Human right group. Shut up for our death penalty system !
-
Supporters of the Death Penalty:-
A quote from Floridians agaisnt the Death Penalty about:
the economic aspect of the Death Penalty-According to the Miami Herald, it costs 2 to 6 times as much to kill one person than to incarcerate for life. (3.2 million versus $750,000 in Florida). This cost is weighted UP FRONT - in the initial trial, not in the appeals process as so many believe. Since Florida's death penalty law was re-written in 1972, our state has spent more than $1 billion on its death penalty system, for a return of only 58 executions. That's more than $18,000,000 per execution, and for what return? Is this a good use of your tax dollars? Don't take our word for it. Click here to read a recent in-depth report by the Lakeland Ledger. Click here and also here to see more about FADP's concerns on the cost issue.
Crime and the Death Penalty:-YR =Year MDS=Murder Rate in Death Penalty States* MS= Murder Rate in non-death Penalty States diff =Percent Difference
to be continued...
YR MDS MS diff
1990 9.5 9.16 4%
1991 9.94 9.27 7%
1992 9.51 8.63 10%
1993 9.69 8.81 10%
1994 9.23 7.88 17%
1995 8.59 6.78 27%
1996 7.72 5.37 44%
1997 7.09 5.00 42%
1998 6.51 4.61 41%
1999 5.86 4.59 28%
2000 5.70 4.25 35%
2001 5.82 4.25 37%
2002 5.82 4.27 36%
2003 5.91 4.10 44%
(primary source: FBI's "Crime in the United States") -
... continued from previous post...
Religion and the Death Penalty- Does the Bible really support the Death Penalty?
...
Later rabbinic tradition has interpreted this "lex talionis" to mean that a sentence of death is valid only if the crime was witnessed by two witnesses from the same point of view. This meant that death sentences were almost impossible to pronounce.
...
The New Testament assumes that restoration of holiness to the world is impossible in history, and that the wrath of God is coming on the entire world. However, it offers the hope that those who are "in Christ" need not fear this wrath, because the death penalty has been carried out to purify the church -- in the crucifixion of Christ. Therefore the death penalty for individual nonchristian criminals is not adequate to purify "the world", and the death penalty within the church is not necessary (indeed, it would be a breach of faith to think so), because Jesus died to purify the church.
...
...to be continued
[bold]Almost every modern argument for the death penalty hearkens back to the ancient concerns about revenge or maintenance of the cosmic order.[/b]
The argument about deterrence must assume either that a very high conviction rate for crimes committed is realized (in order to make potential criminals truly afraid of the consequences of their crimes), or that the symbolic execution of the occasional convicted criminal will serve to restore a sense of the proper order of society. The first is impossible without a police state. The second amounts to a matter of religious sacrifice to put fear in the hearts of sinners and comfort in the hearts of the "righteous." New Testament theology rejects this notion outright as a failure to trust in the power of the crucifixion as a sufficient "once and for all" sacrifice to redeem the world.
All the arguments about vengeance are invalid in light of the gospel, including arguments based on victims' feelings, outrage at the wickedness of some crimes, and so forth.
One more modern argument remains, which is a form of the "cosmic order" argument. That is the assumption that there are "good" people and "bad" people in the world, and that if only the "bad" people are eliminated, then the world would be in proper order. New Testament theology rejects this distinction, and indeed, the theology which promoted this idea, Manicheeism, has been condemned as a heresy by the church since the fourth century. -
...continued from previous post...
Religion and the Death Penalty - Buddhism and the Death Penalty
[80% of Singaporeans are Buddhists]
[Educated] Public Opinion and the Death Penalty (obviously, SG govt don't bother educating pple abt the various aspects of the Death Penalty; I don't think they have even released a video on what happens when a person gets hanged; now that would be truely educational.):-
The Dalai Lama says:
Harmful actions and their tragic consequences all have their origin in disturbing emotions and negative thoughts, and these are a state of mind, whose potential we find within all human beings. From this point of view, every one of us has the potential to commit crimes, because we are all subject to negative disturbing emotions and negative mental qualities. And we will not overcome these by executing other people.
