Human right group. Shut up for our death penalty system !
-
I have to agree with you. there are many cases of wrong judgements, what makes u think our judiciary system is infallible? granted, the percentage is very low but it is an undeniable fact that mistakes were made.Originally posted by iveco:What if a relative of yours was framed for murder, executed and evidence absolving him of all involvement shows up 10 years later? WHat are you gonna do?
SOmetimes, in our quest to get justice done, we must avoid miscarriages of justice. THis is worse than the crime itself.
in the news headline recently, there was another man who was finally released after so many years in jail becoz he was wrongfully sentenced to murder. The poor man will probably have much difficulty trying to fit back into the society, but my point is he would be hanged according to SG law.
Regarding drug trafficking, i have heard so many stories about drug traffickers slipping the drugs into some innocent traveller's bags at the customs, and planning to retrieve the drugs after the checks. These stories may be just hearsay, but u must admit that it is fairly easy for the unsuspecting traveller to fall prey. So in this case, the innocent guy WILL BE hanged.
I understand the fact drugs will cause many social problems, but IMHO the act of drug trafficking does not warrant a death penalty. The act itself is no where near as violent as murder, road rage, etc. If u want to talk about the social problems that drug addicts cause, and punishment should be meted out to people who bring in drugs, then in the same sense shouldnt the people who bring in gambling dens, aka IRs, be brought to the gallows too?
I strongly believe that no one has the right to take another's life. -
Studpidissmart,
Is fine cruel ? Hmm.. let me think, for throwing rubbish on the floor I get a $500 fine. Yes it is cruel. Free lodging and food ? Then u go and stay in prison lah
U are absolutely wrong to say all punishments are cruel.Is fine cruel?Some ppl think imprisonment is nothing because prisoners get free lodging & food.I didn't advocate following developed countries blindly.I gave reasons why death penalty should be abolished.
Wat is the reason u gave ? because we sell cigerrettes ?The drug traffickers don't intentionally want ppl to take drug.They commited the crime due to money.Even when there are drug,ppl can choose not to take them.
They intentionally knew that the drugs they sell is gonna make people addicted. We don't care wat is his motive, as long as he commit the act he is guilty of it. So u say people who earns money by murdering others deserved to be freed ?
So your rebutals are invalid. -
I have to agree with you. there are many cases of wrong judgements, what makes u think our judiciary system is infallible? granted, the percentage is very low but it is an undeniable fact that mistakes were made.
We have to mete out punishment. Otherwise can u suggest a better way to manage the society ? Men r selfish, some of them do nto care for other people and the only way to control them is the fear of punishmentin the news headline recently, there was another man who was finally released after so many years in jail becoz he was wrongfully sentenced to murder. The poor man will probably have much difficulty trying to fit back into the society, but my point is he would be hanged according to SG law.
If he was in certain states in america, he will be hanged as well. The harm for jailing people has already been committedRegarding drug trafficking, i have heard so many stories about drug traffickers slipping the drugs into some innocent traveller's bags at the customs, and planning to retrieve the drugs after the checks. These stories may be just hearsay, but u must admit that it is fairly easy for the unsuspecting traveller to fall prey. So in this case, the innocent guy WILL BE hanged.
If talking about framing someone else, any crimes can be framed to another person. U can frame another of murder if u want to. And because there is a possibility of framing people, we let all offenders off easily ?I understand the fact drugs will cause many social problems, but IMHO the act of drug trafficking does not warrant a death penalty. The act itself is no where near as violent as murder, road rage, etc. If u want to talk about the social problems that drug addicts cause, and punishment should be meted out to people who bring in drugs, then in the same sense shouldnt the people who bring in gambling dens, aka IRs , be brought to the gallows too?
IMHO, drug trafficker do deserve the death penalty as the social impact is too great. Drugs is a potential catalyst for further future "violent" acts. Drug abusers in their desperation may resort to robbery etc. And finally talking about IR, I believe it is a topic for another thread.I strongly believe that no one has the right to take another's life.
