Singapore sling
November 29, 2005 4:28 PM Subscribe
At dawn on Friday Singapore time, young Australian Nguyen Tuong Van will be hanged by the State executioner, Darshan Singh. His sentencing has raised an extensive debate in Australia on the death penalty, on our regional relationships and the compassion of our fearless Rodent.
Like virtually all advanced nations, Australia has generally held a principled stance against the death penalty, though filtered by realpolitik. Yet again, New Zealand is a bit more principled than us, of course. We would of course never protest to the US about its extensive use of the ultimate State sanction.
Singapore has quite the history of executing Australians for drug offenses. When I first moved to singapore in 1980, I can recall reading the countless letter-to-the-editor bits from australians writing to protest the planned execution of a young college girl who'd been busted for possession.
posted by nomisxid at 4:37 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by nomisxid at 4:37 PM on November 29, 2005
Yeah, I'd leave the US out of this discussion. Yeah, definitely.
posted by Rothko at 4:38 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by Rothko at 4:38 PM on November 29, 2005
I'm glad to see a post about this, newsfilter or no. I just recently became aware of the whole controversy, courtesy of some major US newspaper coverage -- interesting that the last time Singapore was a focus of awareness over here was prior to the caning of an American teenager. The savageness of their law and order mentality makes the Texas criminal justice system seem positively lenient.
posted by killdevil at 4:38 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by killdevil at 4:38 PM on November 29, 2005
I'm glad to see your rodent is fearless. An important trait in rodents.
posted by loquax at 4:40 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by loquax at 4:40 PM on November 29, 2005
Rothko, I'm certainly not an apologist for U.S. capital punishment practices -- but you have to admit that even Virginia and Texas (the execution-happy outliers) are a little less flippant about killing people than the Singaporean gov't seems to be.
posted by killdevil at 4:43 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by killdevil at 4:43 PM on November 29, 2005
I'm not sure how one state-sanctioned murder is more flippant than the other. The US public elected a president who takes sadistic glee in sending human beings to death. That's about as flippant as it gets, I think.
posted by Rothko at 4:48 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by Rothko at 4:48 PM on November 29, 2005
Why must a post about Singapore turn into a discussion about Bush? Granted, many of us are opposed to the death penalty (myself included), but also grant that Singapore is much tougher on various offenses. I once chatted with a friend who had returned from Singapore at about the time of the caning referred to. He was a shrewed guy and noted that drugs were heinous offense. But that a large commercial enterprise was the laundering of drug money via "legitiate" banks etc. I can ot attest to the truthfulness of that.
posted by Postroad at 4:56 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by Postroad at 4:56 PM on November 29, 2005
A couple more facts about Nguyen and Singapore.
* he was caught with 400g of heroin and pleaded guilty
* he was in the transit lounge, had not gone through customs and was never going to transfer the drugs to or from a Singaporean
* the sentence was mandatory, with no judicial review. Once he'd pleaded guilty, the court process took about 10 minutes, was essentially irrelevant.
* Singapore does not give clemency or consider extenuating circumstances. Nguyen was not known to have ever used drugs and it is generally accepted that he was a single time drug courier to pay off his twin brothers debts.
* Singapore invests heavily in the Burma regime, a known state supporter of opium production.
posted by wilful at 4:57 PM on November 29, 2005
* he was caught with 400g of heroin and pleaded guilty
* he was in the transit lounge, had not gone through customs and was never going to transfer the drugs to or from a Singaporean
* the sentence was mandatory, with no judicial review. Once he'd pleaded guilty, the court process took about 10 minutes, was essentially irrelevant.
* Singapore does not give clemency or consider extenuating circumstances. Nguyen was not known to have ever used drugs and it is generally accepted that he was a single time drug courier to pay off his twin brothers debts.
* Singapore invests heavily in the Burma regime, a known state supporter of opium production.
posted by wilful at 4:57 PM on November 29, 2005
It says on their fucking immigration form in bold red print: "DEATH TO DRUG TRAFFICKERS UNDER SINGAPORE LAW". If you don't like their laws, don't a) go there and b) if you do, don't be stupid enough to break them.
posted by drstrangelove at 5:04 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by drstrangelove at 5:04 PM on November 29, 2005
I've been following this topic on another forum. The natives are a lot more restless about this issue over there though, for they're all Australians who have had this fed to them relentlessly via the Australian media for weeks now. Me, well, I've not been paying much attention. The commercial media here is a joke anyway. But of course I have got a view on Nguyen's case, which is basically what I posted on the forum I previously mentioned. Anyway, here it goes.
posted by sjvilla79 at 5:10 PM on November 29, 2005
I've scanned all the pages in this thread. Um, hopefully I can bring a different perspective on it.Lastly, the reference to Nguyen's brother relates to how Nguyen was smuggling drugs to pay for his brother's debts (and thus caught). Also above the reference to Johnny and his goons is a cheeky way of addressing the Australian Government. Bastards.
I did some Googling.
Forty-year-old Australian citizen Tran Van Thanh has had his death penalty in Vietnam commuted to a life sentence. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Vietnamese president Tran Duc Luong had granted clemency to Tran on humanitarian grounds and because of the good relations between the two countries. - Source: Vietnam grants clemency to Australian on death row
The above article talks about another Australian caught for heroin trafficking. He was convicted of trafficking 682 grams of the stuff. Our government managed to save his life.
And then there's this:
Nguyen was caught with 396 grams of heroin strapped to his body and in his hand luggage at Changi airport in 2002. - Source: Hanging to go ahead: Singapore
So, what's wrong with this picture? Um, have we pissed off Singapore somehow? Perhaps, though, the publicity of Nguyen's case has brought about his undoing (e.g. he's being made an example of)? My view on this is that I find it hard to believe that the Australian Government has not tried to save Nguyen's life. And yes, I don't know what I'm trying to prove with the quoted articles above except for the fact that it would appear something has gone awry that we're not being told about. In fact we'll probably never know. We also probably don't have anything that Singapore wants and I highly doubt our government would accept any barter deal.
To conclude, however, I'm going to try and put myself in Nguyen's shoes.
Scenario 1: Johnny and his goons save my skin and I'm offered life in a Singaporean prison. That's for the rest of my entire life in awful conditions and so on. I am from a poor family and will not be able to bribe guards, get drugs, or make it easy for myself while inside in any other way. I don't want to sell my arse either.
Scenario 2: Sadly, I'm dealt the death penalty and I'm going to die.
Now, some people might say that #2 would be better than #1 (being locked up for the rest of your days in some Singaporean shithole). It's definitely the better of the two options from where I'm standing. Of course this would change if I were imprisoned under better conditions though.
Oh and yes I know the idea of executing Nguyen is barbaric. Hanging is just fucking barbaric period. But this is mostly where I have an issue with Singapore's policy on this. For example, I respect their law and what it stands for. I also appreciate the fact that Nguyen has done the wrong thing and for that he should be punished. I have no sympathy for him in this respect. But what the fuck is going on here? It's 2005 for fuck's sake. Yes, I think countries should have the right to impose the death penalty where they see fit, but using methods such as hanging just doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps it's time for some kind of international law that sets clear guidelines for countries who execute prisoners. Sure, this is probably wishful thinking, but at least it'd provide some governance over a person's right to die humanely.
Lastly, I feel sad for Nguyen's family and friends. I wonder how his brother feels too? And all this now just as the case for the "Bali Nine" heats up. Thus, I'm sure we can expect to see more Australian deaths via executions offshore soon. That's a whole other can of worms right there.
posted by sjvilla79 at 5:10 PM on November 29, 2005
Singapore death penalty shrouded in silence.
Disneyland with the Death Penalty.
posted by Cyrano at 5:13 PM on November 29, 2005
Disneyland with the Death Penalty.
posted by Cyrano at 5:13 PM on November 29, 2005
Off sjvilla79's point: there's an argument that corporal punishment (I mean caning andnot death by hanging) has just about as much effect as incarceration and is a lot more efficient (criminal returns to society after caning and can be productive instead of draining resources in jail) or perhaps even more humane (criminal might prefer the physical pain over the social separation or institutionalization with possibly more hardened criminals). So in some sense perhaps Singapore has less savage an approach when it canes criminals although it seems the opposite.
On another issue, always wondered why people still get caught with drugs transiting through Singapore. Enough of these cases happen in Singapore and Malaysia that you'd think if you had to be a drug mule, you'd pick a much laxer Asian airport to transit through. Or fly direct.
Or maybe its that drug dealers sometimes use certain mules as decoys while someone else brings through the real stash? But there's still the question: why transit through a place you know will kill you?
posted by enakaja at 5:15 PM on November 29, 2005
On another issue, always wondered why people still get caught with drugs transiting through Singapore. Enough of these cases happen in Singapore and Malaysia that you'd think if you had to be a drug mule, you'd pick a much laxer Asian airport to transit through. Or fly direct.
Or maybe its that drug dealers sometimes use certain mules as decoys while someone else brings through the real stash? But there's still the question: why transit through a place you know will kill you?
posted by enakaja at 5:15 PM on November 29, 2005
This is just part of the flavour of the month for the Australian media, and hence for its people: relatively (*cough*) innocent (*cough*) Aussies being caught up in legal nightmares overseas, all due to drugs.
My guess is that the public attention cannot last much longer, and the next person to be imprisoned or executed will barely be noticed. Unless she is a model.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:16 PM on November 29, 2005
My guess is that the public attention cannot last much longer, and the next person to be imprisoned or executed will barely be noticed. Unless she is a model.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:16 PM on November 29, 2005
I have trouble working up much sympathy for the guy. If he were innocent, that'd be a different story. As drstrangelove points out, Singapore's death penalty for drug smugglers is well known.
From the "extensive" link:
... we will reflect on the pointless taking of a young life and the unlawful practice of state-sponsored execution. The imposition of the death penalty and state-authorised execution breaches a number of international covenants.
I believe the international covenant she's referring to is the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty; but Singapore hasn't signed it. It's not exactly a lone holdout, either. (In the region: Australia and New Zealand have signed; Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand have not signed. Elsewhere: the UK and Germany have signed; the US, Canada, China, and India have not signed.)
posted by russilwvong at 5:19 PM on November 29, 2005
From the "extensive" link:
... we will reflect on the pointless taking of a young life and the unlawful practice of state-sponsored execution. The imposition of the death penalty and state-authorised execution breaches a number of international covenants.
I believe the international covenant she's referring to is the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty; but Singapore hasn't signed it. It's not exactly a lone holdout, either. (In the region: Australia and New Zealand have signed; Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand have not signed. Elsewhere: the UK and Germany have signed; the US, Canada, China, and India have not signed.)
posted by russilwvong at 5:19 PM on November 29, 2005
So, what's wrong with this picture? Um, have we pissed off Singapore somehow?
No, I'd guess that it's more important for the Singaporean government to resist the appearance of bowing to outside pressure than the Vietnamese government. (Singapore's more vulnerable than Vietnam--it's got a tiny population and hostile neighbors.)
posted by russilwvong at 5:21 PM on November 29, 2005
No, I'd guess that it's more important for the Singaporean government to resist the appearance of bowing to outside pressure than the Vietnamese government. (Singapore's more vulnerable than Vietnam--it's got a tiny population and hostile neighbors.)
posted by russilwvong at 5:21 PM on November 29, 2005
I do like the salutation "fearless rodent".
Any country with manditory punishments without possibility of judicial review terrifies me. Frankly I'd rather deal with the junkies I see on my way to work than live in a wealth city run by blood thirsty bureaucrats.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:35 PM on November 29, 2005
Any country with manditory punishments without possibility of judicial review terrifies me. Frankly I'd rather deal with the junkies I see on my way to work than live in a wealth city run by blood thirsty bureaucrats.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:35 PM on November 29, 2005
Note that the death sentence of Robin Lovitt linked at "extensive" was commuted today to life without parole. I'm anti-death-penalty, just passing along the news.
posted by gubo at 5:39 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by gubo at 5:39 PM on November 29, 2005
Some people actually prefer the bureaucrats over the junkies.
Re: laxer jurisdictions, Australian model Michelle Leslie was very recently let off lightly in Indonesia after being caught with a couple of ecstasy pills in Bali. Three-month sentence and a 10-cent fine, I think. There's more of a story to that, though, if you Google around, including allegations she was a patsy for judge's son or something (who was actually the one with the pills). Calculation was that she'd be let off lightly because she was a foreigner and a hottie.
Or you can just click here for the full, uh, coverage. (NSFW).
posted by enakaja at 5:40 PM on November 29, 2005
Re: laxer jurisdictions, Australian model Michelle Leslie was very recently let off lightly in Indonesia after being caught with a couple of ecstasy pills in Bali. Three-month sentence and a 10-cent fine, I think. There's more of a story to that, though, if you Google around, including allegations she was a patsy for judge's son or something (who was actually the one with the pills). Calculation was that she'd be let off lightly because she was a foreigner and a hottie.