...
Before advocating execution we should consider whether criminals are intrinsically negative and harmful people or whether they will remain perpetually in the same state of mind in which the committed their crime or not. The answer, i believe, is definitely not.
...
From a Buddhist viewpoint, I believe that the basic nature of every sentient being is pure, that the deeper nature of mind is something pure. Human beings become violent because of negative thoughts which arise as a result of their environment and circumstance.
I wholeheartedly support an appeal to those countries who at present employ the death penalty to observe an unconditional moratorium. At the same time we should give more support to education and encourage a greater sense of universal responsibility. We need to explain the importance of the practice of love and compassion for our own survival and to try to minimize those conditions which foster murderous tendencies, such as the proliferation of weapons in our societies. These are things even private individual can work towards.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=481>
In March of this year, the polling firms of Greenberg/Lake and the Tarrance Group conducted a national survey of people's opinions about the death penalty. This poll revealed an increasing trend, first detected in a series of state polls on this issue, that Americans would favor certain alternative sentences over the death penalty. Although a majority of those interviewed said they favored capital punishment abstractly, that support is reversed when the sentence of life without parole, coupled with a requirement of restitution, is offered as an alternative. Forty-four percent favor that alternative, while only 41% selected the death penalty. Even the choice of a sentence which guaranteed restitution and no release for at least 25 years caused death penalty support to drop by 33%.
Death Penalty - the Tool of Politics (in SG's case, the brainwashing Tool of the PAP):-
(from FADP direct)
If after reading all this, you still support the Death Penalty, you must be deliberately ignoring all the facts.
Politicians often brag that they are "tough on crime" because they support the death penalty. This is an effective sound bite, but it's not factual. If they were truly tough on crime they'd use your tax dollars to PREVENT crime - instead of to punish after the fact. OVER 94% of all criminal justice dollars are spent AFTER a crime has been committed. How much does that leave for programs which address the root causes of violent crime -- in other words, prevention? NOT MUCH!
Remember, to prove a law, mathematical or otherwise, you need to ensure ALL instances of it are true, but to disprove a law, you just need ONE counter-example. And there's already more than one exampel provided in this long post, so there!
the hopeful pikamaster -
Fair enough,what u say is true.I believe ppl who deserve to die are ppl who kill or cruely harm others.Do drug traffickers fall under this categary of ppl i just mentioned?Originally posted by Rockhound:Some people just deserve to die.......... -
PRP,Originally posted by PRP:Fair enough,what u say is true.I believe ppl who deserve to die are ppl who kill or cruely harm others.Do drug traffickers fall under this categary of ppl i just mentioned?
I don't believe anybody deserves to die. one death does not begot another.
the pikamaster -
sometimes we just gotta learn from the french, just bring back the GUILLOTINE! cheap, efficient and provides entertainment for a bloodthristy, sadistic public
-
don't be bloody sadistic ok, vito_corleone?Originally posted by vito_corleone:sometimes we just gotta learn from the french, just bring back the GUILLOTINE! cheap, efficient and provides entertainment for a bloodthristy, sadistic public
the worried pikamaster -
Can..we'll find a way to send you back..maybe you can be executed with Robbespierre..Originally posted by vito_corleone:sometimes we just gotta learn from the french, just bring back the GUILLOTINE! cheap, efficient and provides entertainment for a bloodthristy, sadistic public -
well i would say it would cut costsOriginally posted by pikamaster:don't be bloody sadistic ok, vito_corleone?
the worried pikamaster -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:Can..we'll find a way to send you back..maybe you can be executed with Robbespierre.. would love to but i support the revolution! so i'd probably not have my head rolling
-
Hisoka,Originally posted by hisoka:well i would say it would cut costs
errmm... hv u been reading what I posted above?
the pikamaster -
Pikamaster,Originally posted by pikamaster:PRP,
I don't believe anybody deserves to die. one death does not begot another.
the pikamaster
Suppose ppl who kill or cruely harm others had died before they commited the crimes,then of course there would not be any victims.That's the logic why i said "some deserve death penalties".
