posted
I know, kq, see my edit. At least you responded to the first part, I don't see where you responded to the second.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. ]
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, I think this thread has one of the more bizarre parallel conversations going on.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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". Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given Australia's federation was in 1901, I don't think we would have qualified as a major regional power in the 19th century!
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Into, out of. Either way, he was, at one point, in Singapore, with heroin. And that's just not a good idea.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ryan, if you can't understand why after reading my posts in this thread then I have no way of explaining it to you.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Removed. Not killed. Just to clarify. Jail time would have been fine with me, being killed is not.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Would you like photos?![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
