Not that I agree with the death penalty, necessarily, especially for drug smuggling. And especially hanging. *shudders* But you shouldn't be able to escape the consequences of breaking a law you know exists (it's VERY clearly posted as you enter the country, it's on all the websites about traveling to Singapore, the information is very available) just because you're from a country where they don't have the same consequence for that action.
*steps back* Okay, feel free to begin the horror and bashing now. Just kindly remember that I'm pregnant and cry easily.
[ December 01, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I say the people behind it are barbarians and should be ashamed.
Your logic of 'it's the law, therefore it's o.k.' bothers me.
edited for clarity
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm not saying it's okay-- but they've made their law, and it's not our say whether they change it or not. So isn't it smarter to OBEY the law or expect that if you get caught you will be punished?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
It certainly would have been smarter for this guy to obey the law. But that doesn't mean that the punishment is appropriate.
Singapore law is a bit too Draconian for my taste, so, I won't be jumping onto the "Good for Singapore" raft.
I am shocked at the inappropriateness of the punishment.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
'Good for Singapore.' Yeah, you are saying it's o.k. because you are excusing it.
If it's not our place to comment on the law, then why are you posting this article and your agreement with it?
Injustice cloaked in law is still injustice.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Your logic of 'it's the law, therefore it's o.k.' bothers me.
The law is there to protect people. The way to object to laws and rules you don't agree with is NOT to ignore them and object to the consequences of breaking them.
The man, by the law, deserved to die. Whether Singapore's laws are morally sound or not is debateable.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
That's horrible news. Thinking that someone deserves to die for smuggling drugs, written in law or not, is perfectly awful.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I say the people behind it are barbarians and should be ashamed.
Why exactly are they barbarians? If it's because they executed him, I agree with you, and I also think any other country that still uses capital punishment is quite barbarian in this respect. If it's because they hanged him, I'll have to disagree. Why's a lethal injection better than hanging? The dead will be dead no matter what. It'd be putting a "nice" face on killing, that's all IMO.
quote:Originally posted by jh: That's horrible news. Thinking that someone deserves to die for smuggling drugs, written in law or not, is perfectly awful.
Why? 'Cause smuggling drugs is such a noble gesture?! I fail to see your point in this.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thank you, erosomniac. I'm saying "good for them" not because their laws are good or because they killed a man. I'm saying "good for them" because they refuse to treat people who break the law differently because of where they are from.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The law is there to protect people.
I'm not sure if you mean all laws, this law, the punishment, or drug laws in general, but either way, that's an extremely debatable statement.
quote: The way to object to laws and rules you don't agree with is NOT to ignore them and object to the consequences of breaking them.
While this is also an extremely debatable statement, too, my objection to the punishment, and the man breaking the law, are two different things. I'm not making the argument that he's some kind of freedom fighter.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K., I totally missed the angle that you were glad they weren't making an exception for a foreigner, KQ. I guess I can see that that's 'fair', and therefore some kind of good.
However, I kind of look at it like being glad that, say, gay people were killed right along with Jews in Nazi Germany, or that both Muslims and Christians are stoned to death for adultery in some countries. It's still being glad that a very unjust activity is being carried out in the name of the law.
edited
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm not sure if you mean all laws, this law, the punishment, or drug laws in general, but either way, that's an extremely debatable statement.
True, but that's how I view it. I don't agree with all the laws of the US, but I obey them because the vast majority of them are in place to protect my interests, or the interests of the majority. In this particular case, I wholeheartedly agree with the man being condemned to die. The law is in place to protect the populace from the corrupting influence of illegal drugs, and the extremes of Singaporean punishment result in their laws being broken far more infrequently than in other countries (I don't have statistics on hand, but feel free to Google them yourself - it's a pretty well publicized fact).
Edit: Oh, and I meant all laws.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Muslim girls are not allowed to wear hijab in French schools. Are you:
quote:saying "good for them" because they refuse to treat people who break the law differently because of where they are from.
?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Kq, I'm really quite shocked at this thread.
I think it is in hideously bad taste and completely inappropriate.
Obviously you have no idea how this story has been treated in Australia. You have no idea how this country reacted the last time Australians were killed under the death penalty. You have no idea that people stood vigil at dawn all over the country.
You see, we don't have the death penalty. As a country we think it abhorrent. And although this man broke the law and I agree he should be punished there is no way this is "good" for Singapore.
Of all people I thought you would show more compassion. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
And incidentally, if all you think is it's good because they didn't change the laws because the man was Australia, I think this was an awful way of expressing that sentiment.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Good for you.
I'm actually against the death penalty, for the record.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You see, we don't have the death penalty. As a country we think it abhorrent.
I think how Australia feels about it is irrelevant. The man broke the law in another country. What's more, you can be damn sure he knew what the penalty was for doing it, and he did it anyway. Should Singapoeans get reduced sentences in Australia when they commit crimes if Singapore holds vigils and protests?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: The man, by the law, deserved to die
No. The man, by the law, was condemned to die.
Because a law exists != the punishment under it is deserved.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think it is in hideously bad taste and completely inappropriate.
I don't. I'm really glad she started it. I was thinking of making a thread about it. It deserves to be talked about.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Oh, I'm not saying starting a thread would be inappropriate.
But the way this one was started, IMO is.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:No. The man, by the law, was condemned to die.
Because a law exists != the punishment under it is deserved.
I'm sorry, but I'm thinking about this formulaicly, not debating whether the punishment was just or not. The law exists. The man was aware of the law. He broke the law. The punishment the law prescribes should, therefore, be administered.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I don't see how this could possibly be good if you don't support the death penalty.
quote:The law is in place to protect the populace from the corrupting influence of illegal drugs
The man was leaving Singapore when he was caught with drugs. If anyone, it would be the Australian populace who would be corrupted.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Edit: to erosmanic.
Ok, I agree with that. But your use of the word deserves carried moral connotations - in my mind at least.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
She wasn't mean in the way she expressed her opinion, imogen. She's just saying that it's right for the laws of a country to be applied to everyone in that country equally.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I think having a thread title saying "I say, Good for Singapore" less than 4 hours after the execution is inappropriate.
I was really upset this morning. I didn't want this man to be killed. Many Australians feel this way.
And then to log on and see "Good for Singapore" - that is inappropriate. And made me angry and sad and upset.
I don't disagree that Singapore had the right. I have never said, nor implied that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Muslim girls are not allowed to wear hijab in French schools. Are you: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- saying "good for them" because they refuse to treat people who break the law differently because of where they are from. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?
If someone was seeking an exception to that law because they were visiting from another country and knowingly and willfully violated it, then yes, I would say that it should be equally enforced. Much as I don't agree with that law, if you can't abide by it, don't go to school in France.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Ok, I agree with that. But your use of the word deserves carried moral connotations - in my mind at least.