Or you can just click here for the full, uh, coverage. (NSFW).
posted by enakaja at 5:40 PM on November 29, 2005
It says on their fucking immigration form in bold red print
Yeah, that's the thing. I mean, every person I've ever met (outside the U.S., that is) who did drugs knows about Singapore's "death to trafficers" rule. It's not like this was some by-law buried ten chapters into volume eleven of their Recommended Code and Conduct manual. There are some places in this world where you just don't rock the boat unless you've got a heavily armed militia to back you up, Singapore is one of them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:23 PM on November 29, 2005
Yeah, that's the thing. I mean, every person I've ever met (outside the U.S., that is) who did drugs knows about Singapore's "death to trafficers" rule. It's not like this was some by-law buried ten chapters into volume eleven of their Recommended Code and Conduct manual. There are some places in this world where you just don't rock the boat unless you've got a heavily armed militia to back you up, Singapore is one of them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:23 PM on November 29, 2005
Not in the blue too.
Really, this obsession of the Australian media with these things should stop. It's getting dull.
A number of the countries around us have severe penalties for drug possession and smuggling. Just don't do those things there to avoid the consequences. It's not a secret. Don't people remember Barlow and Chambers?
The Australian government cannot do much. There are issues of sovereignty that over ride these things. With Vietnam, which is a much poorer country than Singapore we might be able to get somewhere, but not with Singapore.
posted by sien at 7:26 PM on November 29, 2005
Really, this obsession of the Australian media with these things should stop. It's getting dull.
A number of the countries around us have severe penalties for drug possession and smuggling. Just don't do those things there to avoid the consequences. It's not a secret. Don't people remember Barlow and Chambers?
The Australian government cannot do much. There are issues of sovereignty that over ride these things. With Vietnam, which is a much poorer country than Singapore we might be able to get somewhere, but not with Singapore.
posted by sien at 7:26 PM on November 29, 2005
I'm about as anti-death penalty as one can be but even I know that if I get caught with drugs in Singapore they're going to lock me up for the rest of my life or kill my ass. Hence, I don't do that.
You know, the same way I don't go on a murder spree in Texas or paw a mullahs wife in Tehran.
posted by cedar at 7:27 PM on November 29, 2005
You know, the same way I don't go on a murder spree in Texas or paw a mullahs wife in Tehran.
posted by cedar at 7:27 PM on November 29, 2005
Found this blog by a Singaporean anti-death penalty advocate, which goes into great detail about what's happened and will happen to Ngyuen. Also reveals a bit about the (limited) protests in Singapore.
posted by pandaharma at 8:11 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by pandaharma at 8:11 PM on November 29, 2005
An individual bears culpability for breaking a known law, but that does not mean that once they take on that culpability that the degree of their punishment is automatically fair. The death penalty in the US, while I loathe it, is only applied in very specific cases where the criminal has caused death to another. There is at least some sense of proportionality in there. Being executed for transporting drugs, OTOH, seems a disproportionate sentence to me.
posted by Falconetti at 8:14 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by Falconetti at 8:14 PM on November 29, 2005
Heroin traffickers who choose to visit Singapore should qualify for a Darwin Award. It's the sort of stupid decision that is obviously not going to end well.
My objection to the death penalty in the US is not the death penalty itself, but rather the inconsistent and often unfair way it is applied. The Singaporeans may set the bar a bit low, but at least the administration of justice is even-handed. Get caught with drugs in Singapore and be executed: it's really not very ambiguous.
posted by blue mustard at 8:17 PM on November 29, 2005
My objection to the death penalty in the US is not the death penalty itself, but rather the inconsistent and often unfair way it is applied. The Singaporeans may set the bar a bit low, but at least the administration of justice is even-handed. Get caught with drugs in Singapore and be executed: it's really not very ambiguous.
posted by blue mustard at 8:17 PM on November 29, 2005
I personally take issue with the argument that because it's "written in red on the immigration form" (which he wouldn't have seen because he was transiting) or that "everyone knows Singapore has the death penalty" (ever been booked on a series of flights that have been re-routed?) equates to caveat emptor and they should therefore hang for a relatively inane offence, is living in a moral vacuum.
The death penalty is draconian - any opportunity for it to be argued and illigitimised to the ignorant masses should be taken advantage of.
Again I am appalled by my countrymen who yesterday voted in the majority (in yet another pointless poll - which you can now vote on whether you want him to hang or not! fucking disgusting), that our rodent prime minister should host and entertain a fucking game of cricket on the day of Nguyen's hanging.
They won't even let his mother have physical contact with him - why?
This truly disgusts me and it should also disgust you.
posted by strawberryviagra at 8:36 PM on November 29, 2005
The death penalty is draconian - any opportunity for it to be argued and illigitimised to the ignorant masses should be taken advantage of.
Again I am appalled by my countrymen who yesterday voted in the majority (in yet another pointless poll - which you can now vote on whether you want him to hang or not! fucking disgusting), that our rodent prime minister should host and entertain a fucking game of cricket on the day of Nguyen's hanging.
They won't even let his mother have physical contact with him - why?
This truly disgusts me and it should also disgust you.
posted by strawberryviagra at 8:36 PM on November 29, 2005
This is just for strangelove and the unsympathetic human known as russelvwong:
For execution by this method, the inmate may be weighed the day before the execution, and a rehearsal is done using a sandbag of the same weight as the prisoner. This is to determine the length of 'drop' necessary to ensure a quick death. If the rope is too long, the inmate could be decapitated, and if it is too short, the strangulation could take as long as 45 minutes. The rope, which should be 3/4-inch to 1 1/4-inch in diameter, must be boiled and stretched to eliminate spring or coiling. The knot should be lubricated with wax or soap "to ensure a smooth sliding action," according to the 1969 U.S. Army manual. (The Corrections Professional, 1996 and Hillman, 1992)
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:11 PM on November 29, 2005
For execution by this method, the inmate may be weighed the day before the execution, and a rehearsal is done using a sandbag of the same weight as the prisoner. This is to determine the length of 'drop' necessary to ensure a quick death. If the rope is too long, the inmate could be decapitated, and if it is too short, the strangulation could take as long as 45 minutes. The rope, which should be 3/4-inch to 1 1/4-inch in diameter, must be boiled and stretched to eliminate spring or coiling. The knot should be lubricated with wax or soap "to ensure a smooth sliding action," according to the 1969 U.S. Army manual. (The Corrections Professional, 1996 and Hillman, 1992)
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:11 PM on November 29, 2005
In my recollection, on landing in Singapore, many airlines, particular Singapore Airlines, also announce to passengers that drug trafficking brings the death penalty there.
In any case, whether he knew or not is probably immaterial. Ignorance isn't a defense in Anglo-American criminal law anyway. You can't argue in court to escape a legally prescribed penalty for a felony by saying "I didn't know I'd be fined/go to jail/die for this."
posted by enakaja at 9:13 PM on November 29, 2005
In any case, whether he knew or not is probably immaterial. Ignorance isn't a defense in Anglo-American criminal law anyway. You can't argue in court to escape a legally prescribed penalty for a felony by saying "I didn't know I'd be fined/go to jail/die for this."
posted by enakaja at 9:13 PM on November 29, 2005
You totally missed my point.
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:21 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:21 PM on November 29, 2005
Nope, just correcting an erroneous argument. You can argue that the death penalty is overkill for drug trafficking, and so on, and so on, and that's a valid view, which I have some sympathy for.
But to say that the fact "he didn't know" ought to be something that helps exonerate him just doesn't work.
posted by enakaja at 9:27 PM on November 29, 2005
But to say that the fact "he didn't know" ought to be something that helps exonerate him just doesn't work.
posted by enakaja at 9:27 PM on November 29, 2005
Sorry, I meant "hypothetical fact" because we don't know if he knew or not.
posted by enakaja at 9:31 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by enakaja at 9:31 PM on November 29, 2005
But....that's not my argument.
Can you point out where I actually reasoned that ignorance is a justifiable defence?
If you can - I will humbly accept your apology.
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:34 PM on November 29, 2005
Can you point out where I actually reasoned that ignorance is a justifiable defence?
If you can - I will humbly accept your apology.
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:34 PM on November 29, 2005
And please don't "misquote" me - it's insincere.
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:39 PM on November 29, 2005
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:39 PM on November 29, 2005
Please don't call me insincere before I've even answered.
If you're not going to engage in a reasonable and polite discussion, I'm done talking to you right here.
posted by enakaja at 9:57 PM on November 29, 2005
If you're not going to engage in a reasonable and polite discussion, I'm done talking to you right here.
posted by enakaja at 9:57 PM on November 29, 2005
Whoa..
Chill out, pal.
Here's the deal - when you use quotation marks - you're actually quoting what someone *actually* said. Got it?
For the record - and despite your read on my poor english - I'm NOT arguing that ignorance is a defense. So let's move on from that, OK?
Strike the first paragraph from your memory - I was merely highlighting the ridiculous nature of previous posters' arguments (that because you know that something is wrong and you do it anyway this somehow justifies the harshness of the consequential penalty). Now if I were to put a sign in front of my house that said "Using quotation marks incorrectly is punishable by death" and I caught someone doing it... do you get my drift?
My argument or concern is actually that the death penalty even exists. That I find it abhorrent. That the Singaporean Government won't even let his poor Mother touch her son before they hang him. And that any opportunity to point out the horrendous nature of it should be acted on.
I hope this is now clear.
posted by strawberryviagra at 10:25 PM on November 29, 2005
Chill out, pal.
Here's the deal - when you use quotation marks - you're actually quoting what someone *actually* said. Got it?
For the record - and despite your read on my poor english - I'm NOT arguing that ignorance is a defense. So let's move on from that, OK?
Strike the first paragraph from your memory - I was merely highlighting the ridiculous nature of previous posters' arguments (that because you know that something is wrong and you do it anyway this somehow justifies the harshness of the consequential penalty). Now if I were to put a sign in front of my house that said "Using quotation marks incorrectly is punishable by death" and I caught someone doing it... do you get my drift?
My argument or concern is actually that the death penalty even exists. That I find it abhorrent. That the Singaporean Government won't even let his poor Mother touch her son before they hang him. And that any opportunity to point out the horrendous nature of it should be acted on.
I hope this is now clear.
posted by strawberryviagra at 10:25 PM on November 29, 2005
I'm not sure how one state-sanctioned murder is more flippant than the other. The US public elected a president who takes sadistic glee in sending human beings to death. That's about as flippant as it gets, I think.
how much does the above comment add to the discourse?
I propose a new addendum to godwin's law, which i will name the "Chub Chub addendum" (what my gf calls me cuz i'm a little chubby) which states before making references to hitler, the probability of making a lame reference to Bush approaches 1.
seriously, can we have a discussion about anything involving the US without alluding to bush as the anti-christ? ad hominem attacks involving bush are so 2002.
and before I'm denounced as a right-opportunist, i have all the lefty credibility you want: I'm anti deaf penalty and I'm anti Bush. but dang, can we stop setting up the US as strawman.
posted by hurting.the.feelings.of.thechinesepeople at 11:56 PM on November 29, 2005
how much does the above comment add to the discourse?
I propose a new addendum to godwin's law, which i will name the "Chub Chub addendum" (what my gf calls me cuz i'm a little chubby) which states before making references to hitler, the probability of making a lame reference to Bush approaches 1.
seriously, can we have a discussion about anything involving the US without alluding to bush as the anti-christ? ad hominem attacks involving bush are so 2002.
and before I'm denounced as a right-opportunist, i have all the lefty credibility you want: I'm anti deaf penalty and I'm anti Bush. but dang, can we stop setting up the US as strawman.
posted by hurting.the.feelings.of.thechinesepeople at 11:56 PM on November 29, 2005
The death penalty in the US, while I loathe it, is only applied in very specific cases where the criminal has caused death to another. There is at least some sense of proportionality in there.
You can be sentenced to death in the US for running a drug trafficking enterprise, a crime not directly causing the death of another person.
posted by Rothko at 2:27 AM on November 30, 2005
You can be sentenced to death in the US for running a drug trafficking enterprise, a crime not directly causing the death of another person.
posted by Rothko at 2:27 AM on November 30, 2005
I'm anti-death penalty, but the general, largely unthinking, public is for it about 2 to 1 in Australia.
Howard the rodent (so named after being described by one of his key ministers as a "lying rodent" in a private discussion) can smell public opinion, and while he must appear to support an Aussie in trouble abroad, he doesn't want to look soft on drug couriers. Even more so as his core constituency don't have a lot of love for Asian Australians at the best of times.
So he doesn't want to rock the boat, not that he could do much anyway.
