Australian Man to be Executed in Singapore

[Townsend]

A person is responsible for his own actions. He is not responsible for other persons (re-)actions towards him. They are.

I just don't understand that...(after all he knew full well what the reactions would be in advace of commiting the crime)

What about all the people that are in prison for heinous crimes? Are they not responsible for being in prison?

Wouldn't you agree that your actions that you are responsible for could end up getting you killed? Wouldn't you say that if you knowingly did something that would likely get you killed that you were responsible for your own death?

That's the way I have always thought of things and I really don't understand how we can justify prosecuting criminals unless we take that they are responsible for what happens to them. If they are not responsible for what happens to them from their actions, then what business do we have prosecuting criminals for the crimes they committed?

I honestly don't see how this line of reasoning makes any sense at all.

Maybe it's just me...perhaps it's just too complicated for a simpleton like me to understand but I really don't get it.

 

[arildno]

That's the way I have always thought of things and I really don't understand how we can justify prosecuting criminals unless we take that they are responsible for what happens to them. If they are not responsible for what happens to them from their actions, then what business do we have prosecuting criminals for the crimes they committed?

No, as a society we assert the right of assigning which reactions are appropriate and justified to take towards some action.
We do not suddenly become irrational creatures bereft of free will by reacting in some manner to some action. That is, we remain as responsible for sentencing a person to prison, as much as we remain responsible for tying our own shoe-laces, or any other action we make.

 

[Manchot]

I don't know what everyone's arguing about. The thing which disturbs me most is that the death penalty is so liberally applied in Singapore. The punishment should always fit the crime, and this is most definitely not the case, regardless of whether the smuggler knew the consequences or not.

 

[arildno]

I don't know what everyone's arguing about. The thing which disturbs me most is that the death penalty is so liberally applied in Singapore. The punishment should always fit the crime, and this is most definitely not the case, regardless of whether the smuggler knew the consequences or not.

I'm not altogether convinced I agree with you on this principal issue, although the death penalty for drug dealing is rather harsh by Norwegian standards.

 

[Smurf]

I don't know what everyone's arguing about. The thing which disturbs me most is that the death penalty is so liberally applied in Singapore. The punishment should always fit the crime, and this is most definitely not the case, regardless of whether the smuggler knew the consequences or not.

That's what I was saying, just for some reason no one cares enough to fill in the missing premises and conclusion and only reads my satirical remarks. Such laziness in today's conservatives.

 

[Townsend]

No, as a society we assert the right of assigning which reactions are appropriate and justified to take towards some action.

I don't see your point at all. It is very simple as far as I can tell. A person does something with known risk then they are entirely to blame for whatever happens to them. When as a society we make the assignment of how to react to someone actions we did not decide who would make the actions. The person who's action cause the reaction are completely responsible for the reactions since they knew that if caught this would be the reaction.

If a person is caught doing some kind of illegal action then there will be a reaction according to the law of society. If there is no reaction then the person either did not commit the crime or was not caught by modus tollens and demorgan's laws. The assignment of fault goes to the antecedent, NOT the consequent. Therefore, the criminal who does the 'if' is the only one at fault for the 'then' which is the death sentence.

Like I said...perhaps I am just an idiot but I don't understand your reasoning at all.

 

[Townsend]

I don't know what everyone's arguing about. The thing which disturbs me most is that the death penalty is so liberally applied in Singapore. The punishment should always fit the crime, and this is most definitely not the case, regardless of whether the smuggler knew the consequences or not.

I don't know how I feel about the death penalty. On the one hand it seems like some people deserve it. On the other hand it cost a lot of money, more than a life long prison sentence, and I fear that an innocent person could be put to death.

As far as the punishment fitting the crime, I guess it really depends on your perspective of certain crimes. I think a fitting punishment for speeding more than five miles an hour over the speed limit in a residental area should be 5 years minimum. Clearly not everyone will agree with me about that.

 

[arildno]

No, you are involved in some strange game of depriving police, judges etc. of free will, and hence, of responsibility.

