I used to live in Malaysia and I remember a man from the Netherlands who was hung til dead because he was smuggling drugs. This has happened more than a few times where drug smugglers trying to get their wares through indonesia have been handed death sentences. The difference in this case is that the men have had their sentences UPGRADED to death. I'd like to hear your opinions on 2 things.
1: When a society preserves its nearly drug free community by setting down such stiff sentences do you feel its wrong for them to execute foreigners or should they be extradited? I personally feel sad that these men and sometimes women have to die for something as stupid as drugs, but this is how Indonesia has prevented drugs from largely permiatting its population. These smugglers know what the penalty is and they risk it, and flout the law. I know that most big time drug dealers do not do drugs themselves, but how many people smuggle AND use? That would help me gauge if they are smuggling out of greed or desperation to support their habit. I feel that extradition is not worth it because if people know the worst they will get is a slap on the wrist they will keep smuggling.
and 2: Does the govt have the right to upgrade the sentence, even in light of new evidence perhaps? I personally think there is much information that needs to be reported before I can form a full opinion, but hey lets work with what we have. Its strange that the prosecution in these men's cases never sought the death penalty, and yet they are being handed it. Is this categorically wrong, or are there cases where this is warranted?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I feel that extradition is not worth it because if people know the worst they will get is a slap on the wrist they will keep smuggling.
I think that if you feel that a person should get 'X' sentence, you would support a person getting that sentence wherever that person lived. That is, if you felt it was right to do in Indonesia, wouldn't you feel it was right to do in the U.S.? Conversely, if it's wrong, it's wrong.
Also, as a citizen of this country specifically and a general part of the European descended community, don't you support the idea that these men should be judged by a jury of their peers in a fair manner with all the rights due to them as a citizen of their country? I think that if certain rights are 'inalienable', then perhaps this might be the case.
Also, I don't think it's safe to assume that if thse men got a 'slap on the wrist', they would keep smuggling. What is certain is that they will be dead if they're killed, and that more people will smuggle drugs into Indonesia whether they are alive or dead. Even without looking at statistics, these men are proof of that. So, logically, if people are smuggling drugs into Bali, then the government's plan of deterring people to not smuggle drugs by killing them isn't working.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally don't support the death penalty for drug smugglers.
However, I also don't think that a nation that prides itself on being drug free should extradite convicted smugglers. They committed the crime their knowing the punishment, and the government is trying to protect its people from a foreign attack, for all intents and purposes. It's their choice.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
it being their choice is kind of axiomatic. That is, I doubt anyone would argue that their choice is not their own. At least, I didn't. So, I'm not sure that saying 'it's their choice' really means anything or is actually any kind of argument for whether their decision to kill drug smugglers is ethically correct. I mean, I'm guessing that you're not arguing that ethics stops at the border of the U.S., and is transformed by the choice of every country?
In this respect, I don't get why if you personally think it's wrong, you don't think it's wrong in other countries? If you think it's wrong, then I would think you would think that any country shouldn't kill people for drug smuggling ever?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm opposed to the death penalty in general. Even Saddam doesn't deserve being put to death (He'd be getting off easy).
I do think it's strange that people that were sentenced to do time in prison can get the death sentence in appeal. There's something wrong with the judicial system when these things happen on a regular basis.
The people who get caught smuggling drugs usually aren't part of any organized crime ring. Sometimes they actually didn't know they were carrying drugs, as it's slipped into their luggage. But I'm not so naive as to think that this is true very often. Though I know it sounds harsh, I think it's a good idea for the offenders to spend at least part of their sentence in the country where they were caught. It's just that the jails over there seem to me to be more effective in convincing people they don't want to be in there. They're a far cry from the cushy cells that we have over here in the Netherlands.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
it being their choice is kind of axiomatic. That is, I doubt anyone would argue that their choice is not their own. At least, I didn't. So, I'm not sure that saying 'it's their choice' really means anything or is actually any kind of argument for whether their decision to kill drug smugglers is ethically correct. I mean, I'm guessing that you're not arguing that ethics stops at the border of the U.S., and is transformed by the choice of every country?
In this respect, I don't get why if you personally think it's wrong, you don't think it's wrong in other countries? If you think it's wrong, then I would think you would think that any country shouldn't kill people for drug smuggling ever?