However there r people who believe tat death penalty is necessary, such as me myself. -
Stupidissmart,
According to u, fine is cruel.Banning cigarettes is inhumane.But u support death penalty.Stupid is smart,indeed! -
Of course stupid has to be smart for this person. Anyone in the right frame of mind wouldn't like to see someone hang because he had been framed.Originally posted by PRP:Stupidissmart,
According to u, fine is cruel.Banning cigarettes is inhumane.But u support death penalty.Stupid is smart,indeed!
-
Pls take note: If there is no demands,there is no drug traffickers.So the motive of drug traffickers does matter when discussing in this issue.Originally posted by stupidissmart:They intentionally knew that the drugs they sell is gonna make people addicted. We don't care wat is his motive, as long as he commit the act he is guilty of it. So u say people who earns money by murdering others deserved to be freed ?
So your rebutals are invalid.
Drug traffickers murder ppl?Who force ppl to take drug?Is capital punishment murder? -
According to u, fine is cruel.Banning cigarettes is inhumane.But u support death penalty.Stupid is smart,indeed!
I never say tat hanging is not cruel Mt point is always as such, punishment need to be cruel. Death penalty is simply necessary.Of course stupid has to be smart for this person. Anyone in the right frame of mind wouldn't like to see someone hang because he had been framed
I wouldn't like to if he is really frame. But then there is no choice if u don't know. U wanna free all criminals so no one is a victim of being framed ?Pls take note: If there is no demands,there is no drug traffickers.So the motive of drug traffickers does matter when discussing in this issue.
If there is no drugs here, then there wouldn't be drug abuser and no demand tooDrug traffickers murder ppl?Who force ppl to take drug?Is capital punishment murder?
U know bomb makers doesn't kill people as well. They just provide bombs and it is the people who use them who r the murderers. SO we make bomb making legal ? Bomb should be banned, and so should drugs. SO if u understand why bomb making is illegal, than u understand why drugs should be as well. -
I agree that there should be punishment or segregation (imprisonment) for people who bring harm or are dangerous to the society. However, is death penalty justifiable? Where do we draw the line?
We have to mete out punishment. Otherwise can u suggest a better way to manage the society ? Men r selfish, some of them do nto care for other people and the only way to control them is the fear of punishment
Are you saying that to deter and lower the crime rate, it is justifiable to kill another man? A murderer is to be punished for killing another man, so our supposedly 'fair' judiciary system now kills this murderer? Doesnt it make the system a murderer too? Like i said before, it is an undeniable fact that from time to time some people were wrongfully judged, no matter how small the percentage. Are you also saying that it is ok to risk the mistake of hanging these innocent people just so you can scare off potential offenders?
ning4 ke3 sha1 cuo1 bu4 ke3 fang4 guo4 ?
chinese saying: Rather kill all people wrongfully than to let one slip off?
Why I am totally against death penalty is not only because I believe that no person has the right to take another's life, but also that such a punishment is irreversible in the event of a mistake. There is no way that i can agree to the above chinese saying, it is meant to describe people who are ruthless, irresponsible and self-centered.
I am against death sentence, be it SG or USA. As for the wrongfully sentenced, the harm is already done, true, at least he gets to live the rest of his life as a free man. Would it be better if he were dead and then found innocent?
If he was in certain states in america, he will be hanged as well. The harm for jailing people has already been committed
Yes, we can be framed for anything. I'm just giving a very good example of how easily it can be done in the case of drug trafficking which carries a death sentence in SG.
If talking about framing someone else, any crimes can be framed to another person. U can frame another of murder if u want to. And because there is a possibility of framing people, we let all offenders off easily ?
Also, I'm not saying we should let offenders off easily, I'm not talking about how heavy or light a sentence should be. In this case, I am talking about the possibility of a mistake in pronouncing an innocent person as guilty, and to make it worse the possibility of a death sentence for an innocent person.
By the way, in your opinion what's a light punishment and what's too heavy? Why not just have death sentence for every crime so that we can achieve the effect of "scaring off" potential offenders? Then theoretically we'll have a peaceful and crimeless state isn't it?
