News Australian Man to be Executed in Singapore

[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.

 

[Manchot]

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.

The point many of us are making is that your laws are, in fact, immoral. How can you dismiss that?

On a side note, I hate when people have so much sympathy for the poor drug users. IMO, you have no excuse for even trying and getting addicted, unless you were tricked into it. Even if you have a genetic predisposition to substance abuse, you have the responsibility to stay away from that crap. Personally, given my family history and my own behavior, I know that I have addictive tendencies. I know that I would get addicted to a drug after one hit, and that if I drank, I'd probably become an alcoholic. Do I whine about it and hope that people pity me? No, I take steps to prevent those situations from ever occurring. I have a choice, just as every non-crack baby drug addict has ever had. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the argument that drug smugglers must be punished with the ultimate punishment, when the people being harmed by them are actually harming themselves.

And by the way, how successful has your country been at "stamping out" the drug problem? Have all drugs been eliminated yet?

 

[Curious3141]

The point many of us are making is that your laws are, in fact, immoral. How can you dismiss that?

Easily. Morality is a relative standard. Do you consider abortion immoral ? How about suicide ? There are plenty of people who hold completely opposing viewpoints about these issues, and each side considers themselves completely "moral".

On a side note, I hate when people have so much sympathy for the poor drug users. IMO, you have no excuse for even trying and getting addicted, unless you were tricked into it. Even if you have a genetic predisposition to substance abuse, you have the responsibility to stay away from that crap. Personally, given my family history and my own behavior, I know that I have addictive tendencies. I know that I would get addicted to a drug after one hit, and that if I drank, I'd probably become an alcoholic. Do I whine about it and hope that people pity me? No, I take steps to prevent those situations from ever occurring. I have a choice, just as every non-crack baby drug addict has ever had. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the argument that drug smugglers must be punished with the ultimate punishment, when the people being harmed by them are actually harming themselves.

OK, you're making the same tired argument that if the potential "victim" has anything approachng a choice, then the crime of the perpetrator becomes less heinous ?

Dear god, that would open a whole can of worms, wouldn't it ? What's your stance on drug dealing to kids ? Do they have a choice ? Is that choice legally or ethically valid ?

What about pornography involving underaged models ? Don't they have a "choice" ? Why is it then that underaged nude modelling is banned in most Western nations ?

What about date rape ? Doesn't the girl have a choice initially as to whether to go on a date with a creep ? Should the rapist be viewed more leniently from that perspective ?

Your stance has no logical merit whatsoever.

And by the way, how successful has your country been at "stamping out" the drug problem? Have all drugs been eliminated yet?

We have been very successful by any standards at minimising illegal drug abuse. The fact that the problem has not been completely eliminated yet is a testament to how pernicious the problem is, and by no means suggests that the legal measures are failing. I daresay that the problem will worsen if those measures are relaxed.

And I daresay that my country has been a good bit more successful at controlling drug abuse than yours. And just where are you from, BTW ?

 

[Lisa!]

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".

For example I noticed that for almost all countries their citizens are usually more important to them out of their own borders. I'm not talking about this case. For example in this case I think Australian government is also guilty and somehow we can belame it too. I mean why this guy should be in that terrible situation that he even has to risk his own life in order to get money. I mean why this guy has a very poor background, I noticed that in most poor family, the value of human's life is too low. They simply risk their life for evrything.

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".

I think if you strat using 'in my humble opinion' instead of i, you quit it very soon. For sure you're not going to use "in my ..." moore than once in every post, because it's long and your post sounds strange. So after a while you can simply back to using "IMHo" but you've learned not to use it so much. (good and short abbreviation are kind of disaster sometimes. I myslf used to use ! as an abbreviation for "I'm kidding" and evrything else. )

Don't remember having a '!' addiction ever, how do you contract that one?

How I get addicted to ! .