Yes, i don't support death penalty.It is for the reason of not supporting cruelty. -
YR =Year MDS=Murder Rate in Death Penalty States* MS= Murder Rate in non-death Penalty States diff =Percent Difference
Pikamaster, your post is intellectually provoking and i really enjoy it. What i will like to point out is that, the figures you gave showing us that the penalty failed as a deterrent could be misleading.
YR MDS MS diff
1990 9.5 9.16 4%
1991 9.94 9.27 7%
1992 9.51 8.63 10%
1993 9.69 8.81 10%
1994 9.23 7.88 17%
1995 8.59 6.78 27%
1996 7.72 5.37 44%
1997 7.09 5.00 42%
1998 6.51 4.61 41%
1999 5.86 4.59 28%
2000 5.70 4.25 35%
2001 5.82 4.25 37%
2002 5.82 4.27 36%
2003 5.91 4.10 44%
(primary source: FBI's "Crime in the United States"
Generally, with facts and figures available in the internet, im delighted to know that countries which abandoned the death sentence do not experience a rise in murder rate. It is so apparent that the death sentence have no positive link to detering hideous crimes, i will like to disagree.
I see that these countries can afford to go away with the death penalty because in the first place, their culture had reached a level of excellency in which their people have a strong sense of social responsibility. Their societal conscience is a effective deterrent agaisnt such crimes, i will say they dont need such a extreme penalty to do what conscience alone can do better.
You gave us a list of figures to compare the murder rates of states which practise the death penalty to those which do away the penalty. I bet you had done some homework and i thank you for sharing your information. I will like to share my doubt on how unreliable the information can be to a sense that, it is misleading us. I have a feeling that the website might chosed the figures to their advantage.
The figures you provided starts from the year 1990 which is as if there are two groups of states started with relatively similar murder rates and after a few years which there different doctrine, the states which abolished the penalty seem to benefit from a smaller murder rate. However this may not be true.
The scenario could be that before some states abolish the penalty, the same group which practises the penalty started off with a much higher rate of murder and the same group which dont practises the penalty started off with a much lower rate of murder. Lets take that the year 1987 is the start off year :
*hypothesis example 1:
YR MDS MS diff
1987 13.0 9.20 *the year both groups have death penalty
1988 15.0 9.00 * the year the MS group decided to abolish the penalty
1980 12.0 9.17
1990 9.50 9.16 4%
1991 9.94 9.27 7%
1992 9.51 8.63 10%
1993 9.69 8.81 10%
1994 9.23 7.88 17%
1995 8.59 6.78 27%
1996 7.72 5.37 44%
1997 7.09 5.00 42%
1998 6.51 4.61 41%
1999 5.86 4.59 28%
2000 5.70 4.25 35%
2001 5.82 4.25 37%
2002 5.82 4.27 36%
2003 5.91 4.10 44%
Hypothesis example 1.1:
A, B, C and D are states in America.
A and B: MDS
C and D: MS
In 1987 all of them practises death penalty, in 1988 C and D decided to abolish the death sentence because their states on average have a much lower murder rate (MR) of 9.20 (due to socio-cultural self regulation?) while A and B have to stay with the penalty because their MR is at 13.00 which is terribly high. So for the two groups, MR decrease to 9.50 and 9.16 in 1990 (for MDS and MS respectively) and some website conveniently took them off and compare their progress.
Based on my scenario which is empirically inlinewith your figures, death penalty actually work for these states (dropped from 13.0 to 5.91 as compare to 9.20 to 4.10).
So how can my hypothesis using ur ending results yielded differently? The issue is not by looking at the end but also from the start.
