Send Ram Tiwary back to Singapore to hang
-
Nelstar,Originally posted by Nelstar:Let me tell you a story about the prince and his country. (I've been telling the same story to many people... who challenged the hanging rule)
Long long time ago in this nation called Xapore. King Harry Lee Can Yield(
) was getting old of age and decided to step down. His son, Barry Lee Xian Loon ( ) was the crown prince.
So the advisors told Barry Lee that if he wants to win the favour of his people, he should get rid of the death penalty. So when Barry Lee took over King Harry, he abolished the death penalty and fixed jail terms for murderers at seven years. As such, murder rate increased.
Seven years later, pikamonster, a murderer, was released and he went on a rampage, killing Harry Lee, and several important head of the state.
Barry Lee, noticing that the change in the law did not stop pikamonster from killing, decided to re-implement the death penalty. However, he had to give notice to his country and thus pikamonster was again sentenced to another seven years.
Seven years later, pikamonster killed Barry Lee.
Now for part II.
In country XYZ, there was never any death penalty. And all murderers were being jailed indefinitely.
One day the new prime minister took over and decided that criminals that served 20 years and showed good conduct to be released.
I don't need to repeat that how the murderers got loose again and committed crimes again.
what makes you 100% certain that the murderers will commit crimes again? FYI, a large proportion of murders committed are done spur-of-the-moment i.e. they are not planned.
the pikamaster -
Then I will give you quotes from people who have felt the pain, and from things worse than the murder of a single flatmate as well.Originally posted by crazy monkey:if i am the flatmate parent i dun want to hang him. i want to bash him to death. its easy to say when you dun feel the pain.
quotes taken from http://www.mvfr.org/BoardOfDirectors.htm
"I believe the death penalty is about who we are as a society, not what the offender has done to deserve punishment. As long as we model killing as an appropriate response, we will continue to be the most violent society within the highly developed nations."
Linda White
Chairwoman
daughter was abducted, raped and murdered in 1986
"If Lisa's husband had received the death penalty, how would I ever explain to my granddaughter, who was four years old when her mother was killed, that Daddy killed Mommy and then we, the people, killed Daddy; but remember, child - killing is wrong."
June Post
Vice-Chairwoman
step-daughter Lisa was murdered by son-in-law in 1988
"Simply put, the death penalty is a failed public policy. We know that people who commit acts of violence deserve to be held accountable, and the rest of us deserve to be protected from them. We can we do that, though, without acting just like them and becoming killers ourselves. "
Michelle Giger
Director, New Mexico
father was murdered by a drug-trafficker in 1984
"The sheer horror of 9/11 may in some people's minds seem an obvious justification for the state's executing all those who were responsible. But my personal experience of the violence of September 11th has reconfirmed my belief that the state should not kill. We must instead pursue all means to end the cycles of violence that shatter families and communities."
Terry Kay Rockefeller
Director, Massachusetts
Sister killed in World Trade Center Bombing 9th September 2001
I am sure all the people above experienced much more pain than the parents of Ram Tiwary's flatmate, particularly Terry. And remember, the terrorists haven't been caught yet, or have they?
the (unconvinced) pikamaster (as in unconvicned that Ram Tiwary should hang) -
So we're all agreed that he is guilty then? On what basis? And his guilt has been pronounced by whom? Oh well, never mind the details. Just bring out the noose.
-
Law is not monolithic and is dependent upon the prevailing level of social consciousness and the philosophical agenda of the autochthonous society- with the philosophy direction being the most important constituent.
singapore is almost utilitarian by nature. "the greatest good for the greatest amount of people", or in the case of hanging, it can be rephrased to mean "the least harm for the least amount of people". no doubt there are flaws to the utilitarian theory, but there are doubts in others as well.
IMHO, hanging can be justified. "least harm for the least amount of people". life imprisonment incurs great expenditure at the expense of society, whom the criminal has already done wrong to. it is thus socially expedient to hang rather than rehabilitate. -
runningismylife,Originally posted by runningismylife:Law is not monolithic and is dependent upon the prevailing level of social consciousness and the philosophical agenda of the autochthonous society- with the philosophy direction being the most important constituent.
singapore is almost utilitarian by nature. "the greatest good for the greatest amount of people", or in the case of hanging, it can be rephrased to mean "the least harm for the least amount of people". no doubt there are flaws to the utilitarian theory, but there are doubts in others as well.
IMHO, hanging can be justified. "least harm for the least amount of people". life imprisonment incurs great expenditure at the expense of society, whom the criminal has already done wrong to. it is thus socially expedient to hang rather than rehabilitate.