What particularly pissed me off, however, was Van's lawyer's request our country blackmail Singapore by offering a trans-pacific air route to the govt. owned Singapore Airlines in exchange for leniency.
Of course the rodent has his mates at Qantas so he couldn't allow that even if it were politically acceptable.
posted by bystander at 3:06 AM on November 30, 2005
Howard the rodent (so named after being described by one of his key ministers as a "lying rodent" in a private discussion) can smell public opinion, and while he must appear to support an Aussie in trouble abroad, he doesn't want to look soft on drug couriers. Even more so as his core constituency don't have a lot of love for Asian Australians at the best of times.
So he doesn't want to rock the boat, not that he could do much anyway.
What particularly pissed me off, however, was Van's lawyer's request our country blackmail Singapore by offering a trans-pacific air route to the govt. owned Singapore Airlines in exchange for leniency.
Of course the rodent has his mates at Qantas so he couldn't allow that even if it were politically acceptable.
posted by bystander at 3:06 AM on November 30, 2005
The death penalty is draconian - any opportunity for it to be argued and illigitimised to the ignorant masses should be taken advantage of.
Point of clarification: are we the ignorant masses here at Metafilter, or is there some other group to which you're condescending?
posted by blue mustard at 3:16 AM on November 30, 2005
Point of clarification: are we the ignorant masses here at Metafilter, or is there some other group to which you're condescending?
posted by blue mustard at 3:16 AM on November 30, 2005
I think you answered your own question.
Look - I write this stuff generally, remove your fucking ego from the debate for one second and consider the issue.
Would it really matter if I accused you, bleu moutard, of being ignorant? No.
Am I not calling myself ignorant by association? So what.
The answer to your question based on my absolutely poor english (it seems) is this: if you have a particularly simplistic stand on this issue, have no concern about it, it doesn't effect your day-to-day life, think that people should be put to death for whatever reason - then you are ignorant of the issue (in my view).
The only legacy of this guy's obviously meaningless life is a debate on the validity of capital punishment, and you want to spend time arguing semantics on the pretense that I've condescended to the well meaning people of metafilter - which is clearly and patently untrue.
Anyway - aren't ignorant people allowed to join metafilter? No one stopped me.
posted by strawberryviagra at 3:52 AM on November 30, 2005
Look - I write this stuff generally, remove your fucking ego from the debate for one second and consider the issue.
Would it really matter if I accused you, bleu moutard, of being ignorant? No.
Am I not calling myself ignorant by association? So what.
The answer to your question based on my absolutely poor english (it seems) is this: if you have a particularly simplistic stand on this issue, have no concern about it, it doesn't effect your day-to-day life, think that people should be put to death for whatever reason - then you are ignorant of the issue (in my view).
The only legacy of this guy's obviously meaningless life is a debate on the validity of capital punishment, and you want to spend time arguing semantics on the pretense that I've condescended to the well meaning people of metafilter - which is clearly and patently untrue.
Anyway - aren't ignorant people allowed to join metafilter? No one stopped me.
posted by strawberryviagra at 3:52 AM on November 30, 2005
I agree that everyone knows, or should know, about Singapore's draconian drug laws and should not get into that mess in the first place.
But has anyone ever thought about how easy it would be for someone else to slip some drugs into your luggage as you were on the way to Singapore, and how difficult it would be to prove your innocence. And how much you might suffer for that, even on the small chance that you were eventually cleared? (And there are a lot of reasons for someone to do something like that too; I don' t think it's too unrealistic) I'm not particularly opposed to the death penalty for violent crimes, but for something like drug smuggling...that really bothers me.
posted by banishedimmortal at 6:29 AM on November 30, 2005
But has anyone ever thought about how easy it would be for someone else to slip some drugs into your luggage as you were on the way to Singapore, and how difficult it would be to prove your innocence. And how much you might suffer for that, even on the small chance that you were eventually cleared? (And there are a lot of reasons for someone to do something like that too; I don' t think it's too unrealistic) I'm not particularly opposed to the death penalty for violent crimes, but for something like drug smuggling...that really bothers me.
posted by banishedimmortal at 6:29 AM on November 30, 2005
It's 2005 for fuck's sake.
Not in Singapore, apparently.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:39 AM on November 30, 2005
Not in Singapore, apparently.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:39 AM on November 30, 2005
strawberryviagra's point is so obviously true, it really doesn't matter that you know the laws beforehand, or how stupid you are for breaching them, the punishment is still inhuman and hugely disproportionate to the crime. That's the issue, no?
No one responded to the hanging of the gay kids in Iran with a "it's the law of that country, they should have known beforehand".
posted by funambulist at 7:08 AM on November 30, 2005
No one responded to the hanging of the gay kids in Iran with a "it's the law of that country, they should have known beforehand".
posted by funambulist at 7:08 AM on November 30, 2005
Not in Singapore, apparently.
Again, Singapore isn't exactly a lone holdout here.
the punishment is still inhuman and hugely disproportionate to the crime.
Yes, that's the issue.
In part it's a question of where you draw the line. Personally, I draw the line at torture. Other people draw the line at capital punishment.
I'm not so sure that capital punishment is less humane than a long prison sentence, especially one that's not well-run (not to pick on the US, but a male prisoner's chances of getting raped in a US prison are something like 10%).
No one responded to the hanging of the gay kids in Iran with a "it's the law of that country, they should have known beforehand".
People don't choose to be gay.
posted by russilwvong at 11:01 AM on November 30, 2005
Again, Singapore isn't exactly a lone holdout here.
the punishment is still inhuman and hugely disproportionate to the crime.
Yes, that's the issue.
In part it's a question of where you draw the line. Personally, I draw the line at torture. Other people draw the line at capital punishment.
I'm not so sure that capital punishment is less humane than a long prison sentence, especially one that's not well-run (not to pick on the US, but a male prisoner's chances of getting raped in a US prison are something like 10%).
No one responded to the hanging of the gay kids in Iran with a "it's the law of that country, they should have known beforehand".
People don't choose to be gay.
posted by russilwvong at 11:01 AM on November 30, 2005
Well that's news, I thought people smuggled gay pills through customs and that's how they get gay.
Of course it's not the same thing, but the disproportionateness is the same*. That's what I was comparing. Not what is considered a crime in a given country, but how the law deals with it.
*Unless anyone thinks carrying drugs is more akin to rape or murder...
posted by funambulist at 11:16 AM on November 30, 2005
Of course it's not the same thing, but the disproportionateness is the same*. That's what I was comparing. Not what is considered a crime in a given country, but how the law deals with it.
*Unless anyone thinks carrying drugs is more akin to rape or murder...
posted by funambulist at 11:16 AM on November 30, 2005
Unless anyone thinks carrying drugs is more akin to rape or murder...
I can see arguments both ways. Hard drugs (like cocaine and heroin) can and do destroy people's lives in horrific ways. But it can also be argued that drug addicts bear the responsibility for their own destruction, it shouldn't be placed solely on the dealers, the smugglers, and the criminal organizations that supply the drugs, any more than companies selling alcoholic beverages are responsible for alcoholics and drunk drivers.
I can understand the latter argument, but I'm not sure I can really buy it. There's a lot of crack, crystal meth, and heroin addicts in Vancouver's Downtown East Side. It's really sad to see; they're basically human wreckage. It's pretty common to see terrible sores on their faces, from trying to claw out imaginary insects crawling on their faces. I have a hard time believing that they decided to use drugs, knowing that they there was a good chance they would end up this way. In the mid-1990s, hundreds of people were dying from heroin overdoses every year: over 400 in 1998 alone. I'm not a big fan of paternalism, of protecting people from themselves--where do you stop?--but there's something seriously wrong here.
I wouldn't support the death penalty for drug dealers or smugglers here, because I don't think it'd do much good: the death penalty is only an effective deterrent if your chances of getting arrested and convicted are high. But if Singapore's draconian laws are working for them--the prevalence of opiate use in Singapore is supposedly 0.1%--then personally, I don't see why they ought to change it, or why they should make an exception for foreign nationals.
posted by russilwvong at 1:19 PM on November 30, 2005
I can see arguments both ways. Hard drugs (like cocaine and heroin) can and do destroy people's lives in horrific ways. But it can also be argued that drug addicts bear the responsibility for their own destruction, it shouldn't be placed solely on the dealers, the smugglers, and the criminal organizations that supply the drugs, any more than companies selling alcoholic beverages are responsible for alcoholics and drunk drivers.
I can understand the latter argument, but I'm not sure I can really buy it. There's a lot of crack, crystal meth, and heroin addicts in Vancouver's Downtown East Side. It's really sad to see; they're basically human wreckage. It's pretty common to see terrible sores on their faces, from trying to claw out imaginary insects crawling on their faces. I have a hard time believing that they decided to use drugs, knowing that they there was a good chance they would end up this way. In the mid-1990s, hundreds of people were dying from heroin overdoses every year: over 400 in 1998 alone. I'm not a big fan of paternalism, of protecting people from themselves--where do you stop?--but there's something seriously wrong here.
I wouldn't support the death penalty for drug dealers or smugglers here, because I don't think it'd do much good: the death penalty is only an effective deterrent if your chances of getting arrested and convicted are high. But if Singapore's draconian laws are working for them--the prevalence of opiate use in Singapore is supposedly 0.1%--then personally, I don't see why they ought to change it, or why they should make an exception for foreign nationals.
posted by russilwvong at 1:19 PM on November 30, 2005
"It should simply be a matter of ordinary humanity."
posted by strawberryviagra at 2:39 PM on November 30, 2005
posted by strawberryviagra at 2:39 PM on November 30, 2005
strawberryviagra,
I don't agree with this particular law, as I don't see it being much of a deterrent, for reasons that should be all to obvious right now. Nonetheless, Nguyen is an idiot, and I feel little sympathy for him. Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia all regularly execute drug traffickers, and this is pretty common knowledge. Furthermore, having lived in Singapore myself, you are made very aware of the consequences of bringing drugs into the country.
posted by drstrangelove at 3:47 PM on November 30, 2005
I don't agree with this particular law, as I don't see it being much of a deterrent, for reasons that should be all to obvious right now. Nonetheless, Nguyen is an idiot, and I feel little sympathy for him. Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia all regularly execute drug traffickers, and this is pretty common knowledge. Furthermore, having lived in Singapore myself, you are made very aware of the consequences of bringing drugs into the country.
posted by drstrangelove at 3:47 PM on November 30, 2005
It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed. It was once considered foolish to suppose that black men were really human beings and ought to be treated as such. What was once foolish has now become a recognized truth. Today it is considered as exaggeration to proclaim constant respect for every form of life as being the serious demand of a rational ethic. But the time is coming when people will be amazed that the human race existed so long before it recognized that thoughtless injury to life is incompatible with real ethics. Ethics is, in its unqualified form, extended responsibility to everything that has life.
--Dr. Albert Schweitzer
posted by strawberryviagra at 4:34 PM on November 30, 2005
--Dr. Albert Schweitzer
posted by strawberryviagra at 4:34 PM on November 30, 2005
strawberryviagra, I don't think (m)any people are disagreeing with you. It's just that the two issues are separate. Yes, the death penalty is Bad (morally, practically, economically, etc.) and yes, Singapore's particular practices with criminals are additionally barbaric. But that is only tangentally related to the other point, which is that (basically) you've got to be a complete idiot to be a Heroin Mule in Singapore.
Analogy alert
If someone built a basketball court inside a blast furnace, that'd be pretty irresponsible and amoral. Also, you'd have to be a fucking moron to shoot hoops there.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:55 PM on November 30, 2005
Analogy alert
If someone built a basketball court inside a blast furnace, that'd be pretty irresponsible and amoral. Also, you'd have to be a fucking moron to shoot hoops there.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:55 PM on November 30, 2005
It would be amoral for the person who built the basketball court to throw the switch and vaporise the moron shooting hoops.
The moron doesn't deserve to be vaporised - unless the law stated that morons should be vaporised - then that would be the subject of debate.
If we revisit the argument that was used to allow people to feel a sense of comfort about this particular situation, then the 2 issues are inextricably linked.
I'm keen to understand how fellow humans can feel at ease with the use capital punishment (even conditionally) - I just can't get my head around it.
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:24 PM on November 30, 2005
The moron doesn't deserve to be vaporised - unless the law stated that morons should be vaporised - then that would be the subject of debate.
If we revisit the argument that was used to allow people to feel a sense of comfort about this particular situation, then the 2 issues are inextricably linked.
I'm keen to understand how fellow humans can feel at ease with the use capital punishment (even conditionally) - I just can't get my head around it.
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:24 PM on November 30, 2005
I just can't get my head around it.
I don't think that's what's going on here. I think it's more a fait accompli: that is, given that some places are run in a fucked up manner, what decisions can you make to try and minimize or eliminate the threat to yourself?
