Printable View
Singapore is in a very good location as far as trade lanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Also the other nations would have to get their act together and based on past issues it may take awhile... like them all becoming modern, educated, secular states ~:joker:
Well, they are. If you been in Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur lately, you would know what I mean..... ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
They are indeed scaling up and quickly... however will the societies adapt to a more educated middle class... and will the middle class adapt to a constrictive religious society.
KL is in a interesting situation, they have an oppourtunity to become a tech hub if they choose to do so. They are going down that line... however will it be thwarted by some of the hardline attitudes in Malaysia?
I think the high execution is partly due to the fact that we enforce our laws strictly and give no quarter to the offencers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Yes, there are some people in Singapore who oppose to execution but that is just really a small part of the population and i don't think that it will have much of an impact as major of the population still agree to this form of punishment.
[Devils Advocate :devil: ]
No quarter? It is a Judicial system that does not have the power to choose an approriate punishment for a crime. A judgement without the benefit of judicial choice is not justice, its a shortcut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
Minor or Major it does not matter as Singapore does not a democracy make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow
.
I'm pro- death penalty, pro-corporal punishment (yes, including the cutting off of hands) and pro-forced labour vs. imprisonment.
Singapore seems to be following a consistent way with the first two. Anybody remember when they beat the rogue who vandalized cars parked in the street with bamboo sticks, the TV broadcasting it live?
.
Malaysia is a unique balance act. Political power with the pribumi and the economical power with the chinese. The Northern provinces are a threat to the whole region. I believe that Southern Thailand, Southern Phillipines and Aceh in Indonesia will be a similar "threat" when the polarization finish in those countries as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The middle class in ASEAN is far larger than you think. Definition is a yearly income of about USD 10,000 and that equals about 25 million in Indonesia. That is larger than Malaysia and Singapore.....
No, it's not a shortcut but a firm way of handling drug traffickingQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Althrough Singapore is not as democracy as US, we do have some influence on our government, as most singaporeans support the death penalty it is very unlike to be an issue at the next general election and if it is not an issue then things will remain the same
He didn’t make a “stupid mistake” he intentionally broke the law. He was caught with almost 400 grams of heroin*, more than 26,000 doses! That’s not a mistake; a mistake is having a pair of nail clippers in your travel bag, not taping a bag of H on your back and trying to sneak thru security! You can’t even admit he committed a crime, you have to say he made a mistake. That’s why I’m so anti-liberal (edit anti –liberal on crime and punishment. I am rather liberal on other topics.). Why try to sugar coat his actions and stand up for him when you know he is a criminal? Everyone should be mad at him for forcing Singapore’s hand. Mistake… pffft.~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
As best as I can tell from what I have read, he did receive a fair trial with plenty of time for investigating and extradition attempts as he was arrested in December of 2002.
As to my value of human life, it is practically the most valuable thing there is, but, and you knew there would be a but, IMO there is a line that people can cross where they change from humans to monsters who cant separate what’s good from what’s bad, they let greed, rage and self gratification overtake the parts that make them human. These are the people that I don’t care for at all. The murders, rapists, molesters, and hardcore drug dealers/traffickers lives have no value to me whatsoever.:knight:
Edit to add anti –liberal on crime and punishment.
*All you need is 15 grams to merit a death penalty in Singapore.
Similarly, if there is a law against being Jewish, it is a Jew's fault for breaking that law. That line of reasoning seems silly to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
And still, you're telling me that moving 400g of heroin is equal to, or bigger than, killing an innoncent? Any punishment that is greater than the action committed is inherently unjust. It has nothing to do with how the punishment was carried out, in this case, or with how it was applied. There is no way a reasonable person can say that moving 26,000 doses of heroin, in itself, is equivilant to killing an innocent.
You can't help being jewish though, you can stop being a drug trafficer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
He should take 400grams of heroin then...Quote:
Any punishment that is greater than the action committed is inherently unjust.