Because we do not have the 'start off' figures to see and justify why certain states have to practise the penalty and why some states can afford to do away with it, we cant make a straightforward comparison and justify any stand from it. To add on to the complexity of reading figures off the block, there is no single or real start off point plus along the way some states go away with the penalty and some states may had readopted the penalty, reading figures off the block is even more unreliable.
Should Singapore follow the footstep of those who go away with death sentences?
We must understand that people in countries like Australia, Sweden, Norway etc have a reputable societal conscience which Singapore is still a distant away from achieving it, can we safely do away with the penalty and say that the result wont be detrimental?
There is a big question mark to my above answer because no country other except those which culture is self-comforting had ever do away the penalty and thus we dont have a model unique to our standard for us to study.
Pikamaster, you had highlighted the point that death sentences could be more expensive than eg life sentences am i wrong? It may be so, but can the tool of justice be measured by monetary value? Are we going to do away with the sentence because it is cheaper and missed out a deterrent tool? It make no sense and thus i will suggest that further discussion shouldnt be on whether which route is cheaper but which route is more effective in detering crime.
There are no sets of figures for us to determine whether is the sentence a strong or weak deterrent. Basically as i have written above, there is no 'start off' point available for us to compare, there are no model example of different countries of different societal cultures which abolish the death penalty for us to compare with respective similar societies which held the penalty, there are no way to calculate how many people are actually saved due to the death penalty and there are no way to calculate whether can the low murder rate of countries which abolish the death sentence be lower with a death sentence. There are so many question which can never be answered because there is no 'control' experimentsin the multi-facet issue.
Religious and morally we are against the death sentence. However can religion and moral rule our society and we go away with pragmatism? If religion and moral issues have a large role in our everyday decision making, there wont be crimes in the first place. Since the society behave not always hand in hand in what moral and religion preaches, moral and religion may not always provide us with the answer on how to deal with such problems.
Thank you. -
foxtrout8,
thx for ur diplomatic and objective reply. Here is my response to yours.
[numeration of parts in this post refer to order of parapraphs in your post eg. part 1) in this post replies to para 1 of your post]
1) thx.
2) What do you define as hideous crimes?
3) I have theorized the problem of Singapore as this: an imbalance of loyalties. The public is far too trusting of the government and the government distrusts its people too much. I don't believe that Singaporeans do not have a societal conscience; rather, they are not given the chance to express it because of the gvoernment's paternalism and concern for its own political power.
4) One reason why I included statistics was to show that Skyline (and other supporters of the Death Penalty) was using potentially biased information. SO mys tatistics was the show the other side of the argument. Besides, Skyline's link between crime rate and suicide rate was extremely dubious. Equally unreliable was his/her evidence that countries with the Death Penalty have happier people than countries without.
Anyway, before I include statistics, I always ensure that they are from as objective a source as possible. In this case, the statistics were provided via a link to a research report by an independent research agency. Of course, the statistics are also from the US police, which indicate a defineite sense of honesty; the polcie have no reason to lie normally.
4,5&6) no comment.
7) interesting observation.
10) Perhaps you should look at the New Zealand Police's crime data.
12) see para 3. don't always believe the propaganda in Straits Times.
13) Was there a model unique to our standard to study for the IR project? If we are looking for Signapore's twin, or any other nation's twin for tha tmatter, we will never find it. Analogies and similes are not teh equivalent of definitions.
14) point taken. I was just shelving data out, not bothering to comment on it.
15) Read this link - a research report from the University of California (Los Angeles) : http://preprints.stat.ucla.edu/396/JELS.pap.pdf
16) Perhaps that is the one ill of capitalistic pragmatism: the failure to discern which sacrifices are more worth. THat's why I included the lower costs point: to convince pragmatists that abolishing the Death Penalty is very pragmatic indeed. What happened to national leader's role as rolemodels for the public? With pragmatism, that flees away quickly. Yes, we shouldn't have a theocracy, but having a fully secular state (luckily we aren't there yet) would be an absolute nightmare. Just see Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia as examples.
Pragmatism is becoming the opium of our society, and in some ways it is more deadly than heroin. it needs to be stopped.