Nope it is not off-topic. IRs or gambling dens are similar in the effect of causing gambling addicts to commit crimes, including 'violent acts'. So in this sense, isn't gambling den aka casino or IRs operators (chose watever name u like
IMHO, drug trafficker do deserve the death penalty as the social impact is too great. Drugs is a potential catalyst for further future "violent" acts. Drug abusers in their desperation may resort to robbery etc. And finally talking about IR, I believe it is a topic for another thread. ) equally as guilty as the drug traffickers by being the channel that provides the addiction, resulting in social problems caused by the addicts? Why does the drug trafficker gets death penalty while the casino operators get gahmen approved licences to provide services for promoting the vice?
That is why we still have a long way to go to convince people that life is precious and no one has the right to take that away from anyone else.
However there r people who believe tat death penalty is necessary, such as me myself.
-
I agree that there should be punishment or segregation (imprisonment) for people who bring harm or are dangerous to the society. However, is death penalty justifiable? Where do we draw the line?
The system jails another for restricting a person free will by locking in a room. So the system becomes the system tat restrict a person free will himself as well ? The system canes another for hurting a person in a fight, so the system become the person who assault the offender himself ? As said before, it is punishment, and they r meant to strike fear even among adults. There is a difference between breaking the law, being guilty first, causing harm to society and meting out justice to protect the innocent, deter potential offenders and defend the innocent.
Are you saying that to deter and lower the crime rate, it is justifiable to kill another man? A murderer is to be punished for killing another man, so our supposedly 'fair' judiciary system now kills this murderer? Doesnt it make the system a murderer too? Like i said before, it is an undeniable fact that from time to time some people were wrongfully judged, no matter how small the percentage. Are you also saying that it is ok to risk the mistake of hanging these innocent people just so you can scare off potential offenders?
There r always cases tat people get punished for an offence they never do, but then if u r the judiciary system, wat should u gonna do ? We can't let everyone be freed isn't it ? It is sad to punish an innocent person but there is no better solution. If u do not want to punish the innocent, the only way is to free all criminals, which obviously is worst off for the society
I hope u understand tat punishment is necessary isn't it ? Now if we do not have the death penalty, the possible greatest punishment is simply lifeterm imprisonment. Is tat enough to deter people from committing serious crimes ? There r many people who don't mind jail sentence, especially people who had lived in jail for a long time before being released. They in fact may yearn to go back to jail, a system where they r already used to. Wat is going to stop them from committing offences such as bank robbery, murder, drug trafficking or acts of terrorism ? Secondly, if a person hate another very deeply and killed him. Is tat fair for the innocent person who was murdered ? The innocent gets a heavier punishment than the guilty.ning4 ke3 sha1 cuo1 bu4 ke3 fang4 guo4 ?
I rather use the chinese saying to explain the death penalty
chinese saying: Rather kill all people wrongfully than to let one slip off?
Ren zai jiang hu shen bu you zi
Chinese saying: When a men works in society, they cannot afford to be idealistic and have little choices in the things they do
Men have to be realistic, even making decisions tat may cause harm to a minority to protect the majority. There is no way a justice system can be removed. There is no way to be sure all prosecuted r not innocent. There r no better options. So wat to do ? Free all criminals ?Why I am totally against death penalty is not only because I believe that no person has the right to take another's life, but also that such a punishment is irreversible in the event of a mistake. There is no way that i can agree to the above chinese saying, it is meant to describe people who are ruthless, irresponsible and self-centered.
Every punishment r irreversible. But we cannot not mete out justice.I am against death sentence, be it SG or USA. As for the wrongfully sentenced, the harm is already done, true, at least he gets to live the rest of his life as a free man. Would it be better if he were dead and then found innocent?
The harm is still already done to tis individual. For caning, the process is irreversible as well. The best way is to make processes tat prove an individual is innocent or guilty, not enacting punishment which require time to consumeYes, we can be framed for anything. I'm just giving a very good example of how easily it can be done in the case of drug trafficking which carries a death sentence in SG.
U can push the charge of murder easily to another as well. But wat to do ? Free all drug traffickers ?Also, I'm not saying we should let offenders off easily, I'm not talking about how heavy or light a sentence should be. In this case, I am talking about the possibility of a mistake in pronouncing an innocent person as guilty, and to make it worse the possibility of a death sentence for an innocent person.
How ? Wat is the right sentence to sacre off potential offenders and serve out justice ? Tis sentence will by itself again be cruel as well isn't it. Tis is not an ideal world.