Being Jewish isn’t really a choice, well I guess it could be if you decided to become Jewish but for the most part it isn’t but trafficking drugs is. He made a conscience, thought-out decision to break the law. Your comparison doesn’t make sense to me.~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Although not as violent as murder, I think that drug trafficking is every bit as criminal and the punishment could be the same. Hardcore drugs like heroin are very destructive drugs that lead to addiction and the corruption of good people. I would almost consider a distributor/trafficker of hardcore drugs in the same way I view someone distributing/trafficking small pox or anthrax. I think I am a reasonable person, perhaps it’s just a matter of perspective.
Pretty funny doc_bean, about taking 400 grams of H!~:joker:
Actually, murder usually happens in a fit of rage, or as a form of self defense (even revenge is a form of self defense too, in a way). So drug trafficing is usually worse than murder in that it is definetly a concious decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
:bow:
It is[ the case here. Drugs kills. Maybe even worse, they make you a wreck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
What would you prefer of; living a (relative) long life as a narcotic wreck, with a high risk of getting AIDS, and always struggle to get more money for more heroin; or death?
Quote:
I've explained this many times. Have you seen the movie 1984 (the one based on Orwell's book, I think it was "1984" but correct me if I'm wrong). The question that you've to ask yourself is that if you'll like to live in that world.
No, I haven`t seen that movie.
Morale and ethics vary from individ to individ, so someone has find out what`s right, and what`s wrong. There`s the constitution; that`s created by the state, and made sure is followed, by the state.Quote:
The constitution however already protects the contrary values. The state provides for your freedom, and only that, the happiness of you or any other is unimportant princiapally because it's subjective. State doesn't have to look at morals it has to look at the free exercise of our RIGHTS, not obligations. And again assumptions and hipotesis "they might this, they might that..." I might be a terrorist, however I'm still free.
You might be a terrorist, but you are not caught as one.
Or economical punishment.Quote:
So for you any crime deserves capital punishment or jail?
Yes, that`s correct. However, it`s correct for any other crime also.Quote:
However rape isn't punished because you "ruined a life" it's punished so you and others will not repeat that conduct again.
You justified it on the grounds that he understood it was a crime. I applied the model of reasoning to something we could both agree would be bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Nguyen was not even dealing, they only convicted him of trafficking. They didn't even show he intended to sell the drugs in Singapore. I fail to see such extreme evil in the sole act of moving drugs. Anthrax and small pox are fatal diseases forced on a population. A dealer does not mug someone on the street and stick them w/ a dose of heroin, so that they are always addicted. Personally, I've never had heroin, so I cannot say how addictive it is, but I have had drugs which are considered in the same light, and I'm not addicted. From my experiences, it takes a lot of personal abuse to become addicted to some of those drugs, and I feel that there is a popular misconception.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I don't see the link between being Jewish and being a druig trafficer though.
...Is anyone going to risk moving drugs through a country like Singapore when they could go through less dangerous places, or directly to the destination country ? Let's be sensible here.Quote:
Nguyen was not even dealing, they only convicted him of trafficking. They didn't even show he intended to sell the drugs in Singapore.
Good for you, the majority of people do get addicted pretty fast to heroin.Quote:
Personally, I've never had heroin, so I cannot say how addictive it is, but I have had drugs which are considered in the same light, and I'm not addicted.
I know people with addictive personalities who can get addicted to anything and people who never seem to get addicted to anything, most people fall somewhere in between. Heroin will probably get most people hooked.Quote:
From my experiences, it takes a lot of personal abuse to become addicted to some of those drugs, and I feel that there is a popular misconception.