Yeah, I realize now that that was a bit unclear. Sorry!
quote:I don't see how this could possibly be good if you don't support the death penalty.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The law is in place to protect the populace from the corrupting influence of illegal drugs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man was leaving Singapore when he was caught with drugs. If anyone, it would be the Australian populace who would be corrupted.
Fair enough, but the laws as a whole are in place to discourage the production and spread of drugs in general, which includes the export of drugs from Singapore to other countries.
I also wholeheartedly support the death penalty.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I see where you are coming from, imogen.
God, this thread is draining. Bleh.
Look, kittens!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I also wholeheartedly support kittens.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The right hand one looks like it has been drinking blood. Vampire kittens!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I wholeheartedly support vampire kittens.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Ooooh, vampire kittens!
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kittens--the ultimate derailer.
Sorry, KQ.
One thing that I would like to point out is that the death penalty wasn't mandatory. It would have been perfectly possible for the man not to have been killed under the law.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Dare you click on the link for the hanging kitten?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, the death penalty is mandatory for that offense in Singapore.
quote:Nguyen received a mandatory death sentence after he was caught in 2002 at Singapore's airport on his way home to Melbourne carrying about 14 ounces of heroin.
And everything else I've read supports that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Your article says otherwise?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That kitten looks kind of creepy to me. Maybe it's the fact that the way it's hanging really emphasizes the bulbous head and protruding belly. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
"mandatory death sentence"
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'm gonna toss some more controversy into the thread and advocate puppies! Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Lasry has criticized Singapore's mandatory death penalty for some drugs cases and attacked the clemency appeal process as lacking transparency.
But Singapore's Home Affairs Ministry said in an e-mail statement that every petition for clemency is carefully considered by the president, "taking into account all relevant factors."
"The president has in the past commuted the death penalty," the statement said.
According to local media, Singapore has granted clemency to six inmates on death row — all Singaporeans — since independence in 1965.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My friend from Singapore confirms that if you are caught smuggling drugs, the only penalty is death.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
In which case, I don't really see what your "Good for Singapore" is about.
If the sentance is mandatory it was always going to be carried out, nationality regardless.
Incidentally, did you know his mother was denied a request for a final embrace with her son?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Incidentally, did you know his mother was denied a request for a final embrace with her son?
Now THAT is pretty brutal, and I'm pretty sure that that was just someone being amazingly insensitive as opposed to upholding the law.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Does someone know where to find information on what crimes the people whose sentences were commuted had committed and what the circumstances were?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
(I see where the confusion is - a sentance can be mandatory in that it is the only option for a judge to grant. But the President can still grant clemency.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kq, you own article also says:
quote:According to local media, Singapore has granted clemency to six inmates on death row — all Singaporeans — since independence in 1965.
So unless you didn't read the whole thing, everything else you've read does not support that the death penalty is mandatory for that offense in Singapore. It might be mandatory for that sentence, but not that it be carried out.
----------
For the record, I agree that this thread title is in exceedingly bad taste and very insensitive to our Austrailian members. Yes, he probably knew the law. Yes, he shouldn't have been smuggling drugs. Yes, even, it can be seen as a good thing that he's not getting off the hook just because he comes from a wealthy nation that can raise a stink about it. But the discussion could have been opened without seemingly like you were gloating over the killing.
Added: Sorry, the other posts weren't there when I started.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Nope. That *is* the law. She was applying for an exception.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:If the sentance is mandatory it was always going to be carried out, nationality regardless.
Except that Australia and other countries were asking it be commuted.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I love puppies. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:So unless you didn't read the whole thing, everything else you've read does not support that the death penalty is mandatory for that offense in Singapore. It might be mandatory for that sentence, but not that it be carried out.
ElJay, I already responded to that.
I'd like to know what the circumstances were-- 6 out of however many have been handed down isn't very many. Singapore isn't traditionally big on clemency-- my Singaporean friend tells me that if, say, a pregnant woman was sentenced to a whipping, she might be fined instead because she was pregnant, but they might instead wait until the baby was born, then whip her.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I know, kq, see my edit. At least you responded to the first part, I don't see where you responded to the second.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yup.
Look, I don't disagree that Singapore has every right as a sovereign nation to carry out it's own laws. I don't disagree that this man most probably knew the law, and was intellectually at least aware of the penalty.
(He was 22 when he committed the offence - food for thought. I know plenty of people who have done really dumb stuff at 22, and grown up to know better).
I may disagree that it is good that Singapore didn't grant clemency because he was from a rich nation (though, keeping in mind Singapore is pretty rich itself) - but that rises from my opposition to the death penalty and that, I know, is not shared by everyone here.
But the title of this thread makes me angry. And I think some of the posts lack even basic compassion.
And that's my 2 cents and I think I'm bowing out now.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I like EATING puppies, and many other delicious lower life forms.
Kittens are smarter than I am, and therefore not as pallateable.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm sorry if the title makes people angry, but I'm not going to change it-- it's how I feel, and I've seen a lot of threads that make me angry and just not posted in them.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Oh yeah, eros? I clubbed five baby seals with my bare hands.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Did you eat them afterwards?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*shrug* And you said in your first post that you expected horror and bashing, so I doubt you're surprised that many people don't feel the same restraint about not posting in threads with offensive titles.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I'm sorry if the title makes people angry, but I'm not going to change it-- it's how I feel, and I've seen a lot of threads that make me angry and just not posted in them.
You don't think that "Good for Singapore for Applying its Laws Equally" or something to that effect might not convey your feelings even better, while making it clear that you're not saying "Woo-hoo, I'm glad that this man is being killed"?
Huh.
On a different note, it's too bad that ae doesn't post here anymore. It'd be interesting to get his perspective on this.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Did you eat them afterwards?
Raw, with teryaki sauce. And then I made baby seal hide panties.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think this was good for Singapore. I think that every time this happens and it isn't decided to end the required punishment, Singaporean or not, Singapore loses something.
It is never commendable to uphold a bad law for the sake of fairness.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: I'm sorry if the title makes people angry, but I'm not going to change it
I think this isn't, perhaps, the most gracious of attitudes.
But I wonder whether you intention behind this thread is not just "it's good they applied the law equally" but also "it's good they executed him".
Otherwise I don't know why you wouldn't change it to what Noemon suggested. I would still be upset, but I wouldn't find it nearly as offensive.
[Edit: I know I said I was bowing out. I couldn't. But I will try and be more restrained and gracious myself. ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It is never commendable to uphold a bad law for the sake of fairness.
Apparently Singapore, like me, doesn't feel it's a bad law.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Raw, with teryaki sauce. And then I made baby seal hide panties.
Now the REAL question is: did you eat the baby seal hide panties?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:*shrug* And you said in your first post that you expected horror and bashing, so I doubt you're surprised that many people don't feel the same restraint about not posting in threads with offensive titles.
