I guess I don't see your point. If the penalty for having bare legs in the Vatican is being escorted out of the Vatican, then that's the penalty we'd expect them to use, regardless of where the offender came from. Well, the penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore is death. Accordingly, that's the penalty they gave him. He committed a crime a great deal more serious than having bare legs, and in a country that has a great deal less tolerance for law-breaking than the Vatican. Why should it be such a shock that he was given a more severe punishment than merely being asked to leave?
quote:Jail time would have been fine with me, being killed is not.
I don't think what is or is not fine with you is of any concern to the government of Singapore, frankly. The French law banning private religious symbols for schoolchildren is not fine with me. Iran has very few laws that are fine with me. Nevertheless, those laws exist and they must be obeyed by anyone who wishes to avoid punishment.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Way to maintain a relationship of respect. Perhaps, you could explain why the death penalty sickens you? And why you are sickened by people holding a different view from you?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO, while I do believe that the death penalty can be an appropriate deterrent, I think that it might be a bit draconian for drug smuggling. Then again, I'm not Singapore, and they certainly have the right to have their own laws, without the intervention of elitist western cultural imperialists.
I believe in the Rule of Law, which I define as one law, applicable to all, equally enforced for all. I believe that the rule of law justly increases confidence in a legal system, and provides a level playing field for all. Everyone is treated equally under the rule of law. Therefore, I believe that it is good that Singapore applies it's laws equally.
Now, if one doesn't like it's laws, one can flout them and suffer the consequences, or one can smuggle drugs elsewhere.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I say the people behind it are barbarians and should be ashamed.
I am shocked at the inappropriateness of the punishment.
Thinking that someone deserves to die for smuggling drugs, written in law or not, is perfectly awful.
You see, we don't have the death penalty. As a country we think it abhorrent. And although this man broke the law and I agree he should be punished there is no way this is "good" for Singapore.
I have to admit I find these statements baffling. I can certainly understand being opposed to the death penalty-I'm of mixed mind on that issue myself-beyond that opposition this situation isn't baffling, awful, horrible, shocking, terrible, or any other bad synonym you can possibly think of.
I think it's ridiculous to assume this man might not have known that the death penalty was a potential consequence for his action, so for the sake of argument I'm going to ignore that (slim-to-none) possibility. This man was willing to court death for profit, profit made by smuggling drugs.
He made the gamble, and he lost, and he died. In this situation, why is Singapore the curly-mustached villain? No one is suggesting that agents of the Singapore government planted the drugs on him. No one is suggesting that these laws are not publicly posted. No one is suggesting that it was, I don't know, medicinal heroin or something. No one is suggesting he was smuggling drugs to feed his family or anything like that. No one is suggesting he was an unwilling drug mule.
There are many different kinds of "deserving to die". There's the moral question: should such an action merit such a legal consequence? Is the consequence approriate to the crime? For the record, I think this particular consequence is absurdly out of balance with the action. But there is another kind of "deserving to die": does a person deserve to die for being caught engaging in an activity for which he knew the penalty could include death?
At that point, frankly his life is in the hands of the people who made the law, and he has no grounds-nor does anyone else-to be surprised or think he doesn't deserve it. If he is a fully-grown adult and was not coerced in any way, then he is responsible for his own actions.
As for Singapore applying its laws equally, well KQ, I don't understand why you're surprised by that. I would not have expected that Singapore wouldn't apply its law here, even to the extent of execution.
In fact, I think Australian outrage and public pressure made it more likely this man would be executed. Nation-state governments are not in the business of having the execution of their laws controlled or even influenced by the citizens of a foreign nation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know the history behind Singapore's drug laws but I would imagine that at some point they had a pretty bad problem with drugs and as part of their plan for becoming a major economic player (they do a lot of reshipping) they probably decided their penalties were not sufficient to deter the activity. I would be interested to know how it affected their drug problem. It may also be associated with the opium trade that was once pervasive in China (I don't know for a fact if it affected Singapore).
I am with KQ on the equal application aspect of this. Unlike most of the posters here I support the death penalty in certain cases where society has determined an activity needs to be strongly discouraged. i.e. Murder, treason, and serial rape.
posted
Incidentally I'm guessing the thread title was originally "Good for Singapore" which was, I think, an accident because I doubt ketchupqueen intended to use a title that conveyed the message that title contains, and thus it was a poorly chosen title.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Killed for smuggling 14 oz of heroin into the country? Whoever said that it was barbaric was right.