It was hypothetical. The justification was, "he understood what he was doing was illegal." The retort was that knowing something is illegal doesn't make it any more just, in some cases. If being Jewish were illegal, one would not justify a punishment on the grounds that the Jew in question knew being Jewish was illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
It was not shown, and conjecture is not grounds for execution.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I'm not asking for your personal approval, but thanks. It was an example that, contrary to popular belief, the addiction rates are far from 100%. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who has gotten addicted to drugs, and I know a substansial amount of drug using people. I have enough experience to tell me that how one uses a drug most often determines whether or not they will get addicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Edit: Some statistics, "[The conversion rate of cigarettes]
(i.e., from any use to dependence) was similar to conversion rates for use of cocaine
(24.5%) and heroin (20.1%) (5 )" (MMWR).
You really don't see the fundamental difference between doing something and being something ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Trafficing drugs is an action, being jewish isn't.
Regardless, possesion and traffcing are illegal in Singapore, that was what he was convicted for. the reason they are also illegal and not just the selling of drugs is because the actions are related (almost 100%) and the possesion is far easier to prove.Quote:
It was not shown, and conjecture is not grounds for execution.
I've known a few addicts. Not a pretty thing. But apparently there's a huge amount of 'recreational' drug users (non-addicts) in Belgium, including a ton of cocaine users and some heroin users.Quote:
I'm not asking for your personal approval, but thanks. It was an example that, contrary to popular belief, the addiction rates are far from 100%. In fact, I don't know anyone personally who has gotten addicted to drugs, and I know a substansial amount of drug using people. I have enough experience to tell me that how one uses a drug most often determines whether or not they will get addicted.
Actually, being Jewish is an action... To beleive in the principles of Judaism is to be Jewish... I could have compared it playing billiards if you want to talk about physical actions; cancel that, being Jewish involves many physical actions anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
To admit it is a harsh punishment is to admit it is unjust. And deterrance is not a good basis for punishment in society. There are many things which could be used for deterrence very effectively. There is no question that quartering people for stealing would decrease theft rates, but we do not do it because it is unjust punishment.
We regulate religious actions over here (okay mostly to annoy the muslims when they want to sacrifice animals). The actions of being jewish however, don't normally affect other people, whereas trafficing drugs leads to selling drugs, leads to drug addicts (most of the time with heroin anyway), which leads to drug related crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I disagree, but then I live in a messed up place when it comes to punishing criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Depends on what was stolen from whom imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Kanamori your comparison between being Jewish and trafficking Drugs is just not working, stop defending it, I think we understand what you were trying to say but it was just a bad example.:bow: I get what you are saying about him maybe not knowing it was a crime but I am pretty confident he knew it was, that’s why he tried to conceal the drugs on his back and in his luggage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Nguyen confessed to trafficking after being caught so there wasn’t much need to try and prove what he was doing. And it is true that dealers don’t usually force user to buy their products but if the products never reach the streets there or anywhere else they can never be available to the users or potential users.
Heroin is a terribly addictive drug and I know several people that have had their lives (and their family and friends who tried to help them lives) ruined or seriously effected, because of it. If I could execute the people responsible for supplying them I would do it.:knight:
It's still a false analogy. Better to compare him to a Jew who deliberately and conciously chose to travel into a State where he knew being Jewish would result in him dieing. Even then I'm pretty sure that's some kind of logical fallacy, we're not comparing like with like.Quote:
I applied the model of reasoning to something we could both agree would be bad.
On heroin, read my post on the first page, it's instantly and physically addictive. We're not talking about getting a liking for smoking a few spliffs after work. The two drugs are realms apart, even harder drugs don't come close to heroine in sheer addictability.