Nope, I'm willing to accept the predictable consequences of my actions. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.
Noemon, actually, that's not bad. I'll take it under consideration.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:But I wonder whether you intention behind this thread is not just "it's good they applied the law equally" but also "it's good they executed him".
Otherwise I don't know why you wouldn't change it to what Noemon suggested. I would still be upset, but I wouldn't find it nearly as offensive.
I don't feel a need to be any nicer in expressing my opinion than anyone else.
Edit: upon reading your edit, that last comment wasn't very nice of me either. But I have this stubborn streak that seems to be prominent today, and when antagonized, I tend to dig my heels in.
I'll make Noemon's addition now, since I just realized that's what's happening.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
That's what's throwing me for a loop here. I always think of you as a considerate poster, who is more than willing to consider the impact of their words on others.
quote: I don't feel a need to be any nicer in expressing my opinion than anyone else.
That's certainly fair enough, it just doesn't tally up with the mental impression I had of you.
*shrug*
Be as mean as you want!
Edit: I knew your nice side would assert itself! Thank-you for making the edit and for considering my feelings.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Now the REAL question is: did you eat the baby seal hide panties?
Wearin' 'em as I type. Would you like photos?
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:it just doesn't tally up with the mental impression I had of you
*hangs head* You should talk to my husband. He has many horror stories.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Incidentally, I think this thread has one of the more bizarre parallel conversations going on.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Would you like photos?
I've been ignoring this conversation, but I have to jump in with a resounding "Yes!" Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: (He was 22 when he committed the offence - food for thought. I know plenty of people who have done really dumb stuff at 22, and grown up to know better).
At age 22, many people are college graduates, parents, home owners, school teachers... He was hardly a child.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Of course not.
At 22 I was a home owner, and I know KQ was (is) a parent.
I have heard some people (not here) say "Well, he's 25, he should have known better" - I just wanted to point out that while he was 25, the offence was committed 3 years ago.
Edit: My tenses were wrong. He is no longer an "is" but a "was". Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Wearin' 'em as I type. Would you like photos?
Oh, pH, you're going to get me into so, so much trouble.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*polishes halo*
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thank you for making the edit, kq. I think it makes a big difference.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I agree with imogen about the original title being in poor taste, but I think it was a misunderstanding.
I don't want to get into that because it's been resolved by people far more diplomatic than me.
I would like to answer imogen's point that the guy was only 22 and made a dumb move.
Stealing a cigarette lighter is a dumb move. Snapping at someone bigger than you is a dumb move. Attempting to smuggle nearly a pound of heroin across national lines is way beyond just a dumb move.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's a tangent, but it occurs to me that in the bad old days of the nineteenth century, a tiny cuty-state like Singapore would almost certainly not have dared to apply the death penalty in the face of pressure from a major regional power like Australia, at least not without Great Power (ie China, not that it was a power at the time) backing.
Not saying this was better or worse; just a thought I had.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Given Australia's federation was in 1901, I don't think we would have qualified as a major regional power in the 19th century!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:tiny cuty-state
I'm now going to derail my own thread: wouldn't it be cute to live in a cuty-state? Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
All I want to say is that I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for anyone who gets caught smuggling heroin. Especially into a country like Singapore because, right or wrong, it's well known that they have quite draconian laws, and that death is the standard penalty for drug offenses.
I'm not saying that Singapore is right to have that particular law. What I'm saying is that it's stupid to travel to a country and ignore that country's laws. Even if you disagree with the law itself, that's no excuse to go there and break the law. Heck, there are laws right here where I live that I disagree with, but I obey them anyway.
The guy was smuggling heroin into a country where possession of illegal drugs is a capital offense. Therefore he was a dumbass, and he was asking for it. I don't say that he deserved it; merely that he was asking for it. He was stupid to be smuggling heroin in the first place, but smuggling it into Singapore is tempting the Fates a little too much.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, technically, he got caught on the way out. But yes, he was pretty dumb to do that.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Into, out of. Either way, he was, at one point, in Singapore, with heroin. And that's just not a good idea.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I don't think anyone's disputing that.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Strictly speaking, I wasn't arguing with anyone. I was merely stating my opinion on this story, which is that if you travel to a foreign country and deliberately break its laws, then that country is within its rights to punish you in the way it punishes people for breaking that law. Even if the law itself is excessive, or even downright inhumane, it's the chance you take when you break laws.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
'Kay.
I do agree with you.
**
Recently quite a few Australians have been caught with drugs in Bali. Two of them (the two, pretty girls) have gained a lot of media attention.
One, who was found with two tablets of ecstasy was sentenced to three months in prison and given that was the time already served, was deported back to Australia.
The other, found at the airport with a ridiculous amount of cannabis was given 15 years jail. The outcry here was unbelievable - "how dare those Indonesians jail our Schapelle!" (yes, we got the "ours" out and flourishing). I got so cross with people who said that - of course they dared. It's their countries and their laws. She broke them. 'Nuff said.
So, I have no problems with anyone asserting that this is Singapore's right. Of course it is.
I don't agree with this particular form of punishment, but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that it's their law and Van Nguyen broke it.
IMO, the latter fact doesn't make the situation any less horrific either.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote: Muslim girls are not allowed to wear hijab in French schools.
Just for the record, no one is allowed to wear anything obviously saying what religion they are, and in public schools only. (And I think this thread is quite tasteless, even if I do understand it's not like saying it's good this man was killed.)
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I did read her first post.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
The only way I can understand someone thinking "good for Singapore" because of the execution is if they like the death penalty.
I don't support the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty in the U.S. I don't support the death penalty in Singapore. (I don't support it in a box. I don't support it with a fox.) I will consider the death penalty unfair, unjust, and unreasonable no matter which country it is carried out in. Drug trafficking is drug trafficking and a person is a person no matter what country the action or the person is in. And it does matter at some point whether a law is unreasonable or not to the rest of the world, otherwise it would... Oh, wait. Godwin's Law. Um... nevermind. I'm sure you can guess what I'm getting at.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
....
Ryan, if you can't understand why after reading my posts in this thread then I have no way of explaining it to you.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Then how could you have possibly not understood what she was trying to say? How on Earth could you say that this topic was/is in bad taste after you read her post and realized that she is against the death penalty and was just trying to make the point that it was good for Singapore to instate the death penalty on a man for committing a crime in which the punishment is death?
Because everyone doesn't think exactly like you.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't support it on a boat. I don't support it with a goat.
-pH
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
@ RRR. We got Godwin's Law!
***
I've been musing more on this thread all today.
I don't think there was ever any controversy that the death penalty *would* be carried out in these circumstances.
Australia has very little influence over how Singapore administers its laws. The last Australians to be sentenced to death in the region (by Malaysia) were also executed, in the face of official protests from Australia.