1) How monlithic the law is depends on the level of power of those in power. In Singapore's case, the PAP's power is almost absolute (see how easily they can amend the Constiution despite the Constitution's own "protections"), and so our law is extremely monolithic, because it suits the whims of our leaders, and logically their whims cannot be varied.
2) Utilitarian theory ahs been debunked time and time again because it is extremely cruel and inaccurate. How do you measure harm? Can't you say that hanging a man causes psychological harm to those who hang him and thsoe who support hanging him, since it makes them more vicious, and the aim of society is supposed to be inculcating grace? But how do you measure the exact level of satisfaction gained?
3) Then we should hang Durai. After all, this criminal did wrong to a much larger proportion of society than Ram Tiwary did. In Ram Tiwary's case, at most it was 20 people, considering that the victim's family is that big. In Durai's case, you could say it was 1/3 of our national population. So, by your utilitarian justification, it is much more expedient to hang Durai than to hang Tiwary.
the (unconvinced) pikamaster -
Yes. People do commit some crime in the spur-of-the-momentx, but look at this he killed 2 person in less than a few hr. I really think that being lock up a few years in jail is really nothing compare to what he have done.Originally posted by pikamaster:Nelstar,
what makes you 100% certain that the murderers will commit crimes again? FYI, a large proportion of murders committed are done spur-of-the-moment i.e. they are not planned.
the pikamaster
How would u feel, if u are the parent of the victims and few years later. u saw the killer of your son walking as a free man?
Have u hear about the recent case? A man was charged with raping a ger few year back ago, the goverment jail him for a few years and than set him free. On his release he go and mock fun on the ger back and in the spur-of-the-mommentx. the mother of the ger murder the man, and burn him.
There is no excuse for crime. A spur of mommentx is no a reason. If that the case, can i say if one day u make me piss off, i could just murder u, and than hope people would just jail me for a few years and hope that i repeat? even though i may repeat, but what has become of u? I TOOK AWAY YOUR YEARS OF FREEDOM. YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE. -
1) How monlithic the law is depends on the level of power of those in power. In Singapore's case, the PAP's power is almost absolute (see how easily they can amend the Constiution despite the Constitution's own "protections"Wink, and so our law is extremely monolithic, because it suits the whims of our leaders, and logically their whims cannot be varied.
different law sections have remnants of different philosophies, as such that is what is meant by "un-monolithic law". the ability of PAP to manipulate and interpet the law codes, unlike what you've said, provide greater evidence to "un-monolithic law". fundementally, while the PAP has been baseless in revising certain sections of the law, namely the political dissidence section, our criminal law codes stems still from the british code. and i need to reexert the point: law by itself contains different philsophies of different times which are than amended in. as such it is varied from place to place, time to time.2) Utilitarian theory ahs been debunked time and time again because it is extremely cruel and inaccurate. How do you measure harm? Can't you say that hanging a man causes psychological harm to those who hang him and thsoe who support hanging him, since it makes them more vicious, and the aim of society is supposed to be inculcating grace? But how do you measure the exact level of satisfaction gained?
please provide evidence on the debunk-ing of utilitarian theory. as i've said, there are flaws to every single form of political control. you're merely making a regress argument. i can counter by claiming "that the psychological harm to the people who are directly involved with his hanging would be less than the potential harm to people, by potential perpetrators of the crime". as such, it's not wise of you to counteract an argument by your logic. utilitarian theory is present even in the theory of economics, which in case you didn't know, is taught universally and applied universally. if it has been debunked, academics are sure slow to react. please do not generalise.3) Then we should hang Durai. After all, this criminal did wrong to a much larger proportion of society than Ram Tiwary did. In Ram Tiwary's case, at most it was 20 people, considering that the victim's family is that big. In Durai's case, you could say it was 1/3 of our national population. So, by your utilitarian justification, it is much more expedient to hang Durai than to hang Tiwary.
i clearly stated that another constituent of law would be the level of social consciousness. and it's proper to say that we as a society do not view embezzlement as serious as say, murder. in fact, if we were to go in depth into the utilitarian theory, i would say that the effect of embezzlement of the NKF and the murder of another human would be fundementally different. but that would be digressing.
utilitarian theory cannot be expected to account fully for the lawful justification of hanging. BUT it provides a justification. you will not find a single justifcation for any law code, as such it boils down to the non-monolithicality of law. -
Assumption about religious dogma is not relevant to this issue.Originally posted by sgdiehard:It is better that he received his due punishment now, repent and accept salvation for a new life in eternity, than to continue living a life that threaten others and be doomed for forever.
Both cases involved foreigners killing foreigners and there is nothing politcal in these two murder cases. I can't see how trial in NSW can be fairer than in Singapore. If the case involved an austrialian white killing an aborigines, than I think trial in singapore would likely be fairer.
