever issued by the biker laying down the law. Something like, "Look dude, if you shove me I am going to beat you to death with this baseball bat. Here are photographs of people I've executed in the past for the same offense. I am not kidding."

 

[Mental Gridlock]

OK, then I'll just call it "the law".

That sounds much better!

So one deficiency in your analogy is that no definitive statement was ever issued by the biker laying down the law.

In this example, the laws written by Singapore would be the equivelent to the biker writing on a piece of paper "anyone who shoves me I will bludgeon with a baseball bat" and he keeps the paper in his dresser. The law was not actually disclosed to Nguyen, just like the biker never told the man what the penalty would be for shoving, so since those are the same where is the inconsistency?

 

[Evo]

I'm sorry, but this is just becoming ridiculous. Stop the nonsensical analogies, they are disruptive to holding a realistic discussion.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I wonder how it's nonsensical.

 

[Evo]

I wonder how it's nonsensical.

Because your analogies have nothing to do with what's happened.

Countries have laws.

If you plan to do business in a country, legal or illegal, you need to be aware of those laws.

If you don't research what you are getting yourself into, then you've no one to blame but yourself.

 

[quantumdude]

Arguments by analogy can be used to reveal great insight by those who are capable in the art. They can also be used to mislead or cause confusion (however unintentional it may be) by those who are not.

This line of discussion with your analogy is trying to the patience because it seems to be engineered to reflect a certain bias, namely that the punishment is inherently unjust. This is reflected in the bit in your analogy in which "the law" is kept secret, which is most assuredly not the case in the real story.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

You started with how my example was wrong, Tom, but then I explained how all my elements DID correspond to what actually happened. And then that was that. Nothing was "kept secret". The guy could have asked around to find out if he's a good idea to pick a fight with, maybe see how he handles verbal arguments, or whatever, just like Nguyen could've hit the library first. But they didn't. As did Nguyen, he went strait to the action without necessary forethought and subsequently got his consequence.

There are a few things that need to be correct for an example to be good. The magnitude isn't one. As absurd and far fetched as it may seem, in the end it's the same darn thing. For example (oh geez here we go again) if a little kid asks why I'm changing one of the numbers I wrote on a tax form, I'll say I put too much of a refund and they would give me more money and so I can't and he'll ask "but why? Isn't more money a good thing?" and I'll say yes but it's against the law and I'll get in trouble and he asks why I'll get in trouble and I might say, well it's because I'm taking money that's not mine. You know like bankrobbers are bad guys right? "yeah" well why? "because they are taking money that's not theirs" and I'll say exactly! That's what I'd be doing by putting the wrong number here... Anyway the moral here is you COULD say "oh that's a looney example, tax fraud is NOT the same as bank robbery, bank robbers use guns, etc. etc." or "bank robbery's WAY worse than tax fraud, you're just being biased using the hyperbole effect to equate tax fraud with a crime as bad as bank robbery" or things like that. But that's all irrelevant. The magnitude of the thing can be different, the thing that's THE SAME between them is what the example is supposed to illustrate.

In the case of Nguyen, it is that the ignorant traffiker (who yes evo stupidly failed to do his homework) was no more asking to be hung anymore than the guy at the bar was asking to be bludgeoned. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Evo]

In the case of Nguyen, it is that the ignorant traffiker (who yes evo stupidly failed to do his homework) was no more asking to be hung anymore than the guy at the bar was asking to be bludgeoned. That's all I'm saying.

So you're saying he didn't know what the penalty was. So what? That doesn't matter. That makes absolutely no difference. If you break a law, being ignorant of it doesn't give you immunity from the punishment. The law was not a secret, that's the point. It would only be unfair if the punishment were secret, impossible for him to discover, and only revealed after the crime was commited. Your analogy does not relate to the case.

 

[Smurf]

So you're saying he didn't know what the penalty was. So what? That doesn't matter. That makes absolutely no difference. If you break a law, being ignorant of it doesn't give you immunity from the punishment. The law was not a secret, that's the point. It would only be unfair if the punishment were secret, impossible for him to discover, and only revealed after the crime was commited. Your analogy does not relate to the case.

Exactly. It's a matter of justification, not responsibility.

 

[Townsend]

Exactly. It's a matter of justification, not responsibility.

You seemed to have forgotten what started this all...

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.

That statement is what we have been talking about. The matter of the justification for the death sentence is a different subject.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, this thread went off topic at the very beginning, I thought LYN's point was the harshness of the law (from a westerner's viewpoint). It seems abnormally harsh to us, but it seems acceptable in those countries.

 

[Curious3141]

This discussion has been going on for a long time. Since I am from the country in question, I thought I'd chime in.

Yes, we have the death penalty (by hanging). This is a carryover from the old British colonial days. My country also has the dubious honor of reporting the most executions per capita in the world.

The hanging is by a well calculated long drop, and unconsciousness is almost immediate with severing of the cervical spine high up. Even though the external effects can be rather gross and upsetting, it is very unlikely that the victim suffers much physical pain from the execution. This is not a short drop hanging or garrotting with constrictive asphyxiation.

The mandatory death penalty is applied in cases of murder, armed robbery, kidnapping for ransom and trafficking of controlled narcotics in "large" quantities. The application of the penalty is highly consistent and ruthlessly swift. There is no long languishing with interminable appeals for an obviously guilty person. We don't have a death row that has become a de facto "life in prison".

