Death Row, Van Nguyen

[doc_bean]

Which amounts to the addition of another criterion. And my point being that trafficking isn't bad enough to require a death penalty

That, I'm afraid, is entirely subjective, as this discussion demonstrates.

[Kanamori]

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.

I'm not concerned w/ the fact that he was from a different country.

Even then I'm pretty sure that's some kind of logical fallacy, we're not comparing like with like.

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.

That, I'm afraid, is entirely subjective, as this discussion demonstrates.

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.

[lugh]

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.

Since he was not the agent causing the harm, addiction, he shouldn't be punished with that as the justification.

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.

[Kanamori]

Reductio ad absurdum is never a valid arguement.

Um, why?

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.

This seems to be a contradiction, but I guess those don't matter.
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.

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.

The law is the prevention, not the punishment, at least in any non-barbaric model.

[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?

This seems to be a contradiction, but I guess those don't matter.
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.

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.

The law is the prevention, not the punishment, at least in any non-barbaric model.

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.

[Kanamori]

Actually, I am claiming that killing a Jew because they are a Jew is absolutely wrong.

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.

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.

[lugh]

Actually, I am claiming that killing a Jew because they are a Jew is absolutely wrong.

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.

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.

I have to disagree.

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.