For example, I know that it's perfectly within my rights to take pictures of people on the streets, and I know that it's illegal to beat people up. And yet I still have to be careful to avoid pissing some off ignorant Neandertal who doesn't like having his picture taken. It's not that the discussion on rights isn't necessary, or even related, but that it's inconsequential at that point.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:05 PM on November 30, 2005
I don't think that's what's going on here. I think it's more a fait accompli: that is, given that some places are run in a fucked up manner, what decisions can you make to try and minimize or eliminate the threat to yourself?
For example, I know that it's perfectly within my rights to take pictures of people on the streets, and I know that it's illegal to beat people up. And yet I still have to be careful to avoid pissing some off ignorant Neandertal who doesn't like having his picture taken. It's not that the discussion on rights isn't necessary, or even related, but that it's inconsequential at that point.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:05 PM on November 30, 2005
I understand your concept - I'm perplexing about the approach to the arguments (in general, that are used in defence of capital punishment).
I'm stuck with this inertia - the intolerable anxiety and the steely resolve.
Only hours to go.
posted by strawberryviagra at 7:10 PM on November 30, 2005
I'm stuck with this inertia - the intolerable anxiety and the steely resolve.
Only hours to go.
posted by strawberryviagra at 7:10 PM on November 30, 2005
At least now you're much less of an arsehole than you were last night.
Something to read while you wait. A Singaporean explains this is all about "face." Nguyen's death was avoidable, he says, if the Australian government had acted before the trial with quiet diplomacy. It could have cut a deal, asked for favors, etc. But once the trial started, the judges were bound to apply the mandatory death penalty in a public judgment. And then the Singaporean government was locked into upholding its law against foreign pressure or lose face.
Against "loss of face," foreign media pressure is particularly counterproductive. The more outcry, he says, the less Singapore will bend. But there were ways out earlier on.
As for trying to understand the mentality behind people who do support the death penalty, step out of this particular case and put yourself in the place of a family who lost a loved one to a murderer on death row (who was actually guilty and properly convicted, so there's no question of innocence or poor process). In that case, I'd think, the capacity to forgive and not demand to see him die horribly may not be within the reach of most of us. It's supposed to be a human capacity, but I think it's probably SUPER-human since it takes the rare individual to reject the opportunity to extract emotional retribution for devastating loss.
posted by enakaja at 8:52 PM on November 30, 2005
Something to read while you wait. A Singaporean explains this is all about "face." Nguyen's death was avoidable, he says, if the Australian government had acted before the trial with quiet diplomacy. It could have cut a deal, asked for favors, etc. But once the trial started, the judges were bound to apply the mandatory death penalty in a public judgment. And then the Singaporean government was locked into upholding its law against foreign pressure or lose face.
Against "loss of face," foreign media pressure is particularly counterproductive. The more outcry, he says, the less Singapore will bend. But there were ways out earlier on.
As for trying to understand the mentality behind people who do support the death penalty, step out of this particular case and put yourself in the place of a family who lost a loved one to a murderer on death row (who was actually guilty and properly convicted, so there's no question of innocence or poor process). In that case, I'd think, the capacity to forgive and not demand to see him die horribly may not be within the reach of most of us. It's supposed to be a human capacity, but I think it's probably SUPER-human since it takes the rare individual to reject the opportunity to extract emotional retribution for devastating loss.
posted by enakaja at 8:52 PM on November 30, 2005
You're right.
It was really about me losing my face. So important, this face of mine (more important than anything else).
Here's something "SUPER-human" for you - I'm sorry for being an "arsehole" to you last night.
Will you still respect me in the morning (a few seconds before sunrise)?
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:40 PM on November 30, 2005
It was really about me losing my face. So important, this face of mine (more important than anything else).
Here's something "SUPER-human" for you - I'm sorry for being an "arsehole" to you last night.
Will you still respect me in the morning (a few seconds before sunrise)?
posted by strawberryviagra at 9:40 PM on November 30, 2005
Civil_Disobedient: yes the two issues are indeed separate, but the feeling I'm getting here, from those who were too keen to point out the obvious fact that you have to be a reckless moron to dare defy laws that are so draconian, is that they're using that observation to shrug it all off. Once you say "I don't feel sympathy for him because he was a moron" you're reducing the issue of death penalty for drug smuggling to a matter of personal feelings. The harshness and proportionality of a penalty is not predicated on how much sympathy people feel for the criminal, no matter how small or big the crime they committed.
enakaja: it's not about forgiving. This is two different notions of the law probably. Many countries do not have the death penalty and no one wants it back. So people there are just used to the fact the legal system doesn't kill people no matter how terrible the things they've done. It's a given. You don't even think about it. You may feel justified hatred for the criminal and never forgive what they did, but you just know the law isn't there to serve your personal feelings, and there are principles bigger than that single case. You accept the retribution is not up to you. You just accept you can't strangle the perp with your own hands even if you want to and even if you had good reason to. There's nothing superhuman about it.
posted by funambulist at 12:53 AM on December 1, 2005
enakaja: it's not about forgiving. This is two different notions of the law probably. Many countries do not have the death penalty and no one wants it back. So people there are just used to the fact the legal system doesn't kill people no matter how terrible the things they've done. It's a given. You don't even think about it. You may feel justified hatred for the criminal and never forgive what they did, but you just know the law isn't there to serve your personal feelings, and there are principles bigger than that single case. You accept the retribution is not up to you. You just accept you can't strangle the perp with your own hands even if you want to and even if you had good reason to. There's nothing superhuman about it.
posted by funambulist at 12:53 AM on December 1, 2005
Just before I go to bed I would like to leave you all with an image that, if possible, is even more disturbing than a young man being put to death because he was "stupid".
What rhymes with Singapore?
posted by nasim at 3:40 AM on December 1, 2005
What rhymes with Singapore?
posted by nasim at 3:40 AM on December 1, 2005
The harshness and proportionality of a penalty is not predicated on how much sympathy people feel for the criminal, no matter how small or big the crime they committed.
I agree with this statement completely, but it cuts both ways. That many people feel sympathy for the criminal is not (by itself) a just reason to be lenient. In the US (which is what I'm familiar with), the justice system can be very unfair: people with resources have an incredible advantage, while those with no resources tend to be penalized the most. This is not, in my opinion, the way it should work. If there is going to be a penalty (whether death or something else), it should be applied without predjudice to all who are convicted, without regard to wealth or status. This man has Queens Counsels arguing for him, foreign embassies lined up in support, and huge corporate media machines applying global pressure. But despite all these resources pounding them, Singaporeans are following the rule of law and Nguyen Tuong Van is being treated like all the other drug traffickers before him.
The drug trafficking laws in Singapore have been in effect for nearly three decades and have been used with similar results on many similarly sad cases. Why should this be a special case? There seems to be no doubt of his guilt, and no extenuating circumstances, unless you consider his being Australian as one. (By the way, where were all the vocal Australians when all the other drug traffickers were executed in Singapore in the last twenty five years?) No, I don't believe Australians should get special treatment: justice should be blind to nationality too.
The man made a dumb, desparate mistake in the wrong place. It is sad indeed, but I can understand why Singapore wants and needs to deter drug trafficking, and I respect their right to enforce their laws in a fair and just manner.
posted by blue mustard at 4:27 AM on December 1, 2005
I agree with this statement completely, but it cuts both ways. That many people feel sympathy for the criminal is not (by itself) a just reason to be lenient. In the US (which is what I'm familiar with), the justice system can be very unfair: people with resources have an incredible advantage, while those with no resources tend to be penalized the most. This is not, in my opinion, the way it should work. If there is going to be a penalty (whether death or something else), it should be applied without predjudice to all who are convicted, without regard to wealth or status. This man has Queens Counsels arguing for him, foreign embassies lined up in support, and huge corporate media machines applying global pressure. But despite all these resources pounding them, Singaporeans are following the rule of law and Nguyen Tuong Van is being treated like all the other drug traffickers before him.
The drug trafficking laws in Singapore have been in effect for nearly three decades and have been used with similar results on many similarly sad cases. Why should this be a special case? There seems to be no doubt of his guilt, and no extenuating circumstances, unless you consider his being Australian as one. (By the way, where were all the vocal Australians when all the other drug traffickers were executed in Singapore in the last twenty five years?) No, I don't believe Australians should get special treatment: justice should be blind to nationality too.
The man made a dumb, desparate mistake in the wrong place. It is sad indeed, but I can understand why Singapore wants and needs to deter drug trafficking, and I respect their right to enforce their laws in a fair and just manner.
posted by blue mustard at 4:27 AM on December 1, 2005
That reminds me of a Myers-Briggs question...
Which is the stronger quality: fairness or mercy?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:51 AM on December 1, 2005
Which is the stronger quality: fairness or mercy?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:51 AM on December 1, 2005
Where is it argued (assuming you're responding to comments within this thread) that he should be shown leniency because he is an Australian?
Listen, I'm a human, Singaporeans are humans - even Americans are humans - which gives us the right to question each other's modus operandi. Barbarity should not be allowed to hide behind culture or religion (particularly in progressive societies).
Spend a little time thinking about the bigger picture. Do you even know who Sacco and Venzetti were?
This thread is so utterly depressing - to have to argue these points ...
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:08 AM on December 1, 2005
Listen, I'm a human, Singaporeans are humans - even Americans are humans - which gives us the right to question each other's modus operandi. Barbarity should not be allowed to hide behind culture or religion (particularly in progressive societies).
Spend a little time thinking about the bigger picture. Do you even know who Sacco and Venzetti were?
This thread is so utterly depressing - to have to argue these points ...
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:08 AM on December 1, 2005
.
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:09 AM on December 1, 2005
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:09 AM on December 1, 2005
"Barbarity" comes in many forms. Crime can be barbaric and that the fair administration of justice can reduce this barbarity. I believe that the death penalty, in and of itself, is not barbaric, and that is where we differ.
By the way, I'm really not a death penalty zealot. I would gladly vote for any American politician who promises a moriatorium on the death penalty here, because I think we're terrible at administering it. We have some fundamental problems that need to be fixed first.
As for the Australian element to this, I'll just say that if this man were Malaysian rather than Australian I don't think there would be nearly as many objections. This is pure speculation though, so what do I know. I do recognize that you and others are arguing primarily that the death penalty is wrong, and that his nationality is not a part of these arguments, but forgive me if I perceive some bias in the overall situation.
posted by blue mustard at 5:54 AM on December 1, 2005
By the way, I'm really not a death penalty zealot. I would gladly vote for any American politician who promises a moriatorium on the death penalty here, because I think we're terrible at administering it. We have some fundamental problems that need to be fixed first.
As for the Australian element to this, I'll just say that if this man were Malaysian rather than Australian I don't think there would be nearly as many objections. This is pure speculation though, so what do I know. I do recognize that you and others are arguing primarily that the death penalty is wrong, and that his nationality is not a part of these arguments, but forgive me if I perceive some bias in the overall situation.
posted by blue mustard at 5:54 AM on December 1, 2005
I agree with this statement completely, but it cuts both ways. That many people feel sympathy for the criminal is not (by itself) a just reason to be lenient.
blue mustard says it a lot more eloquently than I could.
Barbarity should not be allowed to hide behind culture or religion (particularly in progressive societies).
I suppose. Here in Canada, where the death penalty was abolished in 1976, support for reintroducing the death penalty is still about 50%. In Australia, it's not much different (PDF, see the graph on page 4). So not everyone agrees that the death penalty is barbaric, even in progressive countries.
I'm keen to understand how fellow humans can feel at ease with the use capital punishment (even conditionally) - I just can't get my head around it.
For drug trafficking specifically? Or do you mean in general, e.g. for murder?
Libertarian Lewis Napper, The Bill of No Rights:
ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.
posted by russilwvong at 10:56 AM on December 1, 2005
blue mustard says it a lot more eloquently than I could.
Barbarity should not be allowed to hide behind culture or religion (particularly in progressive societies).
I suppose. Here in Canada, where the death penalty was abolished in 1976, support for reintroducing the death penalty is still about 50%. In Australia, it's not much different (PDF, see the graph on page 4). So not everyone agrees that the death penalty is barbaric, even in progressive countries.
I'm keen to understand how fellow humans can feel at ease with the use capital punishment (even conditionally) - I just can't get my head around it.
For drug trafficking specifically? Or do you mean in general, e.g. for murder?
Libertarian Lewis Napper, The Bill of No Rights:
ARTICLE VI
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.
posted by russilwvong at 10:56 AM on December 1, 2005
blue mustard, you're addressing something I never said - in order, I never said this guy should be treated as a special case just because he's Australian; and I never said the laws should be lenient; and between lenient and death penalty, there's quite a lot of room; and I don't feel any particular sympathy for him that I wouldn't feel for anyone of any nationality that is subject to inhuman, grossly disproportionate punishment, sorry to be repetitive but that's the point here.