Since the death penalty is "mandatory" in cases of conviction, a guilty finding is not taken lightly. I recall another case where a person arrested for drug trafficking was acquitted outright because there was some doubt as to whether or not the drugs had been planted on the luggage. It is only when the case is really clear cut that a guilty with the death penalty is imposed.

Smuggling "small" quantities of narcotics will just result in a prison term, not death. It is only when the quantities are considered large enough to be tantamount to drug peddling that the death penalty is imposed.
Singapore is reknowned the world over for its uncompromising stance on drug trafficking. Tourists on planes inbound to Singapore are invariably given the cautionary talk (via a video presentation) on bringing drugs into Singapore, including the unequivocal mention of the death penalty. Even at this stage, any potential drug smuggler, having been fairly warned, can just quietly flush his load down the plane loo, and avoid certain death. Anyone who decides to chance it after the clear caution is gambling dearly with his/her life.

I don't agree with all my country's laws. I think some of them are draconian (like the application of corporal punishment by caning on poor foreign workers - I think that's despicable). But in the case of death being imposed on drug smugglers, I am behind my government 100 %. These are human vermin, they deserve no mercy.

We can debate the "morality" of my country's laws till the cows come home. The fact remains that many Western countries (and Asian countries with laxer laws or poorly imposed laws) are suffering from a drug pandemic. Drug peddlers profit from the misery of other humans. Stamping out the drug problem with anything less than full and harsh conviction is bound to fail. There are many foreign laws that I don't necessarily agree with, but I am bound to follow them when I am a guest in their countries. There are places in the middle East that forbid alcohol, would you still drink brazenly whilst there ? Who is to blame if you're caught, tried, convicted and punished for it ? It's the same situation here : people should know the law coming in (and they're given every opportunity), whatever risk they decide to take despite that is their private gamble. More often that not, the house beats the gambler.

 

[Manchot]

The mandatory death penalty is applied in cases of murder, armed robbery, kidnapping for ransom and trafficking of controlled narcotics in "large" quantities. The application of the penalty is highly consistent and ruthlessly swift. There is no long languishing with interminable appeals for an obviously guilty person. We don't have a death row that has become a de facto "life in prison".

Believe it or not, innocent people do get convicted of crimes. What happens when they are proven innocent, but were "swiftly" executed? Is that acceptable to you? Say what you will about the death penalty, but if you do not allow for every possibility to be examined in the case, then you're just being careless.

Not that Singapore is fantastic in the civil rights department, anyway. As I'm sure you know, Curious, if you posted a racist remark right here, you could be imprisoned.

 

[Evo]

Very enlightening post Curious3141, thank you for the insight.

Manchot, he just mentioned a case where the person was acquitted because there was doubt.

 

[Curious3141]

Believe it or not, innocent people do get convicted of crimes. What happens when they are proven innocent, but were "swiftly" executed? Is that acceptable to you? Say what you will about the death penalty, but if you do not allow for every possibility to be examined in the case, then you're just being careless.

There are grounds for appeal, and there is a consistent process. I did not mean to imply that they're convicted, taken out the back way and hanged immediately.

I just meant that there are no ludicrously long waits like one often finds in some American states, where prisoners die of natural causes whilst on death row.

Yes, I do believe that innocent people occasionally get convicted of crimes. That happens in any country, in any system of law. What I don't get is why some people use this unavoidable fact to slam the death penalty specifically. Won't there also have been a miscarriage of justice in the case of a wrongful imposition of life in prison ? Let's say a 20 year old with his whole life ahead of him gets mistakenly convicted and thrown into prison for 50 years. Upon his 70th birthday, some new exonerating evidence comes up and he's released with an "apology". Do you really think he's going to get his life back ? Can that punishment be reversed ? What if he had died in prison (stabbed by a fellow inmate through no fault of his own) before the evidence had come to light ? I put it to you that the miscarriage of justice is only marginally (if at all) less in the instance of a wrongful nearly completed life sentence as opposed to a wrongful judicial death.

Not that Singapore is fantastic in the civil rights department, anyway.

Fair enough. Although, you know, you'd be better off making that sort of snide remark about totalitarian dictatorships (like the former Iraq or the present N. Korea) where certain laws are truly arbitrary and unjust and designed solely to protect the power of one man over a subjugated and resentful population. Singapore, OTOH, has a democratically elected government with (mostly) fair laws that are fairly imposed.

I care more about my freedom to raise my son in a safe, secure and drug-free environment than I do about the freedom or life of a drug smuggler. Do with that what you will.

As I'm sure you know, Curious, if you posted a racist remark right here, you could be imprisoned.

You're going completely off the issue here, so I'll just limit myself to a brief reply on this point, then let's stop discussing my country's free speech laws.

Yes, speech is regulated. But I don't think that's an unjust law. Singapore is a fragile society with many racial/religious groups living in harmony. Current harmony at any rate, that could change at any time. The main reason for that harmony is strict laws imposed by the government (the 'stick') plus messages and overtures designed to bring the various communities closer together physically and culturally (the 'carrot'). Inflammatory and irresponsible speech slamming a neighbor's culture can only disrupt the harmony of the nation and I feel it should be punished.

BTW, the punishment for that has nothing to do with the death penalty, so get back on topic, please.

 

[Curious3141]

Very enlightening post Curious3141, thank you for the insight.

Thank you Evo.