The Australians that held vigils for this man's life were right to do so.
All the same, I can't condemn Singapore for carrying out their laws, even as I condemn the laws themselves. That's what a government does.
Not all the protests in Africa would stop us from prosecuting men who perform ritual female circumcisions on girls here in America.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm picturing Australia being all up in arms about some guy most of them don't even know, but not being up in arms over all the Singapoorians who die for the very same reason. I guess that's a nationalistic thing? I guess I just don't feel that way personally. Not that feeling that way is wrong.
If an American and a Singapoorian are both being killed on the same day for the same crime I wouldn't feel worse for the American.
Maybe that has something to do with the differences of opinion on this thread. Just my thoughts.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That brings up a point, Scott. Peaceful, restrained vigils are one thing. Outraged public demands for clemency are another, and I think probably pissed off the Singapore gov't.
Even though I can easily see myself as an Aussie and pissed off, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, it surprises me how many people are against the death penalty here. I don't think it should be handed out like lollipops, but there are cases where it should be applied. I certainly don't fault Singapore for using it, although I am certainly against it being "mandatory" - that seems a bit extreme for drug trafficking - but Sarge is probably right, sometimes a drastic solution is called for, and Singapore decided it was appropriate. Nationality of the criminal shouldn't be an issue, which was I believe kq's original point.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have to say that a country that fines people for chewing gum isn't exactly going to be on my tourism top ten...
But, y'know, if you aren't willing to accept the consequences of a country's laws, don't commit the crime, or don't go there. The people who are residents don't have as much of a choice about it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sarge is probably right, sometimes a drastic solution is called for
Why? I admit that I would LOVE the opportunity to pull the plug on every child predator alive. But what does it help, really?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's kinda like Michael Fay. Only, y'know, more death and fewer book deals. Ok, OJ ruined his book deal, but he did get TV spots, political pressure, sensationalized coverage in the media, etc. Remember what a hot button issue that was?
And he didn't even get hanged.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? I admit that I would LOVE the opportunity to pull the plug on every child predator alive. But what does it help, really?
I would imagine people would think twice about some of the things they think of doing if they knew for a fact that they would indeed be executed if/when caught.
And that's where I agree with kq. Let's say that Singapore's laws are designed, not as much with then intention of just and fair punishment, but rather as a deterrent for future criminals, then it is absolutely imperative that they enforce those laws.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this isn't as relevant in this case if he admitted to drug trafficking, but it's a reason to be against the death penalty in general.
If you escort someone out of the Vatican for bare legs, and then they go home and change and come back, or you realize outside in the sunlight that they're really just very tight skin-coloured pants and they didn't have bare legs at all, you can let them back in as a productive Catholic who will throw money in the collection dish or help the needy and then go home to their families who need them.
Dead Catholics in tight skin-coloured pants will never contribute much to society.
Edit: Maybe it is relevant here after all. Didn't an article mention he had changed? I know that has to be taken with a grain of salt, but rehabilitation is possible. Death only ensures someone will *never* change.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I got this link from a pro-death penalty website. Interestingly, there's not much favorable to be found in the data on the death penalty. The counter-arguments (that it works) are that: 1) We don't know how many criminals decided to avoid their particular crime because they might be killed for it, and 2) The suffering of the victims is enough to justify killing someone.
This is, of course, the debate in Western countries.
Places like Singapore and certain Arab countries, and probably a few others I don't know of, kill people for things that the rest of the world has found other ways of dealing with. Whether those ways are more or less effective, of course, is a question that statistics ultimately may not be able to answer.
Going back on topic, though, I propose that if we all sat back and tried to list the attributes of a legal system that we admired, consistent application would be one thing we could agree on. But it would not be the only thing. My list would include (in no particular order), a sense of balance (the punishment fits the crime), a method for judicial review and periodic revision of the laws, a high level of professionalism among prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and court personnel, a penal system that is oriented toward rehabilitation, and probably a few more things if I really sat back and thought about it.
I would hesitate to congratulate or condemn Singapore until I knew more about how their entire justice system operates. Consistent application of draconian laws is not inherently better than inconsistent application of under-the-table bribery of high officials, IMHO. It deals with one problem, but creates others.