All this going on about how stupid he was, it makes no bloody difference. I for one don't have a big ethical problem with drug smugglers because as long as people want to take drugs, there'll be those who provide them and no one's forcing anyone to do crack. But of course I do accept it is illegal, I don't accept it should warrant the death penalty. I know no talking about it will do anything, not even direct political pressures seem to work, but since we're discussing principles, well, the principle at stake here has nothing to do with knowing the risks associated with breaking those laws. The problem is those laws.
I'll just say that if this man were Malaysian rather than Australian I don't think there would be nearly as many objections.
No, it just got more attention in Australia because of that, obviously, so there are more objections in that respect. If it's already impossible to put external pressures on the Singapore government when it's about foreign nationals, then it's even more impossible when it's their own citizens so you wouldn't even have those external government pressures. You'd only have ngo's campaigning, foreign governments would leave the issue well alone.
posted by funambulist at 12:03 PM on December 1, 2005
All this going on about how stupid he was, it makes no bloody difference. I for one don't have a big ethical problem with drug smugglers because as long as people want to take drugs, there'll be those who provide them and no one's forcing anyone to do crack. But of course I do accept it is illegal, I don't accept it should warrant the death penalty. I know no talking about it will do anything, not even direct political pressures seem to work, but since we're discussing principles, well, the principle at stake here has nothing to do with knowing the risks associated with breaking those laws. The problem is those laws.
I'll just say that if this man were Malaysian rather than Australian I don't think there would be nearly as many objections.
No, it just got more attention in Australia because of that, obviously, so there are more objections in that respect. If it's already impossible to put external pressures on the Singapore government when it's about foreign nationals, then it's even more impossible when it's their own citizens so you wouldn't even have those external government pressures. You'd only have ngo's campaigning, foreign governments would leave the issue well alone.
posted by funambulist at 12:03 PM on December 1, 2005
I for one don't have a big ethical problem with drug smugglers because as long as people want to take drugs, there'll be those who provide them and no one's forcing anyone to do crack.
I don't think it's that simple, because crack, heroin, and other hard drugs are highly addictive. Yes, you have a choice whether to start; but once you're addicted, you don't have much choice but to continue. There's ugly stories coming out of Vancouver about pimps getting teenage girls addicted to crack, so that they can be recruited into prostitution. (See page 17 of this report. I also ran across this story about a 14-year-old meth addict while doing the search.)
I don't know whether that justifies the death penalty for drug smuggling, but it's not obvious to me that it's disproportionate. Nor is it obvious to me what makes the death penalty so inhumane, more so than a long prison sentence, or for that matter the life of a heroin, crack, or meth addict. I don't really buy the argument that it's their own fault.
According to this poll, roughly half of the Australian population supports Nguyen's execution.
posted by russilwvong at 1:05 PM on December 1, 2005
I don't think it's that simple, because crack, heroin, and other hard drugs are highly addictive. Yes, you have a choice whether to start; but once you're addicted, you don't have much choice but to continue. There's ugly stories coming out of Vancouver about pimps getting teenage girls addicted to crack, so that they can be recruited into prostitution. (See page 17 of this report. I also ran across this story about a 14-year-old meth addict while doing the search.)
I don't know whether that justifies the death penalty for drug smuggling, but it's not obvious to me that it's disproportionate. Nor is it obvious to me what makes the death penalty so inhumane, more so than a long prison sentence, or for that matter the life of a heroin, crack, or meth addict. I don't really buy the argument that it's their own fault.
According to this poll, roughly half of the Australian population supports Nguyen's execution.
posted by russilwvong at 1:05 PM on December 1, 2005
Reading through some user-contributed comments:
The fact the majority of Australians were outraged that the Bali bombers were not sentenced to death, means we would be hypocritical to allow any sort of tribute for Nguyen. Why have remorse for somebody who knowingly breaks the law and whose actions would have negatively impacted on Australian society due to the amount of heroin trying to be smuggled in? If anything is to be gained from Nguyen's death, let it be to act as a deterrent for other drug runners anywhere in the world. Rest in Peace Nguyen.
I hadn't clued in that he was trying to smuggle the drugs into Australia.
(Note that according to Wikipedia, a number of people involved in the Bali bombings were in fact sentenced to death.)
posted by russilwvong at 1:27 PM on December 1, 2005
The fact the majority of Australians were outraged that the Bali bombers were not sentenced to death, means we would be hypocritical to allow any sort of tribute for Nguyen. Why have remorse for somebody who knowingly breaks the law and whose actions would have negatively impacted on Australian society due to the amount of heroin trying to be smuggled in? If anything is to be gained from Nguyen's death, let it be to act as a deterrent for other drug runners anywhere in the world. Rest in Peace Nguyen.
I hadn't clued in that he was trying to smuggle the drugs into Australia.
(Note that according to Wikipedia, a number of people involved in the Bali bombings were in fact sentenced to death.)
posted by russilwvong at 1:27 PM on December 1, 2005
russilwong, there's other legal things that are highly addictive too, including legal (medical) drugs, so... But I'm not saying that to "blame" people who get addicted, I'm not interested in assigning fault at all. It's just that drug dealers are not creating a demand out of nowhere, they're providing something that will always be in high demand. And you can change the substance, it doesn't change that kind of demand. It will always be there. Rationally, we should deal with it differently.
But that really is another discussion, it doesn't have any bearing on my view of this issue of the death penalty in general or in this case.
It's not just that it's inhumane, there's a lot of other reasons against it, not going to get into that now.
At least I can understand the support for it in cases of murder. I can't really when it's about something like this.
posted by funambulist at 1:33 PM on December 1, 2005
But that really is another discussion, it doesn't have any bearing on my view of this issue of the death penalty in general or in this case.
It's not just that it's inhumane, there's a lot of other reasons against it, not going to get into that now.
At least I can understand the support for it in cases of murder. I can't really when it's about something like this.
posted by funambulist at 1:33 PM on December 1, 2005
I was at the vigil in Martin Place last night. The Rev. Bill Crewes gave a very moving speech saying that this hanging diminishes all of us. Nguyen is dead now.
posted by tellurian at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2005
posted by tellurian at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2005
RIP.
posted by russilwvong at 2:29 PM on December 1, 2005
posted by russilwvong at 2:29 PM on December 1, 2005
I'm not saying that to "blame" people who get addicted, I'm not interested in assigning fault at all. It's just that drug dealers are not creating a demand out of nowhere, they're providing something that will always be in high demand. And you can change the substance, it doesn't change that kind of demand. It will always be there. Rationally, we should deal with it differently.
I suppose. I'm not sure there's a better example we can point to, though. The Netherlands, perhaps? Germany? (They're sometimes mentioned as models in discussions of the drug problem in Vancouver.)
Again, Singapore's rate of opiate use is 0.1%. In comparison, the UK's is 0.7%; the extra 0.6% corresponds to an additional 240,000 people in the UK who are using opiates. (I assume that mostly means heroin; a more personal view of heroin from thegus.)
It's not just that it's inhumane, there's a lot of other reasons against it, not going to get into that now.
Understood; but I'd still be interested in knowing why you think the death penalty is inhumane, regardless of the other reasons against it (e.g. the difficulty of applying it fairly, available alternatives such as Canada's dangerous offender designation).
posted by russilwvong at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2005
I suppose. I'm not sure there's a better example we can point to, though. The Netherlands, perhaps? Germany? (They're sometimes mentioned as models in discussions of the drug problem in Vancouver.)
Again, Singapore's rate of opiate use is 0.1%. In comparison, the UK's is 0.7%; the extra 0.6% corresponds to an additional 240,000 people in the UK who are using opiates. (I assume that mostly means heroin; a more personal view of heroin from thegus.)
It's not just that it's inhumane, there's a lot of other reasons against it, not going to get into that now.
Understood; but I'd still be interested in knowing why you think the death penalty is inhumane, regardless of the other reasons against it (e.g. the difficulty of applying it fairly, available alternatives such as Canada's dangerous offender designation).
posted by russilwvong at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2005
Russil, the numbers that support the death penalty in Australia for Australians, from the same Morgan poll you quoted, are 27%. Quite a minority, still too large for me, but moral pygmies exist in all societies.
Anyway, it's all academic for the Nguyen family.
posted by wilful at 4:33 PM on December 1, 2005
Anyway, it's all academic for the Nguyen family.
posted by wilful at 4:33 PM on December 1, 2005
Thanks for pointing that out. It's quite a drop from 2003 (when it was 47% for, 34% against). Here's the poll results.
To be honest, it seems to me that such big shifts aren't so much a sign of moral progress as a sign that public sentiment can undergo rapid swings, depending on the latest news.
Anyway, it's all academic for the Nguyen family.
I'm sure there'll be similar cases in the future. It's still worth talking about. Maybe people reading this thread (now or in the future) will be convinced one way or the other. So far, my view is still that torture is inhumane, but the death penalty isn't.
What's the argument that the death penalty--after a fair trial--is inherently inhumane? Maybe I'm just a moral pygmy (like half of the Canadian population, apparently), but execution simply doesn't cause me the same revulsion that torture does.
posted by russilwvong at 5:02 PM on December 1, 2005
To be honest, it seems to me that such big shifts aren't so much a sign of moral progress as a sign that public sentiment can undergo rapid swings, depending on the latest news.
Anyway, it's all academic for the Nguyen family.
I'm sure there'll be similar cases in the future. It's still worth talking about. Maybe people reading this thread (now or in the future) will be convinced one way or the other. So far, my view is still that torture is inhumane, but the death penalty isn't.
What's the argument that the death penalty--after a fair trial--is inherently inhumane? Maybe I'm just a moral pygmy (like half of the Canadian population, apparently), but execution simply doesn't cause me the same revulsion that torture does.
posted by russilwvong at 5:02 PM on December 1, 2005
People don't choose to be gay.
Ateqeh Rajabi chose to break the law by "committing acts inconsistent with chastity", and was hung for it. Serves her right, eh Russ?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:50 PM on December 1, 2005
Ateqeh Rajabi chose to break the law by "committing acts inconsistent with chastity", and was hung for it. Serves her right, eh Russ?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:50 PM on December 1, 2005
No, because I regard drug trafficking as a miuch more serious crime than sex outside marriage (or being gay). I'm not claiming that capital punishment is never a grossly disproportionate punishment, only that it's not obvious to me that it's disproportionate in the Nguyen case.
posted by russilwvong at 10:50 PM on December 1, 2005
posted by russilwvong at 10:50 PM on December 1, 2005
Again, Singapore's rate of opiate use is 0.1%. In comparison, the UK's is 0.7%; the extra 0.6% corresponds to an additional 240,000 people in the UK who are using opiates.
Ok then Russilwong, it's clear we need to enforce the death penalty for drug smuggling in the UK too. -hilarity ensues-
No, I know - well I guess - that's not what you're saying, so what's the point? First, you can't be sure that the correlation is direct causation - that the death penalty is the one reason that Singaporeans do less smack. But let's assume it is. Let's assume the same direct effect could be applied to smoking, alcohol, let's have the death penalty not just for selling but for smoking and drinking, then rates of smokers and alcoholics would go down too. Let's picture it working just like that.
How is that an argument in favour of the death penalty for drug trafficking, which may be a crime unlike being gay or having sex, but is nowhere near murder?
What's the argument that the death penalty--after a fair trial--is inherently inhumane?
If you're genuinely that unaware of the arguments and are interested in knowing more, then just go forth and read a bit about the issue! You can't seriously expect to start a discussion from scratch with such a question. And it can't be "regardless" of the other reasons, they all add up.
posted by funambulist at 1:41 AM on December 2, 2005
Ok then Russilwong, it's clear we need to enforce the death penalty for drug smuggling in the UK too. -hilarity ensues-
No, I know - well I guess - that's not what you're saying, so what's the point? First, you can't be sure that the correlation is direct causation - that the death penalty is the one reason that Singaporeans do less smack. But let's assume it is. Let's assume the same direct effect could be applied to smoking, alcohol, let's have the death penalty not just for selling but for smoking and drinking, then rates of smokers and alcoholics would go down too. Let's picture it working just like that.
How is that an argument in favour of the death penalty for drug trafficking, which may be a crime unlike being gay or having sex, but is nowhere near murder?
What's the argument that the death penalty--after a fair trial--is inherently inhumane?
If you're genuinely that unaware of the arguments and are interested in knowing more, then just go forth and read a bit about the issue! You can't seriously expect to start a discussion from scratch with such a question. And it can't be "regardless" of the other reasons, they all add up.
posted by funambulist at 1:41 AM on December 2, 2005
I don't know what it is, but when I read your posts russilvwrong, a robotic voice enters my head..
posted by strawberryviagra at 3:23 AM on December 2, 2005
posted by strawberryviagra at 3:23 AM on December 2, 2005
I can understand why the Singaporeans think that the death penalty is a proportional punishment for drug trafficking. If you're genuinely that unaware of the arguments and are interested in knowing more, then just go forth and read a bit about the issue!