A crime is, effectively, a break of a social contract, where the individual is given various "rights" as long as he doesn't engage in various types of actions called crime.
By doing a crime then, "society" is no longer obliged to uphold the right they agreed he would have as long as he kept his promise to desist from crime.

Which rights should be forfeited by any particular type of crime is, of course, the eternal debate.

 

[Smurf]

As far as the punishment fitting the crime, I guess it really depends on your perspective of certain crimes. I think a fitting punishment for speeding more than five miles an hour over the speed limit in a residental area should be 5 years minimum. Clearly not everyone will agree with me about that.

I don't but I think first offence drunk driving, no matter what, should be 5 years minimum. Here it's a ****ing ticket. Bloody ridiculous.

 

[Townsend]

No, you are involved in some strange game of depriving police, judges etc. of free will, and hence, of responsibility.

The judge should not have freedom when deciding the outcome of a case! The judge should do his job and it should be done in a predictable manner (in other words he should act in accordance with his duties.)

I believe it should all be very algorithmic in most circumstances. Any major deviation from predictable behavior must mean that someone is not doing their job correctly.

 

[Townsend]

Bloody ridiculous.

That is crazy...I would even go higher than five years. Perhaps 10 with the possibility of parole after five years for good behavior.

 

[Smurf]

That is crazy...I would even go higher than five years. Perhaps 10 with the possibility of parole after five years for good behavior.

I wouldn't. Anything after first offence and if I had my way it'd skyrocket, but first offence should be a (very serious) "warning".

 

[Manchot]

I'm not altogether convinced I agree with you on this principal issue, although the death penalty for drug dealing is rather harsh by Norwegian standards.

The way I see it, even if you're a death penalty proponent, you can't possibly think that it is justified for drug smuggling. IMO, what it boils down to is that drug addicts have a choice. They may be uncontrollably driven towards drugs once they've been hooked, but anyone with some sense knows that you should never even try them once. Yes, drug dealers are terrible people and are often responsible for violence and death, but drug smugglers? They don't necessarily participate in that stuff, and many probably don't even directly see the harm of what they're doing. Essentially, what the man is being put to death for is bringing in a product that people had the choice to start taking or not.

 

[Townsend]

(very serious) "warning".

I guess I just want a bit more extreme of a 'warning' than you do.

I have my reasons for feeling the way I do.

 

[arildno]

The judge should not have freedom when deciding the outcome of a case! The judge should do his job and it should be done in a predictable manner (in other words he should act in accordance with his duties.)

And he retains his free will, and therefore responsibility for his own actions, whether or not he fulfills his duties.

 

[Townsend]

And he retains his free will, and therefore responsibility for his own actions, whether or not he fulfills his duties.

I was always assuming that the police, judge and whoever else is involved is being honest and obeying the laws in doing their duty.

Here is my argument in D_{sl} as best I could make it.

All officials involved are honest = HO
crime = c
caught = ca
p = prosecuted
fg=found guilty
PU=criminal is punished

(c^ca^HO) -> p
(p^fg^HO) -> PU
c
ca
fg
HO
-----------
therefore PU

I realize there are other premises needed and so this is an enthymeme
.
My original point is that if we hold that HO is always true, then the only propositions that can vary are c, ca and fg. Since fg is dependent on the case presented by the prosecution which is based on evidence and we are again assuming that HO is true then the only person with control over this variable is the criminal. All that is left are c and ca, which are entirely up to the criminal.


Naturally we cannot say that every official will always act in an honest manner but we base our laws on the assumption that they will.

I was always assuming that we hold HO constant and I even mentioned it in post #33. Even if you hold open the option that HO can be true or false, the individual still has complete control over c and ca and so carries a significant portion of the burden of PU.

[edit]Even if HO is false any offical only bears responsibility for PU if HO is false and PU is true. So the criminals sentence actually has almost nothing to do with any of the officals involved.[/edit]

 

[Lisa!]

Yep, he did decide to risk it, and the government of Singapore also decided that drug offenders don't have 'the worth' to continue living.