If we can review them as a whole, then, is there much to be admired, or much to recoil from in horror as we look at their application of laws and treatment of those convicted?
Question for kq: Were you applauding their consistency because of the fact that our application of the death penalty in the US is in such a shambles, and that one big reason for that is inconsistency?
I can see wishing the US were more consistent, but that wouldn't necessarily make me applaud consistency where-ever I saw it. I'd have to like other aspects of their system before I gave them a thumbs up.
On this issue, I think they are way out of balance. Killing anyone (citizen or foreigner) for even a serious drug violation strikes me as over the line of justifiable severity. It doesn't seem to fit the crime...by a WIDE margin. So, I can't applaud their system just because it would've equally been applied to the president's son or the lowliest citizen.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we can review them as a whole, then, is there much to be admired, or much to recoil from in horror as we look at their application of laws and treatment of those convicted?
One thing to consider is the differences in society and culture between the United States and Singapore. My understanding, and this may be wrong, is that the dominant culture in Singapore greatly prizes order. My experience in Asia is that human life isn't valued quite as much as it is here. (Don't get me wrong - it is valued - but it isn't quite sanctified to the extent it is in America) It is quite possible that Singapore's harsh laws reflect the culture of it's inhabitants.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, most Asian countries have harsh punishments for drug traffickers. In Thailand, you can expect a long prison sentence, unless you can bribe your way out. At least Singapore is not quite as corrupt. Of course, in Thailand, you only get a prison sentence when you are caught running drugs if you are lucky. The Thai police have had it, and they often just summarily execute drug dealers. (Personal experience here, had an acquaintance that got whacked). Judicial execution beats extrajudicial execution any day.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sri Lanka is another country that has the death penalty on the books for drug offenses, even though it hasn't been used in that way for a lot of years. Lately, however, there has been news that the death penalty will be used for drug offenses again. So, if you're planning on trafficking in drugs, this is another country you shouldn't visit.
Yep, it's common in this region.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Would you agree that the society there places less value on the individual, and that this might account for wider acceptance of the death penalty for what other societies would consider a lesser offense?
What tern said made sense to me, but I have zero experience with those societies.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Would you agree that the society there places less value on the individual, and that this might account for wider acceptance of the death penalty for what other societies would consider a lesser offense?
What tern said made sense to me, but I have zero experience with those societies.
Yes, I would agree with that.
If you consider how many people fought over baby 81 after the tsunami, how many children were sold into slavery or were taken by people who lost their own children, how many children have been forced into joining the LTTE army, how many people had grenades tossed at them for trying to vote at the last election and how many people have been killed trying to vote, and... The list, scarily enough, goes on.
quote:How does the temporary nature of one's stay in any way change the severity of what has occured?
For the same reasons you have fewer expectations of a guest in your home, than you have of your own children. 1) A guest isn't expected to know the house rules, so violating the rule isn't a sign of disrespect. 2) A guest is given special traetment to make him feel welcome and encourage him to return and enrich your home again. 3) You aren't responsible for training a guest in the ways of your culture to make sure that your culture is continued.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, LadyDove has a point, but I'd have to limit to minor offenses. We deport people who aren't US citizens who violate our laws. But for major crimes, they have to do the time first. In rare instances, we do indeed put offenders to death even if they aren't from around here.
Ultimately, one would hope that the Singapore system has ways to deal with shades of gray related to this offense. Was the person an unwitting mule? Was he a first time offender? Was he completely ignorant of the local laws. It doesn't mean that he'd be found innocent, but it might be a factor in deciding whether to put a person to death or not.
Death for a first time drug offense seems worse to me than doing it for a multiple offender. And certainly, if someone is just a courier, death should not be the answer.
Anyone have sufficient details of this case to tell us whether there were any mitigating factors or, at 22, was this guy already a hard case?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
He was a courier - he was being paid AUD$30 000. Not an unwitting mule, but by no means a drug lord.
According to newspaper reports here, he agreed to take the job to pay his twin brother's debts - debts which he feared his brother was going to die for.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure his brother wouldn't want him to die as well.
Lots of people do bad things for what they think are good reasons. It doesn't change the nature of what they're doing though.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT - I know. I almost added an (ironically) to my post but decided not to. (In terms of the whole brother thing).