By the way, in your opinion what's a light punishment and what's too heavy? Why not just have death sentence for every crime so that we can achieve the effect of "scaring off" potential offenders? Then theoretically we'll have a peaceful and crimeless state isn't it?Nope it is not off-topic. IRs or gambling dens are similar in the effect of causing gambling addicts to commit crimes, including 'violent acts'. So in this sense, isn't gambling den aka casino or IRs operators (chose watever name u like ) equally as guilty as the drug traffickers by being the channel that provides the addiction, resulting in social problems caused by the addicts? Why does the drug trafficker gets death penalty while the casino operators get gahmen approved licences to provide services for promoting the vice?
For drugs, the person who takes it DEFINITELY have harm done to his body. For casino, only very few people who gambles becomes an addict and commit crimes. Drugs is also physically addicitive, while gambling is at most mental, making it easier to kick or not be addicted. If u look at the law, even illegal casino operators do not get death penalty when they r caught since the harm, as deemed by the judiciary system throughout the world, agree tat the potential harm of casino is much lesser than drugs. It is different.That is why we still have a long way to go to convince people that life is precious and no one has the right to take that away from anyone else.
Tat is why a harsh punishment is necessary to "convince" people from not committing out heavy offences. Implementing death penalty to save more lives numerically r more meaningful -
U say capital punishment is absolutely necessary.Why can some advanced countries abolish it?
If S'pore has no drug,drug addicts can still take drug in foreign countries such as JB.Even with capital punishment,there are still drug traffickers.So the punishemnt is really not effective.
Why don't u answer the question:Is death penalty a murder? -
Originally posted by PRP:
Stupidissmart,
[b]My main arguments
Firstly, death penalty is inhumane.Many advanced countries have abolished such punishment.S'pore has become an advanced country.We should similarily follow.
Secondly,drug traffickers do not intentionally want to kill anyone.They commit the crime for money and the addicts buy drugs voluntarily and most of them don't die after taking drug.So to use death penalty on drug traffickers is wrong under the principle of law.[/b]
Since your rebutals are wrong,would u think harder to rebut my argument persuasively? -
U say capital punishment is absolutely necessary.Why can some advanced countries abolish it?
America legalise firearms too. Why can't singapore have it ? Other advanced countries sell pronographic material by the roadside, why can't singapore have them ?If S'pore has no drug,drug addicts can still take drug in foreign countries such as JB.Even with capital punishment,there are still drug traffickers.So the punishemnt is really not effective.
There is death penalty In JB tooWhy don't u answer the question:Is death penalty a murder?
Yes. So ? Is caning considered intentionally hurting a person ? Is Jailing restriction of freedom ? Is fining forceful possesion of individual ? -
1. Please distinguish between NO CAPITAL punishment and no punishment at all. There should be some system to keep the society safe from certain people. I am against DEATH SENTENCE/capital punishment, not against the whole judiciary system. Removing the Death Penalty DOES NOT automatically mean all criminals are free to go. The punishments for fines and imprisonment can remain WITHOUT the death penalty.
There r always cases tat people get punished for an offence they never do, but then if u r the judiciary system, wat should u gonna do ? We can't let everyone be freed isn't it ? It is sad to punish an innocent person but there is no better solution. If u do not want to punish the innocent, the only way is to free all criminals, which obviously is worst off for the society
2. I'm not sure if u have been to law classes. INITIALLY, one of the very basic ideas behind criminal law is that ONLY when a person is PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, will he/she be pronounced as guilty. Another good point to note is that imprisonment was originally meant for people who are dangerous to the society, i.e. people who committed criminal acts such as murder, robbing, kidnapping, theft, rape, etc. There is a need for these offenders to be kept away from the society to protect the general public.
Of course, over the years, various different amendments were made in different countries/states, so much so that it is sad that sometimes the basic ideas are forgotten or altered. Now we get, IMHO, absurd punishments such as IMPRISONMENT for people who didnt change their window rivets, AS IF the person committed a CRIMINAL ACT. Please check again what is considered a criminal act and what is the idea behind imprisonment. Seems like the law now uses absurd (IMO) penalties to "scare" people into doing what they want them to, in this case, to change to approved window rivets. If scaring people works so well, why not juz change EVERY SINGLE penalty to imprisonment or death to "scare" potential "offenders". (ok abit off-topic but i juz wanna show how the law can sometimes deviate from its basic ideas).