Do you think we should value someone's life when s/he doesn't value other humans' lives? I think 'yes' because we don't want to be like him and we cinsider ourselves as moral and wise people. BUT we're not politicians and we're not in charge of lots of other people's lives. Perhaps that's why I have no wish to be a politician. Sometimes I hear some people(especially those who have an addict around them) complain if there was bigger puishments for smugglers, we wouldn't have so much problems with drug abuse.( If there's a death penalty for some crimes in some countries, it's people's will who live in that country most of the time.)
I don't agree with them because I think it's not all about that. As you see even death penalty wasn't able to prevent this guy from smuggling heroin.
But well at least others learn not to traffic heroin in Singapore. Perhaps numbers could speak better. I mean we should see whether death penalty for smuggling's been able to decrease drug abuse in Singapore or not.

Lol, First Smurf and now you. I know I don't visit this forum very often, but is the standard for discussion around here really so low?

I felt the same at first. I mean I read 1 of smurf's post and thought what a pointless post, but you know he's not always the same. Sometimes(once in a million ) he makes good points in his posts. Anyway you shouldn't blame people around here because of their behaviour, they're just too interested in people who don't visit here frequently.

To smurf: Now you owe me 1. I prefer you never pay me back and just make no comment on this post in return. And I think I told you that before "be careful when you're talking to someone who doesn't know you long enough".

 

[Smurf]

To smurf: Now you owe me 1. I prefer you never pay me back but make no comment on this post.

Owe you one? I consider most of that post to be an insult. Oh I'll pay you back alright.

 

[Smurf]

"be careful when you're talking to someone who doesn't know you long enough".

And, like last time, I'll respond with "If I don't talk to people who don't know me, they won't ever get to know me"

 

[Anttech]

So becuase I have no common ground with you politically it means I am a bleeding heart liberal?? Funny, and actually rather idiotic.

Actually it solves the problem of this guy smuggling heroin through Singapore in the future, now doesn't it?

And locking him up wont? Killing him isn't going to deter other people either, so what does it solve? Nothing..

For decades, murder has been more common in states with capital punish-ment than in those where it is not used. Data from 1973 to 1984 show that murder rates in the states without the death penalty were consistently lower and averaged only 63% of the corresponding rates in the states retaining it.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:fHIlX6nFCRoJ:www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf+evidence+capital+punishment+doesnt+work&hl=en&client=firefox-a

 

[PerennialII]

Do you think we should value someone's life when s/he doesn't value other humans' lives? I think 'yes' because we don't want to be like him and we cinsider ourselves as moral and wise people. BUT we're not politicians and we're not in charge of lots of other people's lives. Perhaps that's why I have no wish to be a politician. Sometimes I hear some people(especially those who have an addict around them) complain if there was bigger puishments for smugglers, we wouldn't have so much problems with drug abuse.( If there's a death penalty for some crimes in some countries, it's people's will who live in that country most of the time.)
I don't agree with them because I think it's not all about that. As you see even death penalty wasn't able to prevent this guy from smuggling heroin.
But well at least others learn not to traffic heroin in Singapore. Perhaps numbers could speak better. I mean we should see whether death penalty for smuggling's been able to decrease drug abuse in Singapore or not.

Yes, imho we should also ---- plus can think of many reasons to avoid the political landscape . Actually I'd say that the respect for other's lives is, irrespective of their actions that is, one of the corner-stones of our society. Would say that it is a necessity for the rationalism of our ethical constructs - why would our moral obligations be lessened by the fact that someone breaks the 'rules', this appears quite foolish if we believe our own ethical system valuing mutual respect is 'right' in the first place (without clauses).

Quite often see these 'cases' made on the grounds that a punishment is required, graver & longer and so forth, but punishment is 'just' means, not the purpose (imho as usual). Also the 'revenge' aspect doesn't belong to a judicial system, it's natural for humans to 'feel' strongly and demand longer sentences etc., but revenge as a basis of constructing a judicial system leads to a neverending 'spin' of crime and total hopelessness for those who have broken the law (imho)(let alone the ethical implications). Also locking people up and executing people is just a means as said above, it is the purpose that matters -> I'd say one the purposes of a society is to have all (perhaps even 'willingly') participate in its running, and the ones who are unable & break the rules, should be gotten back in line if anyway possible (do we have any other choice if we desire to follow the moral concepts we've put up ourselves - and if we don't, what do we say of the value of those 'concepts' in the first place...). Often you just hear 'the demand' that punishment is the key, whilst the idea of administering a punishment as I see it would be a 100% rehabilitation to society, without the 'need' to ever administer a punishment of any kind to that individual again. The fact that it takes time, and this time is also a deterrent, is as I see it just a sub-plot.