Anyone who thinks that Singapore was going to commute the sentence is crediting Australia with a lot more diplomatic clout in the region than it actually has.
Given there was really no contention that Singapore was ever not going to apply it's laws equally, I'm not sure I really see the point of the thread.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:If a man or woman commits a crime, no matter in what country, and there is a punishment for the crime in that country, then that punishment MUST be carried out.
I can't support this idea. In the particular case of this thread, where we're talking about mass quantities of illegal and addictive drugs, it's easy to see the sense in the law. (Though, the punishment violates my sense of morality.)
I don't agree with your general assertion because there are ridiculous laws out there and if I travel to China, for instance, I'm not necessarily going to be able to know all their laws. I won't even be able to respect the posted laws unless they are posted in English.
The point is, it is not necessarily "just" to treat everyone the same, irrespective of their nationality and familiarity with a country's laws and customs.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't agree with your general assertion because there are ridiculous laws out there and if I travel to China, for instance, I'm not necessarily going to be able to know all their laws. I won't even be able to respect the posted laws unless they are posted in English.
The point is, it is not necessarily "just" to treat everyone the same, irrespective of their nationality and familiarity with a country's laws and customs.
If you travel to China, it's your responsibility to be aware of the laws. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you weren't aware that drugs were illegal to import or export from a country, that doesn't make you any less responsible for paying the penalty. If you weren't aware that fuzzy hats were illegal to wear on Ash Wednesdays, that doesn't make you any less responsible for paying the penalty.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
From what I've been told, it's pretty impossible to enter Singapore as an English-speaker and not know that drug smuggling is punishable by death. It's posted all over the airport, apparently, as well as publicized in other ways.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:If you weren't aware that fuzzy hats were illegal to wear on Ash Wednesdays, that doesn't make you any less responsible for paying the penalty.
How does this make sense and protect the community? I vehemently disagree that all tourists must become intimately aware of the laws of each country before deciding to enter the country.
Some laws are universally accepted: Murder, rape, drug traficking, etc. But there are others that are definitely regional and designed to promote the culture of the local community. Sort of like "house rules". The age that you can serve alcohol to a minor and your hat law are examples of these.
If a tourist breaks a "house rule", does it make sense to prosecute the offender? Wouldn't it make more sense to warn the offender if he was planning to stay a while, or ignore the offense if the offender was only passing through?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
From what I've heard, that's kind of how American women with uncovered heads are treated in Saudi Arabia-- first time it happens (outside the "American zone") you get a warning and a stern talking-to. Second time, you may get a fine. Third time, you can get your visa yanked. They figure it's harder for American women to remember that no hair can be showing and all, most of them not being used to it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Some laws are universally accepted: Murder, rape, drug traficking, etc. But there are others that are definitely regional and designed to promote the culture of the local community. Sort of like "house rules". The age that you can serve alcohol to a minor and your hat law are examples of these.
If a tourist breaks a "house rule", does it make sense to prosecute the offender? Wouldn't it make more sense to warn the offender if he was planning to stay a while, or ignore the offense if the offender was only passing through?
How does the temporary nature of one's stay in any way change the severity of what has occured?
As Kqueen pointed out, many areas have specific rules governing how they handle breaking of certain laws by non-residents. I support these measures, since heaven knows there are too many stupid ash-wednesday-hat laws. But if the law makes no exception, why should they change the law just for someone who was too busy to alleviate his or her own ignorance before travelling to a given place?
Keep in mind that most countries, like America, have a built-in system to take care of this: a certain amount of discretion is given to law enforcement officials in deciding when and how to enforce certain classes/severities of law. Jay walking, for example, is rarely penalized with an actual ticket and fine.
But even if the laws in question are regional and designed to promote religious/cultural obedience, if there is no exemption system in place, why should tourists be given a break? It's the responsibility of the traveler to be aware of customs when going somewhere, or face the prescribed consequences. A woman that enters Vatican City with her bare legs showing shouldn't be surprised when she's removed.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Removed. Not killed. Just to clarify. Jail time would have been fine with me, being killed is not.
Posted by seespot (Member # 7388) on :
So it's okay to inforce the penalty for breaking a law as long as it's not capital punishment. Is that what you're saying?
Now, I don't necessarily agree with the penalties Singapore has chosen. I don't agree with a lot of things that come out of Singapore(but mainly my father-in-law's wife). However, until the government can be prevailed upon to alter some of their penalties, we have to live with it. I would recommend either not going to singapore or doing a lot of research before you go.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Removed. Not killed. Just to clarify.
I guess I don't see your point. If the penalty for having bare legs in the Vatican is being escorted out of the Vatican, then that's the penalty we'd expect them to use, regardless of where the offender came from. Well, the penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore is death. Accordingly, that's the penalty they gave him. He committed a crime a great deal more serious than having bare legs, and in a country that has a great deal less tolerance for law-breaking than the Vatican. Why should it be such a shock that he was given a more severe punishment than merely being asked to leave?
quote:Jail time would have been fine with me, being killed is not.
I don't think what is or is not fine with you is of any concern to the government of Singapore, frankly. The French law banning private religious symbols for schoolchildren is not fine with me. Iran has very few laws that are fine with me. Nevertheless, those laws exist and they must be obeyed by anyone who wishes to avoid punishment.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
*not reading whole thread*
This sickens me.
The death penalty sickens me.
Anyone thinking this is good sickens me.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Way to maintain a relationship of respect. Perhaps, you could explain why the death penalty sickens you? And why you are sickened by people holding a different view from you?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
IMO, while I do believe that the death penalty can be an appropriate deterrent, I think that it might be a bit draconian for drug smuggling. Then again, I'm not Singapore, and they certainly have the right to have their own laws, without the intervention of elitist western cultural imperialists.
I believe in the Rule of Law, which I define as one law, applicable to all, equally enforced for all. I believe that the rule of law justly increases confidence in a legal system, and provides a level playing field for all. Everyone is treated equally under the rule of law. Therefore, I believe that it is good that Singapore applies it's laws equally.
Now, if one doesn't like it's laws, one can flout them and suffer the consequences, or one can smuggle drugs elsewhere.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I say the people behind it are barbarians and should be ashamed.
I am shocked at the inappropriateness of the punishment.
Thinking that someone deserves to die for smuggling drugs, written in law or not, is perfectly awful.
You see, we don't have the death penalty. As a country we think it abhorrent. And although this man broke the law and I agree he should be punished there is no way this is "good" for Singapore.
I have to admit I find these statements baffling. I can certainly understand being opposed to the death penalty-I'm of mixed mind on that issue myself-beyond that opposition this situation isn't baffling, awful, horrible, shocking, terrible, or any other bad synonym you can possibly think of.