 

[PerennialII]

For example I noticed that for almost all countries their citizens are usually more important to them out of their own borders. I'm not talking about this case. For example in this case I think Australian government is also guilty and somehow we can belame it too. I mean why this guy should be in that terrible situation that he even has to risk his own life in order to get money. I mean why this guy has a very poor background, I noticed that in most poor family, the value of human's life is too low. They simply risk their life for evrything.

Yeah, passing judgement seems so easy, can read lots of statements "he had it coming, he deserves to pay the price" +++ ... can't understand the 'emotion' (&emphasis) to punish, convict etc. people - like that would accomplish anything. Treating symptoms rather than the illness. Sure we can do it, it's not like we "need to" value individual life, and seems appropriate to ask "who cares" if we get it wrong from time to time with respect to convictions, but do we want to live in world following such code of ethics? When you're poor what else is there to risk, to lose ... some are bound to turn against a 'system' that has resulted in them ending up in that situation in the first place.

I think if you strat using 'in my humble opinion' instead of i, you quit it very soon. For sure you're not going to use "in my ..." moore than once in every post, because it's long and your post sounds strange. So after a while you can simply back to using "IMHo" but you've learned not to use it so much. (good and short abbreviation are kind of disaster sometimes. I myslf used to use ! as an abbreviation for "I'm kidding" and evrything else. )
How I get addicted to ! .

I'll try to withdraw myself gradually ... I'll try to a few weeks of IMO . ! sounds like a good next one.

 

[alexandra]

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.

Yes, there isn't much detail in the links I found on this issue. I also agree with you that it was a rash and foolish choice to risk his life like that - if he had thought to help his brother and mother by doing this, he obviously didn't think ahead. On Australian radio today, his mother has been begging with the Prime Minister to intervene to save her son's life - it's very distressing to hear her pleas. In effect, by not focusing on the possible worst-case scenario, he has made everything a lot worse for his family. He's 25 years old now, so I guess he doesn't even have the excuse of having been really young and inexperienced. In addition, it is well known in Australia that the death penalty applies in many countries in this region if you are caught smuggling drugs - I'm fairly confident Nguyen would have been aware of the risk he was taking (in fact, I think I read somewhere that he admits he knew the death penalty applied).

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.

Again, I have to agree with your position that this is not the most worrying of cases (as I said earlier in this thread, I have started another thread on David Hicks, because his case concerns me a lot more because of the wider political implications involving citizens' rights to fair trials and to protection from their governments, etc).

I guess watching Nguyen's mother on TV and listening to her begging for her son's life is having an emotional effect on me. Also, I'm a parent and I can just imagine how powerless and sad she must be feeling right now.

alex

 

[Anttech]

I guess watching Nguyen's mother on TV and listening to her begging for her son's life is having an emotional effect on me. Also, I'm a parent and I can just imagine how powerless and sad she must be feeling right now.

So whos been punished here? (retorical question) She is the victim of the crime, (IMO) that is this human rights volation. Someone here already posted this, can't remember who, but I think this execution highlights problems in our society that more deaths won't resolve... Our society needs to fight the source of problems proactively not remove problems one by one.. If you see what i mean.

 

[Art]

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.

There are many but to to take just one real life example.

In Britain following a particularly nasty bombing campaign by the IRA in which many innocent people were killed the police were under huge pressure to make arrests.

They obliged and fabricated evidence against 6 Irishmen. Given public feeling at the time and the 'apparent' certainty of their guilt, if Britain had had the death penalty all 6 of these would have been strung up.

Fortunately there is no longer a death penalty in Britain because subsequent investigations championed by a member of the British parliament showed that the police had first tortured the men and when that didn't work simply fabricated 'confessions' from them whilst ignoring evidence that proved their innocence.

Eventually after 20 years their convictions were overturned and they were released. I am sure if asked they would tell you there is much more than a marginal difference between being wrongly hanged and wrongly incarcerated.

 

[loseyourname]

SINGAPORE - An Australian man was executed by hanging Friday for drug trafficking, Singapore announced, hours after his lawyer said he had a "beautiful last visit" with his family.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_as/singapore_execution

So that's that.