I would write more, but I'm not going to because I'm tired of your condescending and insulting attitudes. "Ignorant masses", "moral pygmies", "robotic voices": it's clear that you are all morally superior than everybody else, so what's the point of continuing the discussion.
RIP Nguyen Tuong Van.
posted by blue mustard at 4:57 AM on December 2, 2005
I would write more, but I'm not going to because I'm tired of your condescending and insulting attitudes. "Ignorant masses", "moral pygmies", "robotic voices": it's clear that you are all morally superior than everybody else, so what's the point of continuing the discussion.
RIP Nguyen Tuong Van.
posted by blue mustard at 4:57 AM on December 2, 2005
blue mustard, you're quoting one phrase of mine - "read a bit more" together with other stuff I never said. I'm speaking for myself, you know?
All I meant with that "read more" is that asking "what's the argument against the death penalty" or "why is it considered inhumane" strikes me as a very bizarre question for someone who already has an opinion on the matter. It's not like something that's never ever been debated is it?
Even the strongest supporters of capital punishment know the objections, from ethical to legal to practical, they just disagree with them. Am I supposed to provide a list of arguments even for something as blindingly obvious as what is humane/inhumane punishment? Sorry, I'm not here to lecture or convert anyone, just stating my opinion, and if someone thinks long jail sentences are less humane than executions, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because there's no shared notion of the meaning of inhumane there.
RIP Nguyen Tuong Van.
Yeah, he is a moron and asked for it, but let's shed a tear for the poor bastard. That's very nice.
posted by funambulist at 6:32 AM on December 2, 2005
All I meant with that "read more" is that asking "what's the argument against the death penalty" or "why is it considered inhumane" strikes me as a very bizarre question for someone who already has an opinion on the matter. It's not like something that's never ever been debated is it?
Even the strongest supporters of capital punishment know the objections, from ethical to legal to practical, they just disagree with them. Am I supposed to provide a list of arguments even for something as blindingly obvious as what is humane/inhumane punishment? Sorry, I'm not here to lecture or convert anyone, just stating my opinion, and if someone thinks long jail sentences are less humane than executions, we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because there's no shared notion of the meaning of inhumane there.
RIP Nguyen Tuong Van.
Yeah, he is a moron and asked for it, but let's shed a tear for the poor bastard. That's very nice.
posted by funambulist at 6:32 AM on December 2, 2005
I don't know what it is, but when I read your posts russilwvong, a robotic voice enters my head.
That was actually pretty funny, sv. (I realize the death penalty is no laughing matter.)
... "what's the argument against the death penalty" or "why is it considered inhumane" strikes me as a very bizarre question for someone who already has an opinion on the matter.
Let me give an example. I recently read Hilary Mantel's NYRB review of Sister Jean Prejean's The Death of Innocents. She summarizes:
Now we know what's wrong: racial bias, bias against the poor, inept counsel, overzealous prosecutors trying to make a name, self-serving judges, missing witnesses, careless science, coerced confessions. Add in the use of jailhouse informants, the propensity of police officers to lie, and their evident inability to reason about the facts of a case, and you have a recipe for the continuing conviction and death of innocent people.
But I don't know how well, if at all, these arguments against the death penalty apply to Singapore. That's why I want to know what your view of the death penalty as inherently inhumane is based on. Is it that the mental torment a prisoner facing the death penalty goes through is inhumane in itself? Or is it more like the reasons that Mantel enumerates--that human fallibility means you can't administer the death penalty justly? (That's true, but that also applies to lesser punishments such as incarceration. Yes, it's irreversible; but you can't turn back time and restore 20 years of youth to an unjustly incarcerated prisoner, either.)
How is that an argument in favour of the death penalty for drug trafficking, which may be a crime unlike being gay or having sex, but is nowhere near murder?
As I've argued above, I wouldn't so easily dismiss the argument that drug trafficking is nearly as serious as murder. If you're ever in Vancouver, go to Hastings and Main (if you're a woman, don't go by yourself, bring someone along--violent crime isn't generally a big problem here, but don't take any chances), and take a good look at the drug addicts there. These people had regular lives once. They were destroyed by drugs. Of the 6000-10000 heroin addicts, 20% will become HIV-positive in the next year. 371 people died in Vancouver's Downtown East Side from overdoses in a single year, 1998.
Yes, I know that the drug addicts have to bear some responsibility themselves. But it seems to me that governmental crimes of omission (in this case, Canada's failure to protect potential drug addicts from themselves) can easily be as serious, or far more serious, as crimes of commission (Singapore's execution of drug smugglers). And with respect to drug addiction, at least, Singapore is doing a hell of a lot better than Canada is.
I'm not arguing that Canada or the UK ought to adopt Singapore's methods (the whole draconian attitude towards drug use, not just the death penalty), for the simple reason that I doubt they would work here. We have very different societies and political traditions; local problems require local solutions. But conversely, we're not in a good position to say to Singapore that they ought to adopt our methods of controlling drug abuse, because they're not working for us.
At least that's my view from Vancouver, close to the Downtown East Side.
Drug abuse is a huge problem in Vancouver, probably the biggest issue in local politics. I really don't know what the answer is. Our political traditions assume that people are basically responsible for their own decisions. If they choose to become heroin or crack addicts, we're not going to stop them; we can provide safe injection sites, clean needles, even free heroin to keep people from getting HIV or overdosing. But even if we can keep them from dying outright, it's a tragic waste of life.
Yeah, he is a moron and asked for it--
I'd put it differently: he took a big gamble, and lost. (I haven't seen any references to the amount of money he was paid, or promised, to bring the heroin from Cambodia to Australia; I assume it was a lot.)
posted by russilwvong at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2005
That was actually pretty funny, sv. (I realize the death penalty is no laughing matter.)
... "what's the argument against the death penalty" or "why is it considered inhumane" strikes me as a very bizarre question for someone who already has an opinion on the matter.
Let me give an example. I recently read Hilary Mantel's NYRB review of Sister Jean Prejean's The Death of Innocents. She summarizes:
Now we know what's wrong: racial bias, bias against the poor, inept counsel, overzealous prosecutors trying to make a name, self-serving judges, missing witnesses, careless science, coerced confessions. Add in the use of jailhouse informants, the propensity of police officers to lie, and their evident inability to reason about the facts of a case, and you have a recipe for the continuing conviction and death of innocent people.
But I don't know how well, if at all, these arguments against the death penalty apply to Singapore. That's why I want to know what your view of the death penalty as inherently inhumane is based on. Is it that the mental torment a prisoner facing the death penalty goes through is inhumane in itself? Or is it more like the reasons that Mantel enumerates--that human fallibility means you can't administer the death penalty justly? (That's true, but that also applies to lesser punishments such as incarceration. Yes, it's irreversible; but you can't turn back time and restore 20 years of youth to an unjustly incarcerated prisoner, either.)
How is that an argument in favour of the death penalty for drug trafficking, which may be a crime unlike being gay or having sex, but is nowhere near murder?
As I've argued above, I wouldn't so easily dismiss the argument that drug trafficking is nearly as serious as murder. If you're ever in Vancouver, go to Hastings and Main (if you're a woman, don't go by yourself, bring someone along--violent crime isn't generally a big problem here, but don't take any chances), and take a good look at the drug addicts there. These people had regular lives once. They were destroyed by drugs. Of the 6000-10000 heroin addicts, 20% will become HIV-positive in the next year. 371 people died in Vancouver's Downtown East Side from overdoses in a single year, 1998.
Yes, I know that the drug addicts have to bear some responsibility themselves. But it seems to me that governmental crimes of omission (in this case, Canada's failure to protect potential drug addicts from themselves) can easily be as serious, or far more serious, as crimes of commission (Singapore's execution of drug smugglers). And with respect to drug addiction, at least, Singapore is doing a hell of a lot better than Canada is.
I'm not arguing that Canada or the UK ought to adopt Singapore's methods (the whole draconian attitude towards drug use, not just the death penalty), for the simple reason that I doubt they would work here. We have very different societies and political traditions; local problems require local solutions. But conversely, we're not in a good position to say to Singapore that they ought to adopt our methods of controlling drug abuse, because they're not working for us.
At least that's my view from Vancouver, close to the Downtown East Side.
Drug abuse is a huge problem in Vancouver, probably the biggest issue in local politics. I really don't know what the answer is. Our political traditions assume that people are basically responsible for their own decisions. If they choose to become heroin or crack addicts, we're not going to stop them; we can provide safe injection sites, clean needles, even free heroin to keep people from getting HIV or overdosing. But even if we can keep them from dying outright, it's a tragic waste of life.
Yeah, he is a moron and asked for it--
I'd put it differently: he took a big gamble, and lost. (I haven't seen any references to the amount of money he was paid, or promised, to bring the heroin from Cambodia to Australia; I assume it was a lot.)
posted by russilwvong at 10:56 AM on December 2, 2005
russilwvong, believe me, I don't need to go all the way to Canada to know about heroin addiction. I'm not being glib or indifferent to the related problems, I just don't see drug smuggling as the cause. But like I said, it is another discussion. For the sake of argument, let's say I'll agree drug trafficking is what creates drug addicts and should be punished severely. That still doesn't get anywhere near the death penalty. If you put to death someone who carried some smack though customs, what do you do to a serial rapist/child molester/killer etc.?
On the death penalty itself - I'm not trying to be dismssive, its just when you ask me, That's why I want to know what your view of the death penalty as inherently inhumane is based on, well, my reaction is, do you really have to ask? It seems pretty obvious based on the definition of inhumane...
Now, I'm in Europe, and there's no death penalty here, and it's not because Europe is on some higher plane of moral superiority, it's just the history of it, for me it's a given that there is no death penalty anymore, it's something associated to dictatorship, tyranny, etc. I understand it has a different history elsewhere, and it's up to each country to deal with it, then of course there's those who campaign to abolish it everywhere, but ultimately you can't change things from the outside, I accept that. I also understand the concept, again, when we're talking murder. But if a state is in the business of killing people who committed crimes, then it kind of gets contradictory to enforce a law against a crime by committing that crime yourself. It diminishes the moral authority of that legal system.
And essentially, the opposition to it is the very same whether it's someone put to death for being gay in Iran, an Australian caught smuggling drugs in Singapore, or a serial murderer.
The inhumane aspect of it is something larger than the single case. I don't exactly feel sympathy for a killer, do I. I may even wish them a slow painful death. But that's my emotions, they may be completely understandable, rigthful, and valid, but it's not enough to base laws for everybody. If we had no legal systems and everything was up to individuals, then we'd have old fashioned revenge. The death penalty is still the same thing, modernised into a refined legal system. Even if you have the fairest of trials, and defer the revenge to a sophisticated and democratic legal system rather than take it in your own hands, that's what it still boils down to.
So, no, in essence, it has nothing to do with the mental state of a prisoner facing death. That's a side effect. It's the depriving people of life that is the ultimate in inhuman treatment, it's kind of self-explanatory really. Human rights, the highest right is to live. I may not give a damn about the human rights of a someone who murdered 50 people, but I have to accept the principle of having human rights is larger than that.
And yes, the fallibility of the system is another big reason. It is true that fallibility can occur at any level, and yes, it's awful to have miscarriages of justice when someone innocent gets locked up for years. But damn it, at least they're still alive, and while they'll never be able to leave it behind them, they will be able to get out. If you kill people, that's the ultimate in making it impossible to redress any miscarriages of justice that may have occurred. It's so obvious.
That's it in a nutshell, sorry for length and sloppiness, just writing down thoughts like that. I'm not an activist or a campaigner or anything, needless to say there's far better sources for proper arguments against the death penalty, but since you asked for my view, there you go. And I don't consider every single person who supports capital punishment a moral pygmy, I just think they have the wrong reasons and premises (of course, it works both ways, with disagreement. If that's condescention, then I guess no one should have opinions...) And what am I really baffled and saddened about here is the nature of the crime in relation to the punishment, and what seems to me a very dismissive reaction...
I'd put it differently: he took a big gamble, and lost.
But I don't care about that. The issue is not what he did. We can all agree it's reckless to carry drugs into countries where the risk is so huge. It doesn't change the debate on the kind of punishment he faced.
posted by funambulist at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2005
On the death penalty itself - I'm not trying to be dismssive, its just when you ask me, That's why I want to know what your view of the death penalty as inherently inhumane is based on, well, my reaction is, do you really have to ask? It seems pretty obvious based on the definition of inhumane...