I think it's ridiculous to assume this man might not have known that the death penalty was a potential consequence for his action, so for the sake of argument I'm going to ignore that (slim-to-none) possibility. This man was willing to court death for profit, profit made by smuggling drugs.
He made the gamble, and he lost, and he died. In this situation, why is Singapore the curly-mustached villain? No one is suggesting that agents of the Singapore government planted the drugs on him. No one is suggesting that these laws are not publicly posted. No one is suggesting that it was, I don't know, medicinal heroin or something. No one is suggesting he was smuggling drugs to feed his family or anything like that. No one is suggesting he was an unwilling drug mule.
There are many different kinds of "deserving to die". There's the moral question: should such an action merit such a legal consequence? Is the consequence approriate to the crime? For the record, I think this particular consequence is absurdly out of balance with the action. But there is another kind of "deserving to die": does a person deserve to die for being caught engaging in an activity for which he knew the penalty could include death?
At that point, frankly his life is in the hands of the people who made the law, and he has no grounds-nor does anyone else-to be surprised or think he doesn't deserve it. If he is a fully-grown adult and was not coerced in any way, then he is responsible for his own actions.
As for Singapore applying its laws equally, well KQ, I don't understand why you're surprised by that. I would not have expected that Singapore wouldn't apply its law here, even to the extent of execution.
In fact, I think Australian outrage and public pressure made it more likely this man would be executed. Nation-state governments are not in the business of having the execution of their laws controlled or even influenced by the citizens of a foreign nation.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
I don't know the history behind Singapore's drug laws but I would imagine that at some point they had a pretty bad problem with drugs and as part of their plan for becoming a major economic player (they do a lot of reshipping) they probably decided their penalties were not sufficient to deter the activity. I would be interested to know how it affected their drug problem. It may also be associated with the opium trade that was once pervasive in China (I don't know for a fact if it affected Singapore).
I am with KQ on the equal application aspect of this. Unlike most of the posters here I support the death penalty in certain cases where society has determined an activity needs to be strongly discouraged. i.e. Murder, treason, and serial rape.
But that's just me
Sergeant
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally I'm guessing the thread title was originally "Good for Singapore" which was, I think, an accident because I doubt ketchupqueen intended to use a title that conveyed the message that title contains, and thus it was a poorly chosen title.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Killed for smuggling 14 oz of heroin into the country? Whoever said that it was barbaric was right.
The Australians that held vigils for this man's life were right to do so.
All the same, I can't condemn Singapore for carrying out their laws, even as I condemn the laws themselves. That's what a government does.
Not all the protests in Africa would stop us from prosecuting men who perform ritual female circumcisions on girls here in America.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I'm picturing Australia being all up in arms about some guy most of them don't even know, but not being up in arms over all the Singapoorians who die for the very same reason. I guess that's a nationalistic thing? I guess I just don't feel that way personally. Not that feeling that way is wrong.
If an American and a Singapoorian are both being killed on the same day for the same crime I wouldn't feel worse for the American.
Maybe that has something to do with the differences of opinion on this thread. Just my thoughts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That brings up a point, Scott. Peaceful, restrained vigils are one thing. Outraged public demands for clemency are another, and I think probably pissed off the Singapore gov't.
Even though I can easily see myself as an Aussie and pissed off, of course.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Wow, it surprises me how many people are against the death penalty here. I don't think it should be handed out like lollipops, but there are cases where it should be applied. I certainly don't fault Singapore for using it, although I am certainly against it being "mandatory" - that seems a bit extreme for drug trafficking - but Sarge is probably right, sometimes a drastic solution is called for, and Singapore decided it was appropriate. Nationality of the criminal shouldn't be an issue, which was I believe kq's original point.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I do have to say that a country that fines people for chewing gum isn't exactly going to be on my tourism top ten...
But, y'know, if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of a country's laws, don't commit the crime, or don't go there. The people who are residents don't have as much of a choice about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Sarge is probably right, sometimes a drastic solution is called for
Why? I admit that I would LOVE the opportunity to pull the plug on every child predator alive. But what does it help, really?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It's kinda like Michael Fay. Only, y'know, more death and fewer book deals. Ok, OJ ruined his book deal, but he did get TV spots, political pressure, sensationalized coverage in the media, etc. Remember what a hot button issue that was?
And he didn't even get hanged.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Why? I admit that I would LOVE the opportunity to pull the plug on every child predator alive. But what does it help, really?
I would imagine people would think twice about some of the things they think of doing if they knew for a fact that they would indeed be executed if/when caught.
And that's where I agree with kq. Let's say that Singapore's laws are designed, not as much with then intention of just and fair punishment, but rather as a deterrent for future criminals, then it is absolutely imperative that they enforce those laws.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
I know this isn't as relevant in this case if he admitted to drug trafficking, but it's a reason to be against the death penalty in general.
If you escort someone out of the Vatican for bare legs, and then they go home and change and come back, or you realize outside in the sunlight that they're really just very tight skin-coloured pants and they didn't have bare legs at all, you can let them back in as a productive Catholic who will throw money in the collection dish or help the needy and then go home to their families who need them.
Dead Catholics in tight skin-coloured pants will never contribute much to society.
Edit: Maybe it is relevant here after all. Didn't an article mention he had changed? I know that has to be taken with a grain of salt, but rehabilitation is possible. Death only ensures someone will *never* change.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I got this link from a pro-death penalty website. Interestingly, there's not much favorable to be found in the data on the death penalty. The counter-arguments (that it works) are that: 1) We don't know how many criminals decided to avoid their particular crime because they might be killed for it, and 2) The suffering of the victims is enough to justify killing someone.
This is, of course, the debate in Western countries.
Places like Singapore and certain Arab countries, and probably a few others I don't know of, kill people for things that the rest of the world has found other ways of dealing with. Whether those ways are more or less effective, of course, is a question that statistics ultimately may not be able to answer.
Going back on topic, though, I propose that if we all sat back and tried to list the attributes of a legal system that we admired, consistent application would be one thing we could agree on. But it would not be the only thing. My list would include (in no particular order), a sense of balance (the punishment fits the crime), a method for judicial review and periodic revision of the laws, a high level of professionalism among prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and court personnel, a penal system that is oriented toward rehabilitation, and probably a few more things if I really sat back and thought about it.
I would hesitate to congratulate or condemn Singapore until I knew more about how their entire justice system operates. Consistent application of draconian laws is not inherently better than inconsistent application of under-the-table bribery of high officials, IMHO. It deals with one problem, but creates others.
If we can review them as a whole, then, is there much to be admired, or much to recoil from in horror as we look at their application of laws and treatment of those convicted?
Question for kq: Were you applauding their consistency because of the fact that our application of the death penalty in the US is in such a shambles, and that one big reason for that is inconsistency?
I can see wishing the US were more consistent, but that wouldn't necessarily make me applaud consistency where-ever I saw it. I'd have to like other aspects of their system before I gave them a thumbs up.