Similarly, a person found with an excess of a certain drug is getting the MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE, I hope the authorities consider the background of the person, whether the accused has connections with drug traffickers/suppliers, if not, since there is a doubt that the person is able to source for the drugs, the general requirement for 'proving beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be established, and in this case, the accused should not be pronounced guilty and sentenced to death. Judgement must not be placed solely on the fact that the accused was caught in possession of the drug, which is very superficial. However, if u read on you will find that this is probably wishful thinking on my part.
Yes, I agree punishment is necessary, the question remains - where to draw the line, and whether capital punishment is effective at all.
I hope u understand tat punishment is necessary isn't it ? Now if we do not have the death penalty, the possible greatest punishment is simply lifeterm imprisonment. Is tat enough to deter people from committing serious crimes ? There r many people who don't mind jail sentence, especially people who had lived in jail for a long time before being released. They in fact may yearn to go back to jail, a system where they r already used to. Wat is going to stop them from committing offences such as bank robbery, murder, drug trafficking or acts of terrorism ?
Like PRP said "Even with capital punishment,there are still drug traffickers.So the punishemnt is really not effective."
Some very interesting quotes i get from Amnesty International. This is a very good article.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa360012004
"Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. Criminologists have long argued that the best way to deter crime is to increase the certainty of detection, arrest and conviction."
"Singapore is believed to have the worldÂ’s highest per capita execution rate, relative to its population. "
"Claiming that the death penalty has been effective in controlling the trade in illicit drugs, the Singapore authorities reported an overall decline in the number of drug abusers arrested between 1994 and 2001....According to the website of the Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), a total of 3,393 drug abusers were arrested in 2002. The number of new drug abusers increased by 16% compared to the figures for 2001."
"Any humane criminal justice system could not continue to justify the retention of the death penalty based on retribution."
Secondly, if a person hate another very deeply and killed him. Is tat fair for the innocent person who was murdered ? The innocent gets a heavier punishment than the guilty.
"I do not now believe that any one of the hundreds of executions I carried out has in any way acted as a deterrent against future murder. Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge". Former British executioner Albert Pierrepoint."
"The death penalty is a violation of one of the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There is no escaping the risk of error which can lead to the execution of an innocent person."
"The eradication of the supply of drugs is important but equally important is the alleviation of social conditions that encourage would-be traffickers or addicts. The socially excluded young and poor school dropouts are the most affected and drug addictions are disproportionately high among males with poor education... Are we assisting the socially excluded to reintegrate into society or are we disposing them off [sic] as rejects?"Chinese saying: When a men works in society, they cannot afford to be idealistic and have little choices in the things they do
So u agree to the idea to "kill all people wrongfully than to let one slip off?" Wow! You have no regard for the innocent??!
Men have to be realistic, even making decisions tat may cause harm to a minority to protect the majority. There is no way a justice system can be removed. There is no way to be sure all prosecuted r not innocent. There r no better options. So wat to do ? Free all criminals ?
There are many more states that do not support capital punishments, are they unrealistic and too idealistic?
Supporting the idea of harming the minority of innocents just so to protect the majority is undeniably discriminatory. What if one day you are to be executed because you are carrying an infectious and fatal disease becoz the deaths of you and "your kind" will ensure the safety of the rest of the people? Do you think it is right to do so? If this is allowed, soon it will turn to differences between race, religion, social classes, and what-have-you. The strong majority bullies the weak minority, is this your idea of justice? People should be judged on whether they are found guilty, not because they are in the minority.
Since you agree that there is no way to be totally sure that all prosecuted are not innocent, all the more should a death penalty be abolished! Better options are available, such as better crime detection, fairer trails and procedures, transparency, etc. Like I said, removing the death penalty does not mean other punishments are removed as well. -
Of course every punishment is irreversible. It is also a fact that no justice system in the world can be free from the risk of error. Justice is not revenge.
Every punishment r irreversible. But we cannot not mete out justice.