And then there is the death penalty as an issue altogether .

 

[alexandra]

Well, I wasn't trying to address the issue of the death penalty in the big picture. I am highlighting the plain fact that somewhere along the way, probably gradually, this guy made a decision that his life was worth no more than the street value of the heroin that he smuggled. He is the one who put a price tag on his own life, and he alone is responsible for cheapening it.

On Australian news tonight, it was reported that his motivation was to raise money to pay off his twin brother's $20 000 debt. That's all they said (I don't know who the brother owes the debt to). They interviewed his mother, who only speaks rudimentary English; I think he comes from a fairly poor background.
But this person's case does not bother me as much as the fate of another Australian (because at least one can't argue the Singapore prisoner didn't break the law; he broke the law, whether it's a law one agrees with or not). It is a different matter regarding the Australian I am really concerned about, but I'll start another thread about that...
alex

 

[alexandra]

It is very simple as far as I can tell. A person does something with known risk then they are entirely to blame for whatever happens to them.

There is, however, always a context within which individuals act. Just for argument's sake, at least one of the 'Bali Nine' (similar situation - facing the death penalty in Indonesia for smuggling heroin) claimed that their family's safety had been threatened if they did not do as they were told. Again, these kids did not come from wealthy backgrounds. One has to wonder what one would do in similar circumstances. Would you risk your family's lives? It seems to me that people are forced to make complex decisions sometimes...

alex

 

[Townsend]

There is, however, always a context within which individuals act. Just for argument's sake, at least one of the 'Bali Nine' (similar situation - facing the death penalty in Indonesia for smuggling heroin) claimed that their family's safety had been threatened if they did not do as they were told. Again, these kids did not come from wealthy backgrounds. One has to wonder what one would do in similar circumstances. Would you risk your family's lives? It seems to me that people are forced to make complex decisions sometimes...
alex

Which is another reason why I don't completely support the death penalty. However the police, judges and whom ever else is involved should uphold the letter of the law even in circumstances where the person had no choice but to commit a crime. Perhaps we could have a law about a person being innocent of a crime they committed under certain circumstances.

I guess you could say I am a lot like a Vogan in that respect. However I detest the idea of having so much bureaucracy like the Vogan's do.

 

[alexandra]

Which is another reason why I don't completely support the death penalty. However the police, judges and whom ever else is involved should uphold the letter of the law even in circumstances where the person had no choice but to commit a crime. Perhaps we could have a law about a person being innocent of a crime they committed under certain circumstances.
I guess you could say I am a lot like a Vogan in that respect. However I detest the idea of having so much bureaucracy like the Vogan's do.

Aarghhh - you don't write poetry, do you? Jokes aside, I agree with your statement that one way to address this issue is if, somehow, the legal system could take into account the complexity of life. I guess the jury system goes some way towards addressing this issue (as long as the law itself allows flexibility and does not specify the death sentence, or any other particular sentence, for specific crimes).

 

[quantumdude]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well might be, but it seems to me that there might be a chance.. that is a slight possibility... not to say it's likely or anything... but are you by any chance... a little up-tight today?

Never learned to read into net jargon or emoticons, eh?

"LOL" and "" are meant to show that I'm the exact opposite of uptight.

That's what I was saying, just for some reason no one cares enough to fill in the missing premises and conclusion and only reads my satirical remarks. Such laziness in today's conservatives.

Say what?

No, Smurf, the laziness is on the part of the one who can't be bothered to articulate himself intelligently and clearly.

 

[quantumdude]

So becuase I have no common ground with you politically it means I am a bleeding heart liberal?? Funny, and actually rather idiotic.