I guess I mean I disagree with them, and I don't support that policy for America, and I think it shouldn't be the policy of other nations, but they have the right to self determination, and to choose their own laws. If they have found a policy that frees their nation of drug problems, especially considering when they look around them the trouble it causes it's neighbors, and when the policy is so public, everyone around has to know what the punishment is, I don't personally plan to lobby them hardcore to change their policy.
If their people as a whole decided they didn't want that stringent a punishment, but the government ignored them, then I'd be up in arms over it. But the people are willing to make one moral sacrifice in order for another kind of protection. One could attempt to argue that making the moral decision to make executions illegal, and thus (possibly) leaving the nation open to drug smugglers, would be an unethical decision for the negative effects it would have on the population.
My only complaint against life imprisonment is the cost. I do however think that if they are going to be in jail for their lives, they should pay in more ways than just sitting on their butts for the rest of their lives. I have a couple different ideas on what that might entail, but I doubt I'd find much support here for them.
When it comes down to it, they chose to make that their law, and I don't think I have any more place to tell them what to do than I think they have to tell me what to do. That doesn't remove my ability to find it wrong personally.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eduardo St. Elmo: I am pretty sure there are allowances for people who are caught with a bag of drugs in their luggage, as opposed to people who are caught with altered underclothing designed to allow them to carry large amounts of drugs on their person while avoiding detection.
Lyrhawn I mostly agree with you.
Storm Saxon: This is just an idea I am toying with. If you could execute say 30 people, and prevent 94% of all drug activity in the US, would you do it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's right to sentence those who smuggle drugs to death. However.
If you are going to sentence someone to death, and carry out death sentences, for smuggling drugs, then you must do it equally to everyone caught smuggling drugs. I do not think it is right or helpful for anyone to escape a penalty because of their nationality. Just because you are American does not mean you should go into a country (say, Singapore) that has huge "the penalty for smuggling drugs or being caught with drugs in this country is death" signs in their international airport and expect not to be killed if you are caught smuggling drugs.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I want to make very clear is that all drug smuggling is not created equal. Some drugs are legal in the country of origin and illegal in the country of import. Some are illegal both places, but in different degrees.
What I mean is that I don't equate someone bringing back a bottle of Mexican pain pills with someone who's a heroin mule. Some drugs are inherently more harmful to the users.
So much like murder, I think we get into a situation where you have degrees of smuggling, and varying punishments corresponding to these degrees. I personally am not in favor of punishing smugglers with the death penalty, but like Lyr I support another sovereignity's right to choose and enforce its' own laws.
I don't think that all levels should be punished equally, regardless of what the punishments are.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. In the US we don't execute smugglers because we believe that capital punishment is excessive for that particular crime. The determination of what is a "fitting" punsihment for a given crime varies depending on (a) the threat the crime poses to society (like concerns over terrorism versus concerns over public disorder) and (b) the opinions/culture of the jurisdiction. Something that is a Little Crime here may be a Big Crime there, and if I can avoid it I will not enter a country and commit a Little Crime that would be punished in a Big Way.
So as a general rule for crime and punishment, unless I can say "The Malaysian government is ethically wrong for believing that X is a terrible, terrible crime," I can't say that "The Malaysian government is ethically wrong for placing a terrible, terrible punishment on people who do X." And to an extent, I can't say "The Malaysian government is ethically wrong for believing that X is a terrible, terrible crime" unless I know why "the Malaysian government believes X is a terrible, terrible crime," and whether or not that's ethically right or wrong.
But the reason that I think the death penalty sticks in this case is because there aren't many commonly accepted ways ways a government can punish a person that are more extreme than death (and regardless of whether or not there are things worse than being dead, death is somewhere near the far end of that specturm). One assumes that a murderer or a rapist would get a similar punishment. So I can say "The Malaysian government is wrong for placing drug smuggling on the same level as murder or rape," assuming that the smuggling act isn't connected with some other crime. I think there has to be some kind of distinction between the worst of crimes and minor ones. crimes need to have degrees and if there are not, I think the problem is with the legal system and not necessarily with the law itself.
And now that I've refreshed this page, I can see that El JT has said made that point, much more concisely, in the half hour that I spent typing this.
2. I don't think so, but in many situations I think new information can become evidence that another crime was commited that the person can be tried for. However I'm not a legal mind so maybe somebody can tell me this: here in the US, say a person is convicted of second-degree murder and while they are serving their sentence evidence of premeditation was found. Couldn't they then be charged with first degree murder as well (or in place of the other charge)? Or does double jeopardy prevent this?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