You have not yet answered: would it be better if an accused was executed and then found innocent? Harm is already done in either cases, but you do not see the severity of the wrongfully EXECUTED, as compared to the wrongfully imprisoned.
The harm is still already done to tis individual. For caning, the process is irreversible as well. The best way is to make processes tat prove an individual is innocent or guilty, not enacting punishment which require time to consume
In order to prove a person guilty of murder, there must be evidence, backed with a motive and the actual act itself, to back the claim.
U can push the charge of murder easily to another as well. But wat to do ? Free all drug traffickers ?
In order to prove a person guilty of drug trafficking, there is NO requirement to prove actual physical contact or knowledge of the possession, just as long as the drug is found in the accused's possession, he is deemed guilty. Also, as long as the person is found in possession of a certain quantity of the banned drugs, it is AUTOMATICALLY presumed that the person is drug trafficking. This works against drug abusers who possess more than the allowed quantity, because they would otherwise be charged under drug abusing which does not carry the death penalty. In either cases, the requirements are far too easily established and superficial and the accused is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent. The death sentence is mandatory, meaning the judge have no chance to weigh the situation and perhaps decide in a lighter sentence.
Once again, no death sentence don't equate to "free all drug traffickers"... overtly simplistic view of the situation, even extremist.
Drug addicts harm their own bodies, so what has it got to do with anything? Are drug traffickers responsible for the addicts' decision to take up drugs? The decision for harming their own bodies are by the addicts themselves. Since drug traffickers are punished for being the channel that provides the addiction, other people who provide channels for crimes and vices should likewise be punished, but why the disparity in the sentencing?
For drugs, the person who takes it DEFINITELY have harm done to his body. For casino, only very few people who gambles becomes an addict and commit crimes. Drugs is also physically addicitive, while gambling is at most mental, making it easier to kick or not be addicted. If u look at the law, even illegal casino operators do not get death penalty when they r caught since the harm, as deemed by the judiciary system throughout the world, agree tat the potential harm of casino is much lesser than drugs. It is different.
The assumption that gambling is an easier addiction to quit is highly hypothetical, even if it were so, there is a much larger number of gambling addicts compared with drug addicts, resulting in MORE occurences of social problems. The social problems that can be caused by both types of addicts are similar - theft, robbery, murder, etc.
The majority of the world's judiciary systems oppose capital punishment, so what are we waiting for?
There is no evidence that harsh punishment works effectively to deter potential offenders. Most people think they will not be caught.
Tat is why a harsh punishment is necessary to "convince" people from not committing out heavy offences. Implementing death penalty to save more lives numerically r more meaningful
Mandatory death sentences
"The provision of mandatory death sentences deprives the courts of the discretion to weigh the evidence in capital cases in order to consider mitigating circumstances. This can result in decisions which are both arbitrary and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case."
This means that the decision whether or not to hang a prisoner depends on the amount of drugs found. This increases the risk of executing vulnerable drug addicts or minor drug pushers, while those who play a leading role in drug trafficking syndicates often escape detection and prosecution.
...the Misuse of Drugs Act allows for secret evidence from informers to be used during trials. The use of testimony from an anonymous witness violates the accusedÂ’s right to examine witnesses, because the accused is deprived of the necessary information to challenge the witnessÂ’s reliability.
Presumptions, and Guilty until proven innocent.
The Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
According to Clause 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, any person proved to have had in their possession more than specified quantities of drugs, is presumed to have that drug for the purpose of "trafficking" unless the contrary can be proved.
Anyone proved or presumed to have a controlled drug in their possession is presumed to know the nature of the drug, unless the contrary can be proved. According to the law, these presumptions cannot be rebutted by proof that the accused never had physical possession of the drug. In addition, where one of two or more people, with the knowledge and consent of the others, is in possession of a controlled drug, it is presumed to be in the possession of "each and all of them". -
Of course every punishment is irreversible. It is also a fact that no justice system in the world can be free from the risk of error. Justice is not revenge.
Actually, one of the reasons for justice may be to right out the wrong for the victim. Though it was never stated as such, it do gives the idea tis is a form of revengeYou have not yet answered: would it be better if an accused was executed and then found innocent? Harm is already done in either cases, but you do not see the severity of the wrongfully EXECUTED, as compared to the wrongfully imprisoned.