Who do you think you are talking to? Either put your attitude in check, or I will put it in check for you.

[edit on 10/24]
Just to avoid any confusion, my comment above only means that instead of responding to any future comments such as this one, I will be deleting them and issuing warnings should the incident repeat itself. I have no intention of doing anything else to "put his attitude in check".
[/edit]

If you read my response to you you will see that I did not call you a bleeding heart liberal. I asked the hypothetical, "What if I responded to you the way you responded to me", referring to the way you labeled me as a "neocon" and called my remarks "savage", in lieu of any properly articulated counterpoint.

And locking him up wont?

Sure it would. Where did I say that it wouldn't? But the fact remains that capital punishment also solves the problem, and that your assertion to the contrary is plainly false.

 

[quantumdude]

On Australian news tonight, it was reported that his motivation was to raise money to pay off his twin brother's $20 000 debt.

I hadn't looked into the guy's background, but I assumed that he was engaged in this activity due to financial need, as opposed to merely being greedy. But my point was that there was some finite value (in this case, $20,000) to which he compared the risk to his own life, and to which he eventually said, "Yes, that would be worth the risk."

 

[Smurf]

No, Smurf, the laziness is on the part of the one who can't be bothered to articulate himself intelligently and clearly.

It's not laziness, it's a conscious choice not to.

 

[Smurf]

I hadn't looked into the guy's background, but I assumed that he was engaged in this activity due to financial need, as opposed to merely being greedy. But my point was that there was some finite value (in this case, $20,000) to which he compared the risk to his own life, and to which he eventually said, "Yes, that would be worth the risk."

Aren't you assuming non-risk alternatives though?

 

[quantumdude]

It's not laziness, it's a conscious choice not to.

Well if you consciously decide not to bother to present yourself well, then it should not be too difficult for you to understand why others would consciously decide not to bother taking your remarks seriously.

Aren't you assuming non-risk alternatives though?

Of course I am assuming that there are non-risk alternatives, or even lesser-risk alternatives. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are other ways to raise money other than by committing capital crimes. Even if he had sold his heroin in Australia, his lot would have been better.

 

[Lisa!]

Owe you one? I consider most of that post to be an insult. Oh I'll pay you back alright.

I just told the truth! Seriously now at first I really thought your posts are all pointless(something like commercials), but now I don't feel like that. In fact I had an almost bad impression of some people(included you) because of our interactions in GD, but this forum's changed changed it alot.

PS I had told you not to make any comment on that post in return, but you did!

And, like last time, I'll respond with ...

I didn't say not to talk to them at all, I just said "be careful". First impression are so important and most of people make their judgment base on it.(don't tell me they're not wise enough and I don't want to interact with them...)
Anyway it's up to you.

 

[Lisa!]

Yes, imho we should also ---- plus can think of many reasons to avoid the political landscape .

Actually I'd say that the respect for other's lives is, irrespective of their actions that is, one of the corner-stones of our society. Would say that it is a necessity for the rationalism of our ethical constructs - why would our moral obligations be lessened by the fact that someone breaks the 'rules', this appears quite foolish if we believe our own ethical system valuing mutual respect is 'right' in the first place (without clauses).

Agree with you. That's what I said in my last post:

Do you think we should value smeone's life when s/he doesn't value other human's lives? I think 'yes' because we don't want to be like him and we consider ourselves as moral and wise people.

Quite often see these 'cases' made on the grounds that a punishment is required, graver & longer and so forth, but punishment is 'just' means, not the purpose (imho as usual). Also the 'revenge' aspect doesn't belong to a judicial system, it's natural for humans to 'feel' strongly and demand longer sentences etc., but revenge as a basis of constructing a judicial system leads to a neverending 'spin' of crime and total hopelessness for those who have broken the law (imho)(let alone the ethical implications). Also locking people up and executing people is just a means as said above, it is the purpose that matters -> I'd say one the purposes of a society is to have all (perhaps even 'willingly') participate in its running, and the ones who are unable & break the rules, should be gotten back in line if anyway possible (do we have any other choice if we desire to follow the moral concepts we've put up ourselves - and if we don't, what do we say of the value of those 'concepts' in the first place...). Often you just hear 'the demand' that punishment is the key, whilst the idea of administering a punishment as I see it would be a 100% rehabilitation to society, without the 'need' to ever administer a punishment of any kind to that individual again. The fact that it takes time, and this time is also a deterrent, is as I see it just a sub-plot.
And then there is the death penalty as an issue altogether .