In terms of the reasons not changing the nature: yes and no. Yes, of course he was still trafficking drugs.
But - I can see a moral diffence between someone who has made one bad decision and someone who keeps making those decisions as a lifestyle.
Actually, I think the most morally bankrupt are those who control the whole trade but never risk the actual trafficking themselves.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The French law banning private religious symbols for schoolchildren is not fine with me.
BIG religious symbol. A little cros, star of David or hand of Fatima is fine with everyone. And only in PUBLIC schools.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, LadyDove has a point, but I'd have to limit to minor offenses.
And minor, non violent, offenses are the ones I'm talking about.
erosomniac made the claim that tourists should be treated the same as locals with regards to all laws (including the Ash-Wednesday/hat laws) and that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I said that only violent crimes and offenses that are globally considered crimes, such as drug traficking, should fall under the "everyone is treated the same" rule.
As an aside, I don't think that death, cutting off hands, or other types of torture are appropriate punishments for any country. To deal with the offenses done by non-residents, I'd love to see some type of "Geneva Convention" that decides on a list of crimes and punishments that would be treated as international laws during non-wartime travel.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently read a book about the opium wars in China (The Opium Wars, by W. Travis Hanes and Frank Sanello). Basically, England exported opium to China to pay for their tea addiction. When China tried to outlaw the import of opium, the English invaded and forced the Chinese government to accept it.
Given that sort of history, I can understand why Asian countries would have over-the-top (to us, anyways) laws/penalties against drugs.
quote:BIG religious symbol. A little cros, star of David or hand of Fatima is fine with everyone. And only in PUBLIC schools.
That really doesn't affect my opinion of the law, or any of my arguments. I was simply making the point that many countries may have specific laws that we disagree with, but our objections to the laws cannot be expected to influence the way those countries run their own affairs.
Singapore has decided that drug trafficking is enough of a threat to their society that the only fit punishment for those who do it is death. We can disagree with that decision as much as we want. In fact, I daresay that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Europe, the Americas, and Oceania probably think that it's excessively harsh.
My point isn't that the law is okay, but rather that it's Singapore's decision, not ours. Singapore is not obligated to care how many foreigners may be upset about this. This man broke Singaporean law in Singaporean territory. It is Singapore's right to punish him in whatever way it sees fit.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I was simply making the point that many countries may have specific laws that we disagree with, but our objections to the laws cannot be expected to influence the way those countries run their own affairs."
This is true, up to a point. I think many here would assert there exist theoretical levels of anti-human atrocity such that populations outside that country might rightfully expect to be able to exert such influence.
Do you disagree? Or are we just arguing about the threshold?
quote:"This man broke Singaporean law in Singaporean territory. It is Singapore's right to punish him in whatever way it sees fit."
Also true, up to a point. But it is also the rest of the world's right to accept Singapore into, or reject Singapore from, the community of nations.
quote:"My point isn't that the law is okay, but rather that it's Singapore's decision, not ours."
On the one hand, I am sensitive (as I believe you are) to the naive imposition of parochial values by one nation on another (cf. USA introducing democracy to Afghanistan); on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
With globalization, discussion about what those rights are and how international influence may properly be exercised -- even, or especially, considering the complexities and sensitivities of the subject -- is not only valid, but increasingly necessary.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
Discussions on the subject of the death penalty, even though I am undecided on the question, are irritating to me for this reason. The talk is almost always focused on the rights of the executed.
But he was not forced to do this. He was not tricked into thinking Singapore had laws different than they actually did. He had the right to make his choice, and he made it. The man mad a choice removed only by a few steps from assisted suicide.
quote:On the one hand, I am sensitive (as I believe you are) to the naive imposition of parochial values by one nation on another (cf. USA introducing democracy to Afghanistan); on the other, I believe there must be a foundation of universal human rights that unites the people of Earth, and that all citizens of earth share some level of responsibility for developing and upholding those rights.
It could be argued that opposition to the death penalty is one of those parochial values. Surely you must realize that not all citizens are obligated to uphold your definition of the lowest common denominator of universal human rights?
I personally believe that there is no objective right to continue to be alive. There is only such a right so far as we human beings routinely manufacture such rights for each other. The "right" to live is derived entirely from ourselves-it's not found in nature or science, certainly. Nothing else in the world except humanity sticks to that right.