On this issue, I think they are way out of balance. Killing anyone (citizen or foreigner) for even a serious drug violation strikes me as over the line of justifiable severity. It doesn't seem to fit the crime...by a WIDE margin. So, I can't applaud their system just because it would've equally been applied to the president's son or the lowliest citizen.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:If we can review them as a whole, then, is there much to be admired, or much to recoil from in horror as we look at their application of laws and treatment of those convicted?
One thing to consider is the differences in society and culture between the United States and Singapore. My understanding, and this may be wrong, is that the dominant culture in Singapore greatly prizes order. My experience in Asia is that human life isn't valued quite as much as it is here. (Don't get me wrong - it is valued - but it isn't quite sanctified to the extent it is in America) It is quite possible that Singapore's harsh laws reflect the culture of it's inhabitants.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Incidentally, most Asian countries have harsh punishments for drug traffickers. In Thailand, you can expect a long prison sentence, unless you can bribe your way out. At least Singapore is not quite as corrupt. Of course, in Thailand, you only get a prison sentence when you are caught running drugs if you are lucky. The Thai police have had it, and they often just summarily execute drug dealers. (Personal experience here, had an acquaintance that got whacked). Judicial execution beats extrajudicial execution any day.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
To first post: Possible, but it doesn't make me want to applaud them or emulate them.
If anything, they may provide a negative example -- look how harsh your society has to become before you achieve consistent application of laws.
Great.
To 2nd post: Absolutely. Trigger-happy police are not part of a well-functioning judicial system.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Sri Lanka is another country that has the death penalty on the books for drug offenses, even though it hasn't been used in that way for a lot of years. Lately, however, there has been news that the death penalty will be used for drug offenses again. So, if you're planning on trafficking in drugs, this is another country you shouldn't visit.
Yep, it's common in this region.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quid,
Would you agree that the society there places less value on the individual, and that this might account for wider acceptance of the death penalty for what other societies would consider a lesser offense?
What tern said made sense to me, but I have zero experience with those societies.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: quid,
Would you agree that the society there places less value on the individual, and that this might account for wider acceptance of the death penalty for what other societies would consider a lesser offense?
What tern said made sense to me, but I have zero experience with those societies.
Yes, I would agree with that.
If you consider how many people fought over baby 81 after the tsunami, how many children were sold into slavery or were taken by people who lost their own children, how many children have been forced into joining the LTTE army, how many people had grenades tossed at them for trying to vote at the last election and how many people have been killed trying to vote, and... The list, scarily enough, goes on.
Yes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Crud.
I had no idea.
Thanks tern and quid.
I think I'll go sit in a corner and be sad for awhile.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:How does the temporary nature of one's stay in any way change the severity of what has occured?
For the same reasons you have fewer expectations of a guest in your home, than you have of your own children. 1) A guest isn't expected to know the house rules, so violating the rule isn't a sign of disrespect. 2) A guest is given special traetment to make him feel welcome and encourage him to return and enrich your home again. 3) You aren't responsible for training a guest in the ways of your culture to make sure that your culture is continued.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, LadyDove has a point, but I'd have to limit to minor offenses. We deport people who aren't US citizens who violate our laws. But for major crimes, they have to do the time first. In rare instances, we do indeed put offenders to death even if they aren't from around here.
Ultimately, one would hope that the Singapore system has ways to deal with shades of gray related to this offense. Was the person an unwitting mule? Was he a first time offender? Was he completely ignorant of the local laws. It doesn't mean that he'd be found innocent, but it might be a factor in deciding whether to put a person to death or not.
Death for a first time drug offense seems worse to me than doing it for a multiple offender. And certainly, if someone is just a courier, death should not be the answer.
Anyone have sufficient details of this case to tell us whether there were any mitigating factors or, at 22, was this guy already a hard case?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
He was a first time offender.
He was a courier - he was being paid AUD$30 000. Not an unwitting mule, but by no means a drug lord.
According to newspaper reports here, he agreed to take the job to pay his twin brother's debts - debts which he feared his brother was going to die for.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Crud.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm sure his brother wouldn't want him to die as well.
Lots of people do bad things for what they think are good reasons. It doesn't change the nature of what they're doing though.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
El JT - I know. I almost added an (ironically) to my post but decided not to. (In terms of the whole brother thing).
In terms of the reasons not changing the nature: yes and no. Yes, of course he was still trafficking drugs.
But - I can see a moral diffence between someone who has made one bad decision and someone who keeps making those decisions as a lifestyle.
Actually, I think the most morally bankrupt are those who control the whole trade but never risk the actual trafficking themselves.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:The French law banning private religious symbols for schoolchildren is not fine with me.
BIG religious symbol. A little cros, star of David or hand of Fatima is fine with everyone. And only in PUBLIC schools.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:Actually, LadyDove has a point, but I'd have to limit to minor offenses.
And minor, non violent, offenses are the ones I'm talking about.
erosomniac made the claim that tourists should be treated the same as locals with regards to all laws (including the Ash-Wednesday/hat laws) and that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I said that only violent crimes and offenses that are globally considered crimes, such as drug traficking, should fall under the "everyone is treated the same" rule.
As an aside, I don't think that death, cutting off hands, or other types of torture are appropriate punishments for any country. To deal with the offenses done by non-residents, I'd love to see some type of "Geneva Convention" that decides on a list of crimes and punishments that would be treated as international laws during non-wartime travel.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Actually, I think the most morally bankrupt are those who control the whole trade but never risk the actual trafficking themselves.
Well, I will agree with that one. Although degrees of moral corruptness gets murky.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
I recently read a book about the opium wars in China (The Opium Wars, by W. Travis Hanes and Frank Sanello). Basically, England exported opium to China to pay for their tea addiction. When China tried to outlaw the import of opium, the English invaded and forced the Chinese government to accept it.
Given that sort of history, I can understand why Asian countries would have over-the-top (to us, anyways) laws/penalties against drugs.
--Mel
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:BIG religious symbol. A little cros, star of David or hand of Fatima is fine with everyone. And only in PUBLIC schools.
That really doesn't affect my opinion of the law, or any of my arguments. I was simply making the point that many countries may have specific laws that we disagree with, but our objections to the laws cannot be expected to influence the way those countries run their own affairs.
Singapore has decided that drug trafficking is enough of a threat to their society that the only fit punishment for those who do it is death. We can disagree with that decision as much as we want. In fact, I daresay that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Europe, the Americas, and Oceania probably think that it's excessively harsh.
My point isn't that the law is okay, but rather that it's Singapore's decision, not ours. Singapore is not obligated to care how many foreigners may be upset about this. This man broke Singaporean law in Singaporean territory. It is Singapore's right to punish him in whatever way it sees fit.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I'd say the right to live is one of the first human rights...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yep.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
VtheY wrote:
quote:"I was simply making the point that many countries may have specific laws that we disagree with, but our objections to the laws cannot be expected to influence the way those countries run their own affairs."
