Australian Man to be Executed in Singapore

[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 because 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 a lot.

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" a lot. 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" a lot. 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 equivalent 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.