So the summary reply for this para is: blame our power-hungry ruling party.
Sincerely,
the pikamaster
P.S.: The secular alternative to religious morals would be the promotion of Human Rights, which includes the Right to Life, which heretofore bans the Death Penalty. Unfortuantely, SIngapore's (the govt's mostly) anti-colonial nationalist sentiment has clouded the minds of our politicians, and made them see that as a Western Ill: geographical discrimination. *sigh* -
how?Originally posted by hisoka:well i would say it would cut costs -
2) What do you define as hideous crimes?
pikamaster, thx for the objective and enlightening reply.
Actually my objective in using the word hideous crimes is not for any defination but as an simple expression for any crime which is extremely socially-unbearable. Crimes such as murder cases to drug trafficking is an example of a hideous crime. As i had said (socially unbearable), my view on hideous crime varies in different societies. In some societies for example, drug trafficking is not as hideous and another would think and of course reserved different penalties for it..I have theorized the problem of Singapore as this: an imbalance of loyalties. The public is far too trusting of the government and the government distrusts its people too much. I don't believe that Singaporeans do not have a societal conscience; rather, they are not given the chance to express it because of the gvoernment's paternalism and concern for its own political power.
To be honest pikamaster, i see that there is no issue of imbalance here. If the people trust the government and the government distrust it's people, there is actually a balance. If the people trust the government and the government trust the people without any distrust, there seems to be a balance but had the government fulfil it's role? If not, how is it that there is a balance?
The reason why we elect a government is because we need someone to provide something call public goods. Not onli public goods cannot be provided by collective market forces (basic economics), it is formed out of collective mistrust of the people. It is the mistrust among the people that the government (the people trusted) was formed. How can the government being formed out of mistrust, trust it's people fully?
*in my honest opinion, asking the government to abolish the death sentence is calling them to trust the people fully.
For example, if there is trust among the people that nobody will commit crime, there will be no need for the government and no need for them to set up law and order. Some goes to educational, foreign, defence policies... When the government set a certain standard for law and order due to people's distrust in the first place, how can we point the finger and blame that the government is distrusting us?
The actual balance is when the people trust the government to distrust them. In another word, if the people trust the government that their death penalty policy is going to work eventhough it may seem like the policy is structured out of distrust, well there is no issue!
We cannot see it as a clockwise equals to anticlockwise thingy.
I see your point that our government is kiasu to an extent that it distrusts it's people too much. Perhaps it is true but, how are we going to gauge when is it the time to loosen up? How are we going to know for sure we are ready?
Perhaps the government need to get the signal from the people. Although drug offences had been lowered year by year, we havent reach a point (for at least that what the government thinks) to say that we can trust the people and go away with the death penalty for that case (im using drug trafficker to illustrate the point). If in the first place the people can be trusted and no one traffic drugs then no one gets hang, death penalty for that offence wont be an issue then.
Which group of people is the main issue here (if we have to point fingers)? The people or the government? In my opinion, the penalty is there for law and order. If no one commit that offence, no one will get hang and there is no issue. If that is still an issue (which it is), the penalty cannot be abolish.Of course, the statistics are also from the US police, which indicate a defineite sense of honesty; the polcie have no reason to lie normally.
Yes the date are honest, i have no doubt about it but it just seems like we interpret it and we see the whole issue very differently. I do respect your point.Perhaps you should look at the New Zealand Police's crime data.
I will take a look but maybe you would like to highlight it over here and enlighten all of us.13) Was there a model unique to our standard to study for the IR project? If we are looking for Signapore's twin, or any other nation's twin for tha tmatter, we will never find it. Analogies and similes are not teh equivalent of definitions.
Good point but the government never focus and said that based on X Y Z country, the IR thing will definately work for us. But for many Anti-gallow organisation they based their argument on a 'based on X Y Z' theory.Pragmatism is becoming the opium of our society, and in some ways it is more deadly than heroin. it needs to be stopped.