This is true, up to a point. I think many here would assert there exist theoretical levels of anti-human atrocity such that populations outside that country might rightfully expect to be able to exert such influence.
Do you disagree? Or are we just arguing about the threshold?
quote:"This man broke Singaporean law in Singaporean territory. It is Singapore's right to punish him in whatever way it sees fit."
Also true, up to a point. But it is also the rest of the world's right to accept Singapore into, or reject Singapore from, the community of nations.
quote:"My point isn't that the law is okay, but rather that it's Singapore's decision, not ours."
On the one hand, I am sensitive (as I believe you are) to the naive imposition of parochial values by one nation on another (cf. USA introducing democracy to Afghanistan); on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
With globalization, discussion about what those rights are and how international influence may properly be exercised -- even, or especially, considering the complexities and sensitivities of the subject -- is not only valid, but increasingly necessary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
Discussions on the subject of the death penalty, even though I am undecided on the question, are irritating to me for this reason. The talk is almost always focused on the rights of the executed.
But he was not forced to do this. He was not tricked into thinking Singapore had laws different than they actually did. He had the right to make his choice, and he made it. The man mad a choice removed only by a few steps from assisted suicide.
quote:On the one hand, I am sensitive (as I believe you are) to the naive imposition of parochial values by one nation on another (cf. USA introducing democracy to Afghanistan); on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
It could be argued that opposition to the death penalty is one of those parochial values. Surely you must realize that not all citizens are obligated to uphold your definition of the lowest common denominator of universal human rights?
I personally believe that there is no objective right to continue to be alive. There is only such a right so far as we human beings routinely manufacture such rights for each other. The "right" to live is derived entirely from ourselves-it's not found in nature or science, certainly. Nothing else in the world except humanity sticks to that right.
This guy played his game, he knew the rules, he started play voluntarily. He rolled the dice, and lost. It seems strange to be outraged, to demand that the rules aren't changed after the fact.
I'll shed my tears for people who are violated because of someone else's choice.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:This is true, up to a point. I think many here would assert there exist theoretical levels of anti-human atrocity such that populations outside that country might rightfully expect to be able to exert such influence.
Do you disagree? Or are we just arguing about the threshold?
I agree that there exist such levels. I disagree that this constitutes one of them.
When there is genuine victimization taking place, then I think other nations have a right to intervene. It was largely through the efforts of Great Britain that the slave trade was shut down and slavery itself eventually abolished. Because the slaves were the victims of a greatly inhuman injustice, I believe Britain was right to step in. Similarly, I do not feel the United States was wrong to drive out the inhuman and unjust regime of the Taliban.
(And don't anybody come back on me and say anything about human rights violations on the part of our own forces. Insofar as that is happening--and it is happening, even if we are still the single most restrained superpower in the history of the world--I feel it is wrong too. I've never said that I believe the current administration is right in everything it does. I am making a value judgement on one single act, specifically the overthrow of the Taliban, and nothing else. And I do so only to show that I disagree with the assertion that it is a "naive imposition of parochial values".)
However, I do not believe that the particular Singaporean law currently under discussion is a case of victimizing innocent people. Do I think that killing someone for carrying heroin is excessive and brutal? Yes, in fact, I do. But that doesn't make Van Nguyen a victim. He knew what he was getting into, and he made the conscious decision to get into it. He would be alive today if he had decided not to break the law. He was not killed because Singapore arbitrarily decided he was an inconvenient person to have around. He was a criminal, not a victim. And drug trafficking itself is certainly not a victimless crime. A lot of people get badly hurt or killed because of things like heroin, and not all of them are the people who made the decision to take the drug. So it isn't as though Nguyen's crime would only have had negative consequences for Nguyen.
In other words, I don't think this law constitutes a human rights violation. And I think that for other nations to throw a hissy fit and demand that Singapore change this law would qualify as a "naive imposition of parochial values".
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Whether a law violates human rights can be quite independant of how it is applied (arbitrarily or otherwise).
For example, a law legalising torture would be a human rights violation, no matter if it was applied consistently as a punishment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Imprisonment is a human rights violation.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
No one is arguing that, Rakeesh. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Well, imprisonment necessarily restricts your right to freedom, yes.
But a law proscribing imprisonment is not invalid at international law.
A law proscribing torture would be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You can roll your eyes all you like, Jhai, but my statement makes a point that appears to be going unnoticed here.
All punishments for crimes are a violation of human rights, from community service to jail time to execution. But there aren't any human beings on the planet that I know or have heard of who think that human rights are immutable.
Human rights are mutable when an individual takes some form of action that is deemed illegal. The question lies where to draw the threshold, further illustrating the subjectivity of any stance on human rights.
Which points out that, despite what has been implied in this thread, there isn't some objective, scientific definition of human rights. It's all subjective-yes, a man's life has been ended, but I choose not to be very upset about it this particular time because the question is subjective, and the man went in with his eyes open.
------------
I'd be interested in hearing what "international law" is, too. Hell, accounting can be subjective and still remain legal.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I personally believe that there is no objective right to continue to be alive. There is only such a right so far as we human beings routinely manufacture such rights for each other. The "right" to live is derived entirely from ourselves-it's not found in nature or science, certainly. Nothing else in the world except humanity sticks to that right.
The pope wants to have a word with you, sir. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
International law = convention (treaty) and customary international law (law made by the state practice and opinio juris of States).
Torture is prohibited by a number of treaties include the Convention Against Torture, as well as being prohibited at customary international law. There a numerous judgments from such courts as the ICJ, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights acknowledging that torture is illegal at international law.
In terms of a clear-cut norm of international law, the prohibition on torture's pretty much as good as you're going to get. Except maybe the prohibition on slavery.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Note: The prohibition on torture is also recognised in the US third restatement of international law.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Okay, so torture is against international law. Guess it's a good thing that's not what Singapore used.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
My point was that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's legal internationally. And just because something is implemented consistently doesn't mean it can't be a human rights violation.
The assertion non arbitrary and people know what they're getting into = not a human rights violation is not true.
I used torture because it's clear cut.
There is quite a strong argument that the death penalty is against international law, but at this stage it's still just an argument. That could well change in the future though.
( I was also responding to Rakeesh's question on international law )
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Torture is one thing that is accepted world-wide as a human rights violation. I believe a number of people in this thread, and in general, believe that captial punishment, at least for things other than murder, is also a human rights violation, and thus other nations (and indivduals) have the moral responsibility to condemn those who practice this human rights violation.