If u ask me, it is true tat if the victim was executed, the result is much worse than if he is jailed. However we have to compare between the final result of the soceity instead of just individual. DO u agree tat if a death penalty, it do deter many forms of serious crimes such as murdering, firearms transaction, kidnapping, bank robbery and drug abuse ? If u compared statistic, u will find tat overall, more people benefited from tis system. It make little sense to save an apple by throwng away a basket of themIn order to prove a person guilty of murder, there must be evidence, backed with a motive and the actual act itself, to back the claim.
Wa about firearm ? It is the same isn't it ? U r deemed to possessed firearms when u really have firearms isn't it ? Wat else could have been added in to prove a person is a drug trafficker ? Maybe the best way is to make the public wary of being a victm to such a crime and be more careful in dealing with their belongings.
In order to prove a person guilty of drug trafficking, there is NO requirement to prove actual physical contact or knowledge of the possession, just as long as the drug is found in the accused's possession, he is deemed guilty. Also, as long as the person is found in possession of a certain quantity of the banned drugs, it is AUTOMATICALLY presumed that the person is drug trafficking. This works against drug abusers who possess more than the allowed quantity, because they would otherwise be charged under drug abusing which does not carry the death penalty. In either cases, the requirements are far too easily established and superficial and the accused is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent. The death sentence is mandatory, meaning the judge have no chance to weigh the situation and perhaps decide in a lighter sentence.
Once again, no death sentence don't equate to "free all drug traffickers"... overtly simplistic view of the situation, even extremist.
If u talk about drug abuser, than u should be glad tat the amount stipulated is actually very great. The amount of drugs could last them for a long time and thus normal drug abusers will not have in possession of such amount unless they r really drug trafficker. It is like u will not buy 100 bottles of Slim 10 pills if u r not the supplier or directly help in supplying them.Drug addicts harm their own bodies, so what has it got to do with anything? Are drug traffickers responsible for the addicts' decision to take up drugs? The decision for harming their own bodies are by the addicts themselves. Since drug traffickers are punished for being the channel that provides the addiction, other people who provide channels for crimes and vices should likewise be punished, but why the disparity in the sentencing?
It have because the potential harmful effect is much more than gambling addicts. I am sure u realise tat if I hit a person till he is paralysed is different from if I hit a person till he is only blue black. The final effect is different. A car driving at 120 km/hr is speeding but a person driving at 200km/hr is worse still. The resulting impact is different. Furthermore, I have shown u tat most the judiciary system in the world treat drug abuse more seriously than illegal gambling operator. Surely there is a sign tat drug abuser is on a different scale than gamblingThe assumption that gambling is an easier addiction to quit is highly hypothetical, even if it were so, there is a much larger number of gambling addicts compared with drug addicts, resulting in MORE occurences of social problems. The social problems that can be caused by both types of addicts are similar - theft, robbery, murder, etc.
Tat is not an assumption tat drug abuse is easier to be addicted and harder to quit since it is physical in nature. If u talk about more gambling addicts, tat may not be true for some countries but true for singapore. Tat is simply because the problem of drug trafficking has been lowered significantly due to heavy punishment and education involved. If they r given free play such as hollad, u will find more people who r drug abuser than addicted gamblersThere is no evidence that harsh punishment works effectively to deter potential offenders. Most people think they will not be caught
If u compare the durg adbuse problem in singapore with the rest of the world tat have no death penalty, u will fidn them to have a lower % of drug addicts per 1000 population or something. Also u will find tat the drug addict cases drop drastically after harsher laws were implemented. Furthermore, I believe it is common sense to know at harsher punishment give higher deterence. Otherwise migt as well free all criminals again since if the lower the punishment the more deterence it gives out -
Definitely PRP and iveco are not talking sense here. You r simplying arguing for the sake of argument tat the death penalty is wrong. Hav u all ever considered the feelings of the relatives of the victims? U all tink humans are so readily reformable? The death penalty also exists bcos of this one thing called conscience. U really tink u can sleep with a piece of mind after u killed somebody even if u r spared the death penalty?
-
Kentona,
U can't understand reason rather than we are not talking sense.According to u,drug traffickers kill someone.Do cigarrette sellers kill ppl?In fact,the business is legal.