I see pragmatism like what Marx said about religion. He said that religion is the opium of the people. He meant that religion like opium (a healing drug at that time) removes the pain of the people. Pragmatism is like opium (in Marx interpretation) it removes the pain of the society by curing certain ills.
If hanging people is morally and religious wrong but pragmatic. It shall be like opium, remove the ideal of distrubuting drugs in Singapore (pain of the society) and cure it from drug abuses (ills).
Respectfully, thank you. -
foxtrout8,
thx for ur swift reply.
1) ur welcome. point taken.
2) In the ideal state of equilibrium, the total level of trust should be equal to the total level of mistrust, total trust and total mistrust existing at two ends of the same continuum. But ideals cannot be achieved so easily. So in essence, the democratic equilibrium is where the government trusts its people, and the people mistrust the government. Remember, that's not to say that total of either one is good. The mistrust acts as a check for conspicuous/illegitimate government activity and the trust exists as a tool for fostering effective communication. Together they work to promote progress, because progress can only occur if criticisms can be made.
3) There is nothing about trust fully, but the trust must exist.
4) *Sigh*
No, because there are always other forms of punnishment which can be given to criminals. ANd because there might be other more effective deterrents which are yet to be pursued because of our addiction to the Death Penalty.
5) There is trust in law and order. Law has a function; it should not overstep it. The problem is that the government doesn't just set certian standards; due to its mistrust, it is either consistently changing them or sticking to them like hell. Look at education, or look at the cyber-equivalent to the ISA. Educational changes happen so quickly that students and teachers alike are left dazed. The education minister blames youth for being "soft", and praises the streaming system like crazy, (indirectly) calling those who oppose it as ignorant. That is the effect of extreme government mistrust.
6) see 2)
Such fear keeps us from progressing. We need tob e bold and start loosening up. We'll never know when we are ready until we try. ANd we will never grow until we try If we are going to wait until we are ready before we make the plunge, we will wait forever.
9) I think a definition of "the people" needs to be clarified first. The interesting thing about drug trafficking is that the offenders are largely foreigners or PRs, so are these considered "the people"?
Partially, why the Death Penalty for drug-trafficking raises an issue is because at times, like for eg the Flor Contemplacion case in 1994 or the Mugaresu case in 2003, it raises some diplomatic tensions with other countries like Phillippines and India respectively. And worse, it might cause social tensions with people from other countries eg. the recent reaction by Australians to Schapelle Corby's case. As it is, SIngapore is already the Land of Strokes and Banned Chewing Gum , the "Disneyland with the Guillotine", do we need any more names for it? More importantly, do we need Singaporeans in other countries do be any more singled out for abuse and humiliation. It would do a great service to national pride and image if the Death Penalty for drug-trafficking was removed.
And of course, the other question about our drug-trafficking cases are that evidence used can be extremely circumstantial, and thus it is unfair to convict a person based on such evidence.
10) Are there no other ways to maintain law and order?
12) I have highlighted it in a previous thread discussing the Death Penalty.
13) Really? I believe there were references to France, Macau and Thailand? The government didn't refer to these countries when they were all talking about the IR? Get real, man.
14) Marx was distinctly anti-religious from a political standpoint. "religion is the opium of the people" referred to religion being a tool for numbing pain, preventing people from applying rational thought to their circumstance.
And so is the Death Penalty. It numbs pain by translating that pain into anger, and that anger into vengenace, and when one's mind is cluded with thoughts of vengeance, rational thought cannot be applied to the circumstance to define what caused the drug-trafficking or presence of drugs in a person's bag (as it is more likely to be) or murder. ANd thus, an effective preventive measure can never be found.
Cure is good, but prevention is always better.
Respectfully, thank you.
the pikamaster -
Pikamaster
In the ideal state of equilibrium, the total level of trust should be equal to the total level of mistrust, total trust and total mistrust existing at two ends of the same continuum.