This guy played his game, he knew the rules, he started play voluntarily. He rolled the dice, and lost. It seems strange to be outraged, to demand that the rules aren't changed after the fact.
I'll shed my tears for people who are violated because of someone else's choice.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is true, up to a point. I think many here would assert there exist theoretical levels of anti-human atrocity such that populations outside that country might rightfully expect to be able to exert such influence.
Do you disagree? Or are we just arguing about the threshold?
I agree that there exist such levels. I disagree that this constitutes one of them.
When there is genuine victimization taking place, then I think other nations have a right to intervene. It was largely through the efforts of Great Britain that the slave trade was shut down and slavery itself eventually abolished. Because the slaves were the victims of a greatly inhuman injustice, I believe Britain was right to step in. Similarly, I do not feel the United States was wrong to drive out the inhuman and unjust regime of the Taliban.
(And don't anybody come back on me and say anything about human rights violations on the part of our own forces. Insofar as that is happening--and it is happening, even if we are still the single most restrained superpower in the history of the world--I feel it is wrong too. I've never said that I believe the current administration is right in everything it does. I am making a value judgement on one single act, specifically the overthrow of the Taliban, and nothing else. And I do so only to show that I disagree with the assertion that it is a "naive imposition of parochial values".)
However, I do not believe that the particular Singaporean law currently under discussion is a case of victimizing innocent people. Do I think that killing someone for carrying heroin is excessive and brutal? Yes, in fact, I do. But that doesn't make Van Nguyen a victim. He knew what he was getting into, and he made the conscious decision to get into it. He would be alive today if he had decided not to break the law. He was not killed because Singapore arbitrarily decided he was an inconvenient person to have around. He was a criminal, not a victim. And drug trafficking itself is certainly not a victimless crime. A lot of people get badly hurt or killed because of things like heroin, and not all of them are the people who made the decision to take the drug. So it isn't as though Nguyen's crime would only have had negative consequences for Nguyen.
In other words, I don't think this law constitutes a human rights violation. And I think that for other nations to throw a hissy fit and demand that Singapore change this law would qualify as a "naive imposition of parochial values".
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether a law violates human rights can be quite independant of how it is applied (arbitrarily or otherwise).
For example, a law legalising torture would be a human rights violation, no matter if it was applied consistently as a punishment.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can roll your eyes all you like, Jhai, but my statement makes a point that appears to be going unnoticed here.
All punishments for crimes are a violation of human rights, from community service to jail time to execution. But there aren't any human beings on the planet that I know or have heard of who think that human rights are immutable.
Human rights are mutable when an individual takes some form of action that is deemed illegal. The question lies where to draw the threshold, further illustrating the subjectivity of any stance on human rights.
Which points out that, despite what has been implied in this thread, there isn't some objective, scientific definition of human rights. It's all subjective-yes, a man's life has been ended, but I choose not to be very upset about it this particular time because the question is subjective, and the man went in with his eyes open.
------------
I'd be interested in hearing what "international law" is, too. Hell, accounting can be subjective and still remain legal.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally believe that there is no objective right to continue to be alive. There is only such a right so far as we human beings routinely manufacture such rights for each other. The "right" to live is derived entirely from ourselves-it's not found in nature or science, certainly. Nothing else in the world except humanity sticks to that right.
The pope wants to have a word with you, sir. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
International law = convention (treaty) and customary international law (law made by the state practice and opinio juris of States).
Torture is prohibited by a number of treaties include the Convention Against Torture, as well as being prohibited at customary international law. There a numerous judgments from such courts as the ICJ, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights acknowledging that torture is illegal at international law.
In terms of a clear-cut norm of international law, the prohibition on torture's pretty much as good as you're going to get. Except maybe the prohibition on slavery.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: The prohibition on torture is also recognised in the US third restatement of international law.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, so torture is against international law. Guess it's a good thing that's not what Singapore used.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
My point was that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's legal internationally. And just because something is implemented consistently doesn't mean it can't be a human rights violation.
The assertion non arbitrary and people know what they're getting into = not a human rights violation is not true.
I used torture because it's clear cut.
There is quite a strong argument that the death penalty is against international law, but at this stage it's still just an argument. That could well change in the future though.
( I was also responding to Rakeesh's question on international law )
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