For two things to be compared, in order to illustrate the absurdity of a model of reasoning, they need not be the same. In fact, it best describes the absurdity of such reasoning to use a very different examples, where they only have one thing in common: that they are permissible under such a system. Your claim was: He knew what he was doing was a crime, therefore, he deserved to be punished. The defining aspect of the claim is that he knew it was a crime. Another hypothetical example would be if being Jewish were a crime, in order for it to be permissible under the system to be punished, the offender need only know that what they are doing, being Jewish in this example, is illegal. Obviously, punishing someone w/ death for being Jewish is outrageous. This comparison is used to show that your reasoning is fallible, thus, the claim is meant to be ridiculous in order to show that the system of reasoning used is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
The point being, that is not reason enough to justify his punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
There are many examples of people who have used/are using "hard" drugs w/o getting dependant; myself and a lot of the people I know are examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Which amounts to the addition of another criterion. And my point being that trafficking isn't bad enough to require a death penalty, and that the action that leads to addiction is done by the individual, not by the dealer/trafficker.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
That, I'm afraid, is entirely subjective, as this discussion demonstrates. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I'm not concerned w/ the fact that he was from a different country.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
If two things need to be the same to compare them, there is no point in comparing them in the first place. They only need to have the thing in common which is meant to be illustrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
Since he was not the agent causing the harm, addiction, he shouldn't be punished with that as the justification. Making addiction possible and causing it are two very different things, since there are many things which make addiction possible, and are needed for it, most importantly the persons choice in taking it in the first place, he should not be held accountable for that addiction. I'm not saying dealing/trafficking heroin isn't a harm, but it is not nearly as bad as killing someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
My point is that they're not even simialar enough to be compared, you're talking absurdities. Reductio ad absurdum is never a valid arguement. I'm not concerned that he's from a different country either, the fact is he is, and you'r analogy doesn't take that into account.
You're mistaking the reasoning behind the law. As I said before it's prevention, not punishment and in that it's fulfilling the aims of the legislators admirably.Quote:
Since he was not the agent causing the harm, addiction, he shouldn't be punished with that as the justification.
Um, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
This seems to be a contradiction, but I guess those don't matter.~:rolleyes:Quote:
the fact is he is, and you'r analogy doesn't take that into account.
What does his nationality have to do w/ the rationale put forward that he understood the law? I could change it to a Jew from another country, but the result is still ridiculous.
The law is the prevention, not the punishment, at least in any non-barbaric model.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
Sorry, that should have read invalid in matters of morality/ethics. Reductio ad absurdum relies on logical consistency and the presence of absolute truth. You can't find that in an ethical discussion, unless you're saying that there is an absolute truth in moral matters and you happen to have stumbled upon it?
That's just my round about way of saying that I don't care that he's another nationality, but if I did, here's another demonstration of your arguements flaw.Quote:
This seems to be a contradiction, but I guess those don't matter.~:rolleyes:
What does his nationality have to do w/ the rationale put forward that he understood the law? I could change it to a Jew from another country, but the result is still ridiculous.
Exactly, the law is, bring drugs in and you die. It's a threat to deter/prevent drug smuggling. If someone breaks the law and it's not enforced, that undermines the laws level of deterrence.Quote:
The law is the prevention, not the punishment, at least in any non-barbaric model.
Actually, I am claiming that killing a Jew because they are a Jew is absolutely wrong.~;)
What I said should be understood as, "the act of forbidding it in law should be the deterrence, not the punishment for breaking that law." Punishments ought not to be justified by how much they can deter. For there are any number of extremely harsh punishments which could deter us all from crime very well, but that does not change that the society is acting harshly and w/o regard to justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugh
It's still a logical fallacy, for all the reasons pointed out by many people. He wasn't killed because he was a drug dealer, which is a status independent of location or creed, he was killed for smuggling drugs in a country which punishes that crime with death. It's situation dependent and the fact that he willingly placed himself in that situation is key to the arguement.Quote:
Actually, I am claiming that killing a Jew because they are a Jew is absolutely wrong.
I have to disagree.Quote:
What I said should be understood as, "the act of forbidding it in law should be the deterrence, not the punishment for breaking that law." Punishments ought not to be justified by how much they can deter.
Hrrm, just to clarify for anyone who hasn't read my first post in the thread, I'm actually playing devil's advocate here. I don't support the use of the death penalty in drug crimes not because I'm against the punishment but for other reasons. As in, it's going to divert both public rescources and attention from other issues, one's which I would support the penalty for. Or that the incidence of innocent prosecution is higher.