It is truely indeed the ideal state of equilibrium and like most ideal theorem, it is not realistic. There is no way we can measure trust and mistrust on top of that, it is mistrust that brings about the loudest noise.But ideals cannot be achieved so easily. So in essence, the democratic equilibrium is where the government trusts its people, and the people mistrust the government.
Im not trying to deny that there should be estates available as a counter check. But as i had mention, it is the people whom trust the government in the first place and the government was formed out of collective mistrust, how can u blame the government from mistrusting?4) *Sigh*
There is no substaintial scientific prove for other punishments which are more effective as a deterrent than death itself. As i had said (in my first reply to your findings) although there seems to be sources pointing that states abolishing the penalty did not experience an increase in crime, it is not conclusive enough to say for example if death sentences were allowed in this country, will the crime figures decreases somemore? *refer to my previous post. No, because there are always other forms of punnishment which can be given to criminals. ANd because there might be other more effective deterrents which are yet to be pursued because of our addiction to the Death Penalty.
Touch your heart and say that the death penalty is not the strongest and loudest deterrent for you.
What do you mean by progress? Such fear keeps us from progressing.As it is, SIngapore is already the Land of Strokes and Banned Chewing Gum , the "Disneyland with the Guillotine", do we need any more names for it? More importantly, do we need Singaporeans in other countries do be any more singled out for abuse and humiliation. It would do a great service to national pride and image if the Death Penalty for drug-trafficking was removed.
I dont see how national pride will increase with the abolishing of death penalties, ISA etc. In fact those names do not affect me at all as long as i know Singapore is safe. Remember what those americans call us when we jail people without trial, look at what they doing now after 911?
It shows that even those advocates have to resort to pragmatic but painful ways to reinforce order afterall.
Our national pride increase onli when we look back and see that our law and order is one of the best in the world ahead of those whom refuses to engage in harsher penalties.And of course, the other question about our drug-trafficking cases are that evidence used can be extremely circumstantial, and thus it is unfair to convict a person based on such evidence.
Is it that every drug trafficking case extremely circumstantial?? Isnt this statement extremely circumstantial too? If it is so, the issue is not on how the law states it's punishment but how the judge assess the cases.13) Really? I believe there were references to France, Macau and Thailand? The government didn't refer to these countries when they were all talking about the IR? Get real, man.
I never deny that.
I said that the government never based it's arguement largely on the statistics of X Y Z countries and expect it to work for Singapore. Many advocates for the abolishing of death sentence expect things to work the same with statistic by just looking at their arguement.
As i had said, there statistics are too shallow for us to make such conclusion.14) Marx was distinctly anti-religious from a political standpoint. "religion is the opium of the people" referred to religion being a tool for numbing pain, preventing people from applying rational thought to their circumstance.
thank you for enlightening me on that. I will follow up by studying his views.
I think i will stop here on my views about the issue. It is obvious that we are standing on different poles with mi on the right and you on the left. Thanks for sharing your views and i had really benefited from it.
Thank you.
respectfully,
foxtrout8. -
I've only read the first and 9th page of this thread =P ... I did a report on the death penalty in sch...
What I personally think is... the death penalty acts as a deterrant to prevent other people from trafficing drugs? To prevent more lives from being taken? I mean you can compare the cost of execution, etc... but really, one human life is worth a lot more than that. And if you can save quite a few people by executing one drug trafficer... I'm actually quite in support of it. I mean, I wouldn't want my kids next time to take drugs, overdose and die...
But on the flipside, I read articles that said that the trafficers were really not to blame. most of the time it's the crime syndicates... I'm just wondering, will the trafficers have a confirm death penalty, or will they get leniency if they work with the police to aid in exposing the crime rings? -
Crstal-Dumpling,
Whether your child would take drug or not wouldn't just depend on the availabilty of drug,there are other reasons such as upbringing.So i don't think we shouldn't put the balme solely on drug traffickers.Death penalty doesn't solve the problem. -
Crystal-Dumpling,
Whether your child would take drug or not wouldn't just depend on the availabilty of drug,there are other reasons such as upbringing.So i don't think we shouldn't put the balme solely on drug traffickers.Death penalty doesn't solve the problem. -
Crystal-Dumpling,
Whether your child would take drug or not wouldn't just depend on the availabilty of drug,there are other reasons such as upbringing.So i don't think we shouldn't put the balme solely on drug traffickers.Death penalty doesn't solve the problem. -
foxtrout8,
thx for your quick reply. Have you read today's Straits Times? It has a forum letter by Mr M. Ravi reminding people that executions do not cause a reduction of crime rate on their own. It will will be interesting to know your response on thsi article.