Now, I'm in Europe, and there's no death penalty here, and it's not because Europe is on some higher plane of moral superiority, it's just the history of it, for me it's a given that there is no death penalty anymore, it's something associated to dictatorship, tyranny, etc. I understand it has a different history elsewhere, and it's up to each country to deal with it, then of course there's those who campaign to abolish it everywhere, but ultimately you can't change things from the outside, I accept that. I also understand the concept, again, when we're talking murder. But if a state is in the business of killing people who committed crimes, then it kind of gets contradictory to enforce a law against a crime by committing that crime yourself. It diminishes the moral authority of that legal system.
And essentially, the opposition to it is the very same whether it's someone put to death for being gay in Iran, an Australian caught smuggling drugs in Singapore, or a serial murderer.
The inhumane aspect of it is something larger than the single case. I don't exactly feel sympathy for a killer, do I. I may even wish them a slow painful death. But that's my emotions, they may be completely understandable, rigthful, and valid, but it's not enough to base laws for everybody. If we had no legal systems and everything was up to individuals, then we'd have old fashioned revenge. The death penalty is still the same thing, modernised into a refined legal system. Even if you have the fairest of trials, and defer the revenge to a sophisticated and democratic legal system rather than take it in your own hands, that's what it still boils down to.
So, no, in essence, it has nothing to do with the mental state of a prisoner facing death. That's a side effect. It's the depriving people of life that is the ultimate in inhuman treatment, it's kind of self-explanatory really. Human rights, the highest right is to live. I may not give a damn about the human rights of a someone who murdered 50 people, but I have to accept the principle of having human rights is larger than that.
And yes, the fallibility of the system is another big reason. It is true that fallibility can occur at any level, and yes, it's awful to have miscarriages of justice when someone innocent gets locked up for years. But damn it, at least they're still alive, and while they'll never be able to leave it behind them, they will be able to get out. If you kill people, that's the ultimate in making it impossible to redress any miscarriages of justice that may have occurred. It's so obvious.
That's it in a nutshell, sorry for length and sloppiness, just writing down thoughts like that. I'm not an activist or a campaigner or anything, needless to say there's far better sources for proper arguments against the death penalty, but since you asked for my view, there you go. And I don't consider every single person who supports capital punishment a moral pygmy, I just think they have the wrong reasons and premises (of course, it works both ways, with disagreement. If that's condescention, then I guess no one should have opinions...) And what am I really baffled and saddened about here is the nature of the crime in relation to the punishment, and what seems to me a very dismissive reaction...
I'd put it differently: he took a big gamble, and lost.
But I don't care about that. The issue is not what he did. We can all agree it's reckless to carry drugs into countries where the risk is so huge. It doesn't change the debate on the kind of punishment he faced.
posted by funambulist at 12:41 PM on December 2, 2005
For the sake of argument, let's say I'll agree drug trafficking is what creates drug addicts and should be punished severely. That still doesn't get anywhere near the death penalty. If you put to death someone who carried some smack though customs, what do you do to a serial rapist/child molester/killer etc.?
In Singapore, those are also capital crimes (as are kidnapping and firearms offenses).
Regarding the death penalty itself:
... it has nothing to do with the mental state of a prisoner facing death. That's a side effect. It's the depriving people of life that is the ultimate in inhuman treatment, it's kind of self-explanatory really. Human rights, the highest right is to live.
I see. Thanks for your explanation. I was thinking of "humane" in the context of a "humane society", which often puts unwanted animals to sleep, the key thing being that it's done in a humane manner, i.e. with little suffering.
If I understand correctly, your argument is that the right to life is an absolute human right, and that no crime can justify the death penalty, including murder; again, the most extreme example would be Hitler. I can understand and respect your position, but I'm afraid I disagree.
I don't particularly want the death penalty reinstated in Canada, but that's because of practical arguments against the death penalty (e.g. those summarized by Hilary Mantel above), not because I regard it as inherently inhumane. I don't think it's so terrible that Canada had the death penalty up to 1962, or that the UK had it up to 1964, or that Singapore has it today. I understand that we have to draw the line somewhere, but I draw it at torture, not execution.
A couple links for Googlers of the future: Wikipedia article on capital punishment. Court proceedings in the Nguyen Tuong Van case.
And a correction: it's Helen Prejean, not Jean Prejean.
posted by russilwvong at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2005
In Singapore, those are also capital crimes (as are kidnapping and firearms offenses).
Regarding the death penalty itself:
... it has nothing to do with the mental state of a prisoner facing death. That's a side effect. It's the depriving people of life that is the ultimate in inhuman treatment, it's kind of self-explanatory really. Human rights, the highest right is to live.
I see. Thanks for your explanation. I was thinking of "humane" in the context of a "humane society", which often puts unwanted animals to sleep, the key thing being that it's done in a humane manner, i.e. with little suffering.
If I understand correctly, your argument is that the right to life is an absolute human right, and that no crime can justify the death penalty, including murder; again, the most extreme example would be Hitler. I can understand and respect your position, but I'm afraid I disagree.
I don't particularly want the death penalty reinstated in Canada, but that's because of practical arguments against the death penalty (e.g. those summarized by Hilary Mantel above), not because I regard it as inherently inhumane. I don't think it's so terrible that Canada had the death penalty up to 1962, or that the UK had it up to 1964, or that Singapore has it today. I understand that we have to draw the line somewhere, but I draw it at torture, not execution.
A couple links for Googlers of the future: Wikipedia article on capital punishment. Court proceedings in the Nguyen Tuong Van case.
And a correction: it's Helen Prejean, not Jean Prejean.
posted by russilwvong at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2005
In Singapore, those are also capital crimes (as are kidnapping and firearms offenses).
See, but that's what I mean - if you put on the same level drug smuggling and rapists and serial killers, it doesn't make me think drug smuggling is ethically on the same level of those crimes, it makes me think those crimes are being trivialised by the equivalence in punishment with drug smuggling. If you put them all on the same level, and apply the harsher punishment there is for something that is not, by any standard, in the same category as murder, it's not a coherent ethical or legal position.
I was thinking of "humane" in the context of a "humane society", which often puts unwanted animals to sleep, the key thing being that it's done in a humane manner, i.e. with little suffering.
Oh, ok, but we're talking human rights, for humans, not animals, I don't think you can really compare.
If I understand correctly, your argument is that the right to life is an absolute human right
Yes but it's not so much my argument, it's part of the definition of human rights, in the Declaration of Human Rights. I understand the position of refusing to apply the "right to life" extends to criminals subject to the death penalty, where it is still enforced. But in the definition, it does extend to that, and the principle is to aim at abolishing the death penalty.
I don't particularly want the death penalty reinstated in Canada, but that's because of practical arguments against the death penalty (e.g. those summarized by Hilary Mantel above), not because I regard it as inherently inhumane.
I understand what you mean, but I don't myself make a neat distinction between the different reasons, they're all related anyway.
I understand that we have to draw the line somewhere, but I draw it at torture, not execution.
All right, well, I just don't see why we have to choose one or the other really. Sure, as a hypothetical, if forced to, I'd rather have executions with the fairest possible trial in the fairest possible legal system. But no one forces that choice in reality.
posted by funambulist at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2005
See, but that's what I mean - if you put on the same level drug smuggling and rapists and serial killers, it doesn't make me think drug smuggling is ethically on the same level of those crimes, it makes me think those crimes are being trivialised by the equivalence in punishment with drug smuggling. If you put them all on the same level, and apply the harsher punishment there is for something that is not, by any standard, in the same category as murder, it's not a coherent ethical or legal position.
I was thinking of "humane" in the context of a "humane society", which often puts unwanted animals to sleep, the key thing being that it's done in a humane manner, i.e. with little suffering.
Oh, ok, but we're talking human rights, for humans, not animals, I don't think you can really compare.
If I understand correctly, your argument is that the right to life is an absolute human right
Yes but it's not so much my argument, it's part of the definition of human rights, in the Declaration of Human Rights. I understand the position of refusing to apply the "right to life" extends to criminals subject to the death penalty, where it is still enforced. But in the definition, it does extend to that, and the principle is to aim at abolishing the death penalty.
I don't particularly want the death penalty reinstated in Canada, but that's because of practical arguments against the death penalty (e.g. those summarized by Hilary Mantel above), not because I regard it as inherently inhumane.
I understand what you mean, but I don't myself make a neat distinction between the different reasons, they're all related anyway.
I understand that we have to draw the line somewhere, but I draw it at torture, not execution.
All right, well, I just don't see why we have to choose one or the other really. Sure, as a hypothetical, if forced to, I'd rather have executions with the fairest possible trial in the fairest possible legal system. But no one forces that choice in reality.
posted by funambulist at 1:42 PM on December 2, 2005
PS - this is what I mean by I understand the history is different in different countries - you're mentioning Canada, UK, Singapore... In much of Europe there's also the association of capital punishment with nazism and fascism, which extended it to political dissent, and it was abolished after the war. So that's the first association for me, totalitarian regimes. I'm not extending that association to other countries with different histories, just saying it's an extra reason for me (and for most Europeans) to feel it's something that doesn't belong in the present system. It's inevitable when you have a history like that.
posted by funambulist at 2:03 PM on December 2, 2005
posted by funambulist at 2:03 PM on December 2, 2005
Burma-Singapore Axis: Globalising the Heroin Trade
Interesting side issue.
posted by strawberryviagra at 11:02 PM on December 2, 2005
Interesting side issue.
posted by strawberryviagra at 11:02 PM on December 2, 2005
--if you put on the same level drug smuggling and rapists and serial killers, it doesn't make me think drug smuggling is ethically on the same level of those crimes, it makes me think those crimes are being trivialised by the equivalence in punishment with drug smuggling.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on how serious a crime drug smuggling is.
In much of Europe there's also the association of capital punishment with nazism and fascism, which extended it to political dissent, and it was abolished after the war. So that's the first association for me, totalitarian regimes.
Makes sense. In Singapore and other countries in China's sphere, my guess is that people fear chaos (Chinese civil war, race riots in Indonesia) or a weak government (Opium Wars, the Japanese invasion) much more than they fear a strong government turning into a tyranny. Despite the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, Mao is still highly regarded in the region for making China a strong country again. It's quite a different history and political tradition.
I usually argue against relativism, but I think it's relevant here. If we accept that moral standards were different at different times in history--relatively recent history at that, with the European countries only abolishing capital punishment starting from the 1960s--then I think it's hard to argue against moral standards differing from place to place today, because of their different histories.
All right, well, I just don't see why we have to choose one or the other [where to draw the line] really.
Contradicting what I just said about relativism, I think it is useful to try to establish moral standards which can be applied everywhere (and at all times). But by their very nature, they're going to be somewhat lowest-common-denominator.
posted by russilwvong at 5:44 PM on December 3, 2005
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on how serious a crime drug smuggling is.
In much of Europe there's also the association of capital punishment with nazism and fascism, which extended it to political dissent, and it was abolished after the war. So that's the first association for me, totalitarian regimes.
Makes sense. In Singapore and other countries in China's sphere, my guess is that people fear chaos (Chinese civil war, race riots in Indonesia) or a weak government (Opium Wars, the Japanese invasion) much more than they fear a strong government turning into a tyranny. Despite the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, Mao is still highly regarded in the region for making China a strong country again. It's quite a different history and political tradition.
I usually argue against relativism, but I think it's relevant here. If we accept that moral standards were different at different times in history--relatively recent history at that, with the European countries only abolishing capital punishment starting from the 1960s--then I think it's hard to argue against moral standards differing from place to place today, because of their different histories.
All right, well, I just don't see why we have to choose one or the other [where to draw the line] really.
Contradicting what I just said about relativism, I think it is useful to try to establish moral standards which can be applied everywhere (and at all times). But by their very nature, they're going to be somewhat lowest-common-denominator.
posted by russilwvong at 5:44 PM on December 3, 2005
russilwvong: yeah I understood we disagree on the seriousness of drug smuggling, but I think it's beyond personal disagreement to go as far as equate it with murder, it is wrong, cos it just isn't the same thing. Ethically, practically, legally, from all points of view.
I think it is useful to try to establish moral standards which can be applied everywhere (and at all times)
Oh, I do agree on that -- when I said I do understand the relative differences in approach based on different histories, it doesn't mean I think it should be left at that. Otherwise there'd be no point in having definitions of human rights, everyone would accept they change from place to place.
posted by funambulist at 8:30 AM on December 4, 2005
I think it is useful to try to establish moral standards which can be applied everywhere (and at all times)
Oh, I do agree on that -- when I said I do understand the relative differences in approach based on different histories, it doesn't mean I think it should be left at that. Otherwise there'd be no point in having definitions of human rights, everyone would accept they change from place to place.
posted by funambulist at 8:30 AM on December 4, 2005
Of course it's not equivalent to murder. Neither is rape (a capital crime in Vietnam), or kidnapping (a capital crime in Singapore). I'm not arguing that it's equivalent to murder, only that it's a very serious crime.
posted by russilwvong at 10:09 AM on December 4, 2005
posted by russilwvong at 10:09 AM on December 4, 2005
I know you and everyone knows they're not the same. My point is that the Singapore laws do treat them the same. And if you agree with those laws, then it does mean equating those crimes.
posted by funambulist at 11:09 AM on December 4, 2005
posted by funambulist at 11:09 AM on December 4, 2005
And if you agree with those laws, then it does mean equating those crimes.
