posted
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. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Oh, and Storm Saxon, right now I'm supping with the Queen of England. His Holiness the Pope will have to wait Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