Capital is murder -- even Stupidissmart agree but then he still support murder. -
Stupidissmart said fine was cruel and banning smoking is inhumane.Then he support capital punishment.Readers,can u believe the opinions of this person?
-
U can't understand reason rather than we are not talking sense.According to u,drug traffickers kill someone.Do cigarrette sellers kill ppl?In fact,the business is legal.
the harm tat drug trafficking bring to society is not lesser than a murder. Cigerrettes, as said countless but ignored countless times before, r much harmless compared with drugsStupidissmart said fine was cruel and banning smoking is inhumane.Then he support capital punishment.Readers,can u believe the opinions of this person?
I said all punishment r cruel but necessary for perhaps the 3rd time. If it is not cruel, then everybody commit crime isn't it ? Capital punishment r cruel but nevertheless necessary. -
Exactly my sentiments. There are people who have been wrongfully condemned to the gallows. THe hands of the state are dripping with the blood of the wronged.Originally posted by PRP:Kentona,
U can't understand reason rather than we are not talking sense.According to u,drug traffickers kill someone.Do cigarrette sellers kill ppl?In fact,the business is legal.
Capital is murder -- even Stupidissmart agree but then he still support murder.
I would love to see the expression on Kentona's face when his own relative meets the fate I was talking about. -
hmm...Originally posted by skyline63:I really admire Singaporean have the cheek to say it out.
Compare with other countries.
I can tell you.... there is no country on this earth that have such low-crime rate, in the crime that deal with death penalty. At such a high dense places. When you can meet another person ( Not your family members ) just 5 steps away. Outside your door ( HDB, CONDO ) ! Even you live in outer outer part of city ( OWN PRIVATE LAND ). 300 meters sure will meet someone !
Don't tell me USA, Canada. That place is a chaos ! Murder crime are high high high. But only in some states that is low. Because you need to travel 5KM to see another person. Your neighbour loh ! Just like AUST and new Zealand. No people around already so lonely. How to do crime ? Equal to lock-up already loh !
quite interesting u shud mention AUST.
I happen to be in there right now and btw, it is NOT TRUE tt u need to travel 5 km to see another person. I've gone to Perth and Sydney and the Gold Coast and now I'm in Adelaide, and there are Housing Estates there. houses side by side. there are shopping centres and so on. I would judge the houses are about 60 cm apart? What the bloody hell r u talkign abt???? This is not teh colonial days, u noe... in fact, I happen to be in a cyber-cafe in a shopping centre right now so there...
the disgusted pikamaster -
Wrong in legal principle
There is no argument that drug traffickers should be punished.The argument is whether drug trafickers should be punished with dealth penalties.Whether one support capital punishment is a moral choice.I believe capital punishment is wrong while Stupidissmart believes it is right.
Let's just say capital punishment is acceptable.My next question is whether drug trafficking deserves such punishment.Under the principle that "an eye for an eye",drug traffickers shouldn't be given death penalties because it is not the drug traffickers who may kill drug addicts but rather drug trafficers who excessively abuse the drugs & kill themselves.If a person take too much alchoholic drinks or smoke excessively & died,can Stupidissmart blame their death on sellers of alchoholic drinks or cigarettes? -
Stupidismsart said the drug trafficking bring harm to society is no less than murder.Stupidismart,why wouldn't u take drugs since they are availablle.
I said "if there is no demands, there would be no drug traffickers",don't u understand?Why there are drug addicts?Blame them & the govt. -
That came from Keynesian philosophy, didn't it?Originally posted by PRP:I said "if there is no demands, there would be no drug traffickers",don't u understand?Why there are drug addicts?Blame them & the govt. -
Wah Lau, u read up on some news article in other countries and applied that to Spore, dont u have the faintest idea that this is Singapore we r talking about? How often do u hear of such cases in Singapore? Dont go shooting off ur mouth juz bcos u feel u r so damn self-righteous ok. Supply us with FACTSOriginally posted by iveco:Exactly my sentiments. There are people who have been wrongfully condemned to the gallows. THe hands of the state are dripping with the blood of the wronged.
I would love to see the expression on Kentona's face when his own relative meets the fate I was talking about.