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I don't accept your argument that if I think murder ought to be punished with the death penalty, and rape also ought to be punished with the death penalty, then I must think that rape and murder are equivalent.
Punishment cannot be exactly proportional to the crime. If we execute someone who commits one murder, what can we do to someone who commits ten murders? We can't kill him ten times over; we can only execute him once. That doesn't mean that his crimes aren't worse than those of the single murderer.
The fact that the punishment for two crimes is the same does not mean that the crimes themselves must be exactly the same. We don't have an infinite range of possible punishments to match the infinite range of possible crimes. In the UK during the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, there were 17 crimes which received capital punishment (murder, attempted murder, arson, rape, sodomy, forgery, robbery, housebreaking, returning from transportation, grievous bodily harm, and stealing horse, cattle, or sheep).
Out of curiosity, what do you think would have been an appropriate punishment in the Nguyen case?
posted by russilwvong at 2:39 PM on December 4, 2005
I'm afraid I have to disagree. I don't accept your argument that if I think murder ought to be punished with the death penalty, and rape also ought to be punished with the death penalty, then I must think that rape and murder are equivalent.
Punishment cannot be exactly proportional to the crime. If we execute someone who commits one murder, what can we do to someone who commits ten murders? We can't kill him ten times over; we can only execute him once. That doesn't mean that his crimes aren't worse than those of the single murderer.
The fact that the punishment for two crimes is the same does not mean that the crimes themselves must be exactly the same. We don't have an infinite range of possible punishments to match the infinite range of possible crimes. In the UK during the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, there were 17 crimes which received capital punishment (murder, attempted murder, arson, rape, sodomy, forgery, robbery, housebreaking, returning from transportation, grievous bodily harm, and stealing horse, cattle, or sheep).
Out of curiosity, what do you think would have been an appropriate punishment in the Nguyen case?
posted by russilwvong at 2:39 PM on December 4, 2005
russilwvong, see, that was precisely my point, that's the (one) problem with capital punishment. Once you apply the harshest sentence there is, even to different crimes of different degrees, you remove all attempts at proportionality.
Ok the same could happen with life sentence - one or ten murders would get the same. Still, that would be always murder, same kind of crime. One murder and half a kilo of heroin through customs are not the same kind of crime, so should not be treated the same by the law - should not both get life sentence either. Otherwise the equivalence is there, for all practical, legal, ethical, political purposes.
Of course in your mind you'll know they're not the same crime, but that won't make any practical difference whatsoever. Know what I mean?
Those examples from the UK in past centuries show how insane it is to have the death penalty for such a diverse range of crimes and violations. It was a completely different context.
Modern legal systems do have a lot more room for proportionality. It's not infinite range, sure, but it's better than none at all - hanging both someone who stole cattle and someone who killed ten people. That's not a rational model of application of the law.
Out of curiosity, what do you think would have been an appropriate punishment in the Nguyen case?
I don't know, pick an example from other countries that don't have the death penalty. It should be definitely less than that country's penalty for murder, and also less than the one for rape, since rape and murder are also not the same thing and should not have the same sentence.
posted by funambulist at 3:04 PM on December 4, 2005
Ok the same could happen with life sentence - one or ten murders would get the same. Still, that would be always murder, same kind of crime. One murder and half a kilo of heroin through customs are not the same kind of crime, so should not be treated the same by the law - should not both get life sentence either. Otherwise the equivalence is there, for all practical, legal, ethical, political purposes.
Of course in your mind you'll know they're not the same crime, but that won't make any practical difference whatsoever. Know what I mean?
Those examples from the UK in past centuries show how insane it is to have the death penalty for such a diverse range of crimes and violations. It was a completely different context.
Modern legal systems do have a lot more room for proportionality. It's not infinite range, sure, but it's better than none at all - hanging both someone who stole cattle and someone who killed ten people. That's not a rational model of application of the law.
Out of curiosity, what do you think would have been an appropriate punishment in the Nguyen case?
I don't know, pick an example from other countries that don't have the death penalty. It should be definitely less than that country's penalty for murder, and also less than the one for rape, since rape and murder are also not the same thing and should not have the same sentence.
posted by funambulist at 3:04 PM on December 4, 2005
One murder and half a kilo of heroin through customs are not the same kind of crime, so should not be treated the same by the law - should not both get life sentence either.
That's why I'm asking what you think an appropriate sentence would be. (I presume you think murder ought to get a life sentence.) 20 years? 10 years? 5 years?
Knowing what the penalty would be in other countries doesn't help much, since the sentences imposed by a legal system may or may not be proportionate. An example from Philip Greenspun:
Professor Pamela Karlan's reading list included Torture and Plea Bargaining [Langbein]. The paper recounted the history of torture. The Catholic Church decided in the Middle Ages that too many people were getting convicted of crimes that they hadn't committed. They instituted a rule that said nobody could be convicted without either two eyewitnesses or a confession. Convictions became difficult to obtain. Since it was not possible to obtain extra witnesses, the Church decided to torture defendants until they confessed.
Today we have a legal system with many safeguards for defendants' rights. However, in our heart of hearts, we don't really believe that we could convict enough defendants if we actually gave all of them all of their rights. Consequently, we set nominal penalties for crimes at absurdly high levels, e.g., "life plus 100 years." The actual penalty received by 95% of the people who commit such crimes is in fact 12-15 years. This is what they get if they agree to a plea bargain. However, if they choose to exercise their right to trial, they face the nominal penalty of life plus 100.
Obviously having these really high penalties is more subtle than physical torture, but the basic idea is the same and probably a fair number of sensible people are pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
posted by russilwvong at 4:24 PM on December 4, 2005
That's why I'm asking what you think an appropriate sentence would be. (I presume you think murder ought to get a life sentence.) 20 years? 10 years? 5 years?
Knowing what the penalty would be in other countries doesn't help much, since the sentences imposed by a legal system may or may not be proportionate. An example from Philip Greenspun:
Professor Pamela Karlan's reading list included Torture and Plea Bargaining [Langbein]. The paper recounted the history of torture. The Catholic Church decided in the Middle Ages that too many people were getting convicted of crimes that they hadn't committed. They instituted a rule that said nobody could be convicted without either two eyewitnesses or a confession. Convictions became difficult to obtain. Since it was not possible to obtain extra witnesses, the Church decided to torture defendants until they confessed.
Today we have a legal system with many safeguards for defendants' rights. However, in our heart of hearts, we don't really believe that we could convict enough defendants if we actually gave all of them all of their rights. Consequently, we set nominal penalties for crimes at absurdly high levels, e.g., "life plus 100 years." The actual penalty received by 95% of the people who commit such crimes is in fact 12-15 years. This is what they get if they agree to a plea bargain. However, if they choose to exercise their right to trial, they face the nominal penalty of life plus 100.
Obviously having these really high penalties is more subtle than physical torture, but the basic idea is the same and probably a fair number of sensible people are pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
posted by russilwvong at 4:24 PM on December 4, 2005
russilwvong, but you're bringing up the US again, that's why I said "pick an example from a country where there is NO death penalty". I'm not even used to that system with plea bargain and sentences running up to life plus 100 years and confessions may be extorted that way. Now I live in a country where we probably have too much of the opposite, ie. there can be too much leniency, even with murderers (the life sentences can be commuted to parole after about 30 years and there's been recent unfortunate cases where murderers were released on parole after that and committed crimes again, which on paper shouldn't happen if the perpetrator is still considered a danger to society, but someone decided they weren't any longer), not to mention legality itself can be a question mark, not least in politics. So even limiting the scope to Europe (just because I'm more familiar with systems in Europe, no other reason) I'd take the example of other countries where things work a little better, ie. pretty much any...
But I really don't know, I can't really tell you how many years I'd give for smuggling half a kilo of heroin through customs, I'm not a legal expert, and it's all relative to how many years you give to those other crimes. Say if in country x rape gets 15 or 20 years, then drug smuggling should get a lot less. Otherwise I don't think it is fair or makes sense, even just from an ethical point of view.
posted by funambulist at 3:56 AM on December 5, 2005
But I really don't know, I can't really tell you how many years I'd give for smuggling half a kilo of heroin through customs, I'm not a legal expert, and it's all relative to how many years you give to those other crimes. Say if in country x rape gets 15 or 20 years, then drug smuggling should get a lot less. Otherwise I don't think it is fair or makes sense, even just from an ethical point of view.
posted by funambulist at 3:56 AM on December 5, 2005
Say if in country x rape gets 15 or 20 years, then drug smuggling should get a lot less. Otherwise I don't think it is fair or makes sense, even just from an ethical point of view.
Okay, that's helpful. Of course none of us are legal experts (well, I suppose there's some on MetaFilter, but I'm not!). I just want to get a sense of what a proportionate sentence for drug smuggling would be, in your view.
The actual average sentence for rape in the UK is 7 years (PDF). So in your view a fair sentence for drug smuggling should be a lot less, say 2 or 3 years? It seems to me that wouldn't be much of a deterrent, considering how lucrative drug smuggling is!
posted by russilwvong at 10:22 AM on December 5, 2005
Okay, that's helpful. Of course none of us are legal experts (well, I suppose there's some on MetaFilter, but I'm not!). I just want to get a sense of what a proportionate sentence for drug smuggling would be, in your view.
The actual average sentence for rape in the UK is 7 years (PDF). So in your view a fair sentence for drug smuggling should be a lot less, say 2 or 3 years? It seems to me that wouldn't be much of a deterrent, considering how lucrative drug smuggling is!
posted by russilwvong at 10:22 AM on December 5, 2005
russilwvong, believe me, it's not that I don't want to answer that question as precisely as you want me to, it's that I can't. I can't give you a number of years out of the blue. True, you don't need to be a legal expert to have an idea. But it so depends on a lot of things.
Large scale drug trafficking part of organised crime network that also deals in other dodgy business and other serious crimes, or smuggling smaller quantities for smaller circle of clients, or even stocking up for personal use - those should all be treated differently, as serious vs. minor offenses.
And I don't really believe with something so huge as drug trafficking worldwide any single penalty is going to be an effective deterrent in itself. A country may be tough with the smugglers caught at customs, but you rarely see the same severity consistently applied to networks of money launderers and big drug barons.
Trafficking doesn't know borders. Banking doesn't, either.
posted by funambulist at 1:03 PM on December 5, 2005
Large scale drug trafficking part of organised crime network that also deals in other dodgy business and other serious crimes, or smuggling smaller quantities for smaller circle of clients, or even stocking up for personal use - those should all be treated differently, as serious vs. minor offenses.
And I don't really believe with something so huge as drug trafficking worldwide any single penalty is going to be an effective deterrent in itself. A country may be tough with the smugglers caught at customs, but you rarely see the same severity consistently applied to networks of money launderers and big drug barons.
Trafficking doesn't know borders. Banking doesn't, either.
posted by funambulist at 1:03 PM on December 5, 2005
russilwvong, believe me, it's not that I don't want to answer that question as precisely as you want me to, it's that I can't. I can't give you a number of years out of the blue.
I'm not looking for a precise answer, just a rough idea of what you would regard as appropriate. "Much less than the average sentence for rape" is enough of an answer.
Large scale drug trafficking part of organised crime network that also deals in other dodgy business and other serious crimes --
In this case, from Nguyen's confession, it appears that he was indeed acting on behalf of an organized crime syndicate.
Since we're up to 100 comments now, maybe now's a good time to end the discussion. Thanks for your time, it's been a thought-provoking discussion for me.
posted by russilwvong at 1:33 PM on December 5, 2005
I'm not looking for a precise answer, just a rough idea of what you would regard as appropriate. "Much less than the average sentence for rape" is enough of an answer.
Large scale drug trafficking part of organised crime network that also deals in other dodgy business and other serious crimes --
In this case, from Nguyen's confession, it appears that he was indeed acting on behalf of an organized crime syndicate.
Since we're up to 100 comments now, maybe now's a good time to end the discussion. Thanks for your time, it's been a thought-provoking discussion for me.
posted by russilwvong at 1:33 PM on December 5, 2005
« Older Picture Palaces in Peril! | Slow Mosaic Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by elpapacito at 4:37 PM on November 29, 2005