Again agree with you. I hink socities shoud work on stoping crimes by other means. I mean it's silly we just try to prevent people from doing crimes only by scaring them of punishments. You know most of time, it;s socity that cause some people grow up as a indecent people or criminals. Punishment simply could solve nothing in most cases especially the current type of punishments. What do they do with criminals? "keeping them in prison or death penalty...". They only keep them in prisons without working on them in order to change them to decent people. I have to say in some cases they even change them to a professional one. In death penalty case, we simply clear the problem.
But you know what's the problem? Politicians aren't usually moral.(IMHO, none of them but let's not to generalize)

PS I noticed you use "IMHO" alot. That means you get addicted to it. I had an addiction to ! and now I almost quit it, do you want me to share my experiences ?

 

[PerennialII]

Consension (not concession ) in P&WA ... not an everyday sight !

But you know what's the problem? Politicians aren't usually moral.(IMHO, none of them but let's not to generalize)

Yeah, could say that being a politician requires one to have at least a 'degree' of pragmatism, which 'translates' to placing price tags -> 'occational' moral lapses as some sort of "applied consequentialism".

PS I noticed you use "IMHO" alot. That means you get addicted to it. I had an addiction to ! and now I almost quit it, do you want me to share my experiences ?

Please do! IMHO I've an agreeable phase going, and have been imhoing all over for the last few weeks ---- or then have learned "manners" which would be a really terrifying addiction. I've probably gotten the IMHO from too much studying (since don't remember anyone 'breaking my bones' as of late ), again noticed that "don't know anything about nothing". Don't remember having a '!' addiction ever, how do you contract that one?

 

[alexandra]

Well if you consciously decide not to bother to present yourself well, then it should not be too difficult for you to understand why others would consciously decide not to bother taking your remarks seriously.
Of course I am assuming that there are non-risk alternatives, or even lesser-risk alternatives. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are other ways to raise money other than by committing capital crimes. Even if he had sold his heroin in Australia, his lot would have been better.

Nguyen tried to earn the money through legal means, but had only managed to earn $4000 in two years - working as a waiter, I think (I read this in a hard copy newspaper earlier today, but don't have the newspaper with me right now to check). He hasn't had post-secondary education (too poor). Here's more of his story:

The trial heard that Nguyen agreed to become a drug courier for a Sydney syndicate in a desperate attempt to repay legal debts of more than $30,000 incurred by his twin brother.
If Justice Chiu finds him guilty, he cannot hear anything about Nguyen in mitigation, such as his personal circumstances, his rehabilitation, remorse or even that he has not offended previously.
It will mean nothing, his supporters say, that this young man can live a worthy life, that he has matured greatly since his arrest or that, simply, there is no point in killing him.
Justice Chiu will not be told anything about Nguyen's life in Melbourne since the age of six months, being at St Joseph's Primary School in Springvale, how he became a scout, compered his year 12 valedictory dinner at Mount Waverley Secondary College and passed VCE in 1998, studied and, with friends, started a website and graphic design business that failed.
Justice Chiu may recognise Ms Nguyen in court tomorrow because she attended every day of the trial in November.
But he cannot take into account how she fled Vietnam, gave birth in 1980 in a Thai refugee camp to eventually arrive a single mother in Melbourne, where she cared for her children who suffered under a violent stepfather.
Ms Nguyen worked many jobs to support herself and her sons, working sewing machines at night, packing ice-cream and selling possessions to pay for her own studies.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/18/1079199362649.html

It seems to me that this young man was desperate to do something to help his mother (more than his brother, I'd say). Then again, I don't know how his brother accumulated such a high legal debt... I just think it's inhumane not to take the full picture into consideration when the penalty is so... final and irrevocable.