I personally am ambivalent on whether capital punishment is an absolute moral wrong. I do feel, however, given that: A) the data suggesting that capital punishment is a deterrent is questionable B) the United States judicial system has some fairly large flaws, resulting in unjust convictions and C) the cost of putting someone on death row (and all the legal battles that ensue) is huge
that the United States should not practice capital punishment, as any benefits derived from it do not equal the costs (both in the form of injustice and money). Whether these same facts hold for Singapore or not... well, I don't know enough about the Singapore judicial system to judge that. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I don't believe the death penalty is currently against international law. If that changes, then it changes, and I suppose Singapore will have to re-evaluate its system.
I question the assumption made by many here that the death penalty is, in and of itself, a human rights violation. Killing people because of their ethnicity or their religion or because they looked at you funny is. I'm not convinced that killing people because they committed serious crimes is.
Nobody argues that drug smugglers and murderers and rapists should not be sent to prison because it takes away their right to liberty. And this is in spite of the fact that in the United States, at least, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered our most fundamental and "unalienable" human rights. But when someone is sent to prison for committing a crime, people don't get up in arms and say they are alienating his right to liberty. We all recognize that by committing his crime, he has forfeited his right to have the freedom to come and go as he pleases.
I don't accept it as a given that there are no crimes about which we can say, "By committing this crime, the criminal has forfeited his right to life." Mind you, I don't personally believe that drug smuggling is such a crime--but Singapore has decided that, within their territory at least, it is. I may not agree with the conclusion they've come to, but I am not convinced that they are committing any crimes against humanity itself simply by coming to, and enforcing, this conclusion.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
That's fine. What I was taking exception to was the implication I got from your previous post that it wasn't a human rights violation *because* it wasn't being enforced arbitrarily.
Incidentally, a "crime against humanity" is a quite specific legal term that probably wouldn't apply in this case even if the death penalty were outlawed by international law.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Imogen,
And how many nation states must be involved for something to become international law? Conceivably, two nation-states are all that's required.
'International law' is a term that carries a lot of weight. It implies that there is one standard set of laws that all nations on Earth must abide, and have agreed to abide-but clearly that is not the case. What it actually means is quite different, and much debated.
quote:Torture is one thing that is accepted world-wide as a human rights violation.
You're wrong about that, Jhai. It's not even accepted in the USA as a clear-cut human rights violation (and now I'm operating by your definition of that term, not the one I was discussing earlier).
quote:...and thus other nations (and indivduals) have the moral responsibility to condemn those who practice this human rights violation.
I agree with this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and Storm Saxon, right now I'm supping with the Queen of England. His Holiness the Pope will have to wait Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: And how many nation states must be involved for something to become international law? Conceivably, two nation-states are all that's required.
Not really. Two states can enter into a treaty, but that treaty is only binding on states party to it (ie two).
For something to become a customary norm (binding on all States) it has to have a lot of States. There's no definitive number, but examples of treaties which have become custom are the CAT (140 states parties out of 192) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (192 state parties out of 192)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Torture is one thing that is accepted world-wide as a human rights violation.
You're wrong about that, Jhai. It's not even accepted in the USA as a clear-cut human rights violation (and now I'm operating by your definition of that term, not the one I was discussing earlier).
Oh, I think most people in the U.S. think of it as a human rights violation - they're willing to say that the cost of the violation is outweighed by the intellegence recieved from the torturee.
I don't necessarily agree with this argument in any way, mind, but I think that's how people tend to phrase it.
Oh, and I didn't define torture or human rights violations in my posts. Others have, however.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:What I was taking exception to was the implication I got from your previous post that it wasn't a human rights violation *because* it wasn't being enforced arbitrarily.
What I was saying is that I'm not convinced that the death penalty, when used as a punishment for a serious crime, is a human rights violation. If Nguyen had been an innocent tourist who hadn't done anything, then it would be. But he was a criminal, not an innocent victim, so I think that by committing the crime he did, he gave up certain rights.
What I did not say is that a genuine human rights violation ceases to be such when it is applied in a non-arbitrary fashion. I do not believe torture is a valid punishment for anything, even if some nation passed laws saying it was. I do believe that there are such things as universal human rights. (Even if such rights do not exist in nature, I think that if our civilization is to survive and become better than it is, it is in our best interests as a species to behave as though they do.) But I also firmly believe that the committing of certain crimes constitutes a forfeiture of some of those rights, and I think that liberty, and quite possibly life as well, are among said rights.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jhai,
quote:Oh, I think most people in the U.S. think of it as a human rights violation - they're willing to say that the cost of the violation is outweighed by the intellegence recieved from the torturee.
I agree that most view it that way...but not all. That was my point-even the most fundamental things to you and I are not as universal as we think.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree that there are very few things, moral or otherwise, that everyone agrees on. However, I'm very much not a moral relativist, so I think that there are moral realities out there, and some people are right, and others are wrong when they judge actions as morally good or bad.
Likewise, torture may be a fundamental human right, and those who think otherwise are wrong.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Rakeesh's point is valid - and it gets argued constantly, under our "Cruel and Unusual" rule - punishment by definition must be cruel and unusual, otherwise it's not punishment. Where the line gets drawn as "torture" is arbitrary, and depends on the population consensus.
There is no such thing as "Human Rights" other than those proposed by civilization. Humans have no more "right" to live than cattle. We place a greater value on human life (for the most part), but that doesn't give a cancer patient the "right" to live, and there's no higher court to appeal to. I think the death penalty is a deterrent, and if nothing else, prevents the particular criminal from acting again. The only people it doesn't act as a deterrent for are those who don't consider the consequences of their actions, and those are exactly the people who bring down civilization in the first place.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think most jail time is cruel or unusual, and it certainly looks like punishment for a lot of people. At least, they certainly spend large amounts of effort trying to avoid it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: under our "Cruel and Unusual" rule - punishment by definition must be cruel and unusual, otherwise it's not punishment.
Could you explain further what you mean here? Is the term "punishment" being given some definition in a legal setting that is more limited than it would be in most other settings?
I think our entire penal system is geared mostly to punishment, and almost nil towards rehabilitation. I don't find the punishment of incarceration cruel or unusual, but I do think it is often wasteful. The time a person spends in prison should not just be warehousing, or an opportunity to make new friends and learn new tricks.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, I know in my USUAL day, I don't get locked in prison :-)
Cruel: 1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings 2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency
It's been argued that incarceration is cruel, and I know I sure wouldn't like it all that much. It's been argued spanking a child is "cruel" as well. I can't imagine too many things I would rather not do, in fact. I would suffer. There would be grief. And, likely, some pain as well. What's cruel isn't absolute, either. What seems cruel to me might not seem cruel to others. But there has to be some incentive to NOT do a thing.
I'm not saying I particulary like our prison system, or even think it's very effective. I just don't have any better ideas, and if I did, it's not like I would have any power to implement them.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Would you like photos?![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)