1) silence can be as harmful as noise, even if it is (obviously) not as loud. Look at what the silence of the UN has done to Darfur!
2) Listen: governments are elected so that the public can use them as a buffer for their own collective mistrust. The government has to trust the public because it makes for a properly functioning feedback mechanism, and also because the public gives it the mandate to rule. the only way to solve the mutual mistrust between the members of the public is to trust the public as a whole when they make comments, so that the illusion of trust can be at least maintained. The government is formed on the basis of individual mistrust, not collective mistrust.
3) Neither is there sufficient scientific proof to show that the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent. But anyway, let's look at a very interesting example from ancient history:
Rome subscribed the Death Penalty for early Christians, but yet the Christian community still grew. And crucifixion and physical torture in those times is worse than hanging, lethal injections and the electric chair today. The Death Penalty used as a deterrent for the spread of the Christian Religion was not at all effective. the Christian population swelled to such a number that later Roman Emperors had no choice but to grant the Christians the right to worship.
What that tell you about the deterrent effect of the Death Penalty?
5) transforming to reflect the times. Progress is when we replace something existent for a long period of time with another thing completely new which achieves the desired function more effectively. Everything has a shelf-life, (even the PAP).
6) Your tone tells me you are either in self-denial, or you don't love your national community at all. Obviously, removing the Death Penalty will remove some of those names, whicha re definitely extremely humiliating, and that will increase national pride definitely. Progress always does, anyway.
As for America, you have to distinguish very clearly between the public and the government (senate + congress). Read American news or magazines, and you will realize that the official opinion and the street American's opinion usually differ a great deal. for example, there is a massive unhappiness over the Patriot Act and the requirement inspection of student visas for international university applicants.
I never refer to governments when I'm talking about foreigners, because in my (cynical) opinion, governments are merely big groups of power-players, and always seek to increase their own power i.e. they are politicians, not national community leaders.One's view must not be so narrow. Even if we have the best law and order in the world (which I'm not so sure we have), what are the costs of having all this? Have we given up too much of our humanity just for this?
9) I guess you don't understand what the meaning of circumstantial is. "circumstantial" in this context means "coincidental". Not every drug-trafficking case is coincidental. There are some rare occasions when police find plans or catch the trafficker red-handed. My statement is definitely not circumstantial, because it is the basis of International Law. Don't tell me that is circumstantial too.
Judges are human; they can make mistakes; even juries can make mistakes. The law must exist to provide a buffer, a cushion for those mistakes should they occur, so that the impact isn't so severe. A wrongful sentencing of the Death Penalty leads to the loss of an innocent life. That is one thing everybody should remember.
11) You denied that rather explicitly, when you said that "said that based on X Y Z country, the IR thing will definately work for us". The government did use statistics, only that they were financial and tourism figures, not crime data. Weren't you listening to the Parliamentary Debate on the Integrated (Casino) Resort?
12) I agree. the statistics might be shallow, but so are those put in favour of the Death Penalty.
14) same to you, but at least I should clarify the points of mine which you don't understand (not doubt) before you go away.
It's been much more enriching talking to you than talking to CX.
Thx for your time,
the pikamaster (who just finished history blocks) -
thank you.
-
In my opinion, it cant by itself solve the problem. Execution can reduce crimes but reducing crime alone is not solving the problem.Originally posted by PRP:Crstal-Dumpling,
Death penalty doesn't solve the problem.