-
ya Durai shd be hang.Originally posted by pikamaster:3) Then we should hang Durai. After all, this criminal did wrong to a much larger proportion of society than Ram Tiwary did. In Ram Tiwary's case, at most it was 20 people, considering that the victim's family is that big. In Durai's case, you could say it was 1/3 of our national population. So, by your utilitarian justification, it is much more expedient to hang Durai than to hang Tiwary.
the (unconvinced) pikamaster -
What makes you 100% certain that the murderers will not commit their crimes again?Originally posted by pikamaster:Nelstar,
what makes you 100% certain that the murderers will commit crimes again? FYI, a large proportion of murders committed are done spur-of-the-moment i.e. they are not planned.
the pikamaster
What makes you think they will not repeat and commit even more hideous crimes?
What makes you very sure, it was any way fair to the victim when the victim died from a murder and the murderer has a chance to repeat his mistakes?
Murder = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder
In law, murder case is killing another with premeditated malice (aka planned).
Other than that, it's called involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.
Just that in many countries, people cannot accept voluntary manslaughter or the meaning behind it, we misused the word murder and start giving terms like 1st degree, blah blah...
Any spur-of-the-moment killing is still killing. You had the intent. You did it.
There is no justification in killing another just because you had the intent at the spurs of the moment.
Voluntary manslaughter is not a confirmed hanging offence even in Singapore. Go read up on how the judge determines that the criminal knows the consequences of their actions. If they knew kicking a ball can send it flying, then they kicked it at the spurs of the moment, WHAT is the LAW for? -
Can you tell me, what kind of intensive damage was done? Making people lose medical benefits does not kill a person. The keyword here is benefits, not harm.Originally posted by pikamaster:3) Then we should hang Durai. After all, this criminal did wrong to a much larger proportion of society than Ram Tiwary did. In Ram Tiwary's case, at most it was 20 people, considering that the victim's family is that big. In Durai's case, you could say it was 1/3 of our national population. So, by your utilitarian justification, it is much more expedient to hang Durai than to hang Tiwary.
You lose benefits, NO harm done.
SEE?
But then again if Durai is hanged, I'm not crying -
What makes you think it suits the whims of our leaders more than the people?Originally posted by pikamaster:runningismylife,
1) How monlithic the law is depends on the level of power of those in power. In Singapore's case, the PAP's power is almost absolute (see how easily they can amend the Constiution despite the Constitution's own "protections"), and so our law is extremely monolithic, because it suits the whims of our leaders, and logically their whims cannot be varied. -
I was just responding to the statement that "If he is indeed guilty, he will get his punishment from the Divine One sooner or later."Originally posted by LazerLordz:Assumption about religious dogma is not relevant to this issue. -
Let me refer you to my post above; have you even read it yet?Originally posted by zheshi:Yes. People do commit some crime in the spur-of-the-momentx, but look at this he killed 2 person in less than a few hr. I really think that being lock up a few years in jail is really nothing compare to what he have done.
How would u feel, if u are the parent of the victims and few years later. u saw the killer of your son walking as a free man?
Have u hear about the recent case? A man was charged with raping a ger few year back ago, the goverment jail him for a few years and than set him free. On his release he go and mock fun on the ger back and in the spur-of-the-mommentx. the mother of the ger murder the man, and burn him.
There is no excuse for crime. A spur of mommentx is no a reason. If that the case, can i say if one day u make me piss off, i could just murder u, and than hope people would just jail me for a few years and hope that i repeat? even though i may repeat, but what has become of u? I TOOK AWAY YOUR YEARS OF FREEDOM. YOUR RIGHT TO LIVE. -
I believe singapore has no jurisdiction over the case if he did not commit it here
-
Yes. No matter how flawed or flawess their laws may be, we learn to respect and accept the outcome as long as the judge had been just.Originally posted by chronicles:I believe singapore has no jurisdiction over the case if he did not commit it here -
Runningismylife,
(the numbering of my paragraphs in this post corresponds to the paragraph order in your previous reply)
1) PAP clearly follows the utilitarian theory, I think. Anyway, a large chunk of our laws date from colonial times, even including the Sedition Act, and most of our laws are based on British laws too. (So is our education system supposed to be too, but that's debatable.) So I can say that our law is monolirhic in that it follows the British model, I guess.
2) Check wikipedia for Criticisms of Utilitarianism.
I agree that I am making a regress argument, or appear to be at least. I was using this "regress argument" to counter *your* regress arguments. Because of utilitarian theory's inadequacies, its basic premise on satisfaction is a regress argument, since you cannot accurately measure the level of satisfaction. Psychology also informs us of the existence of the conscious and the subconscious, while thinking lies in the conscious. Feelings usually lie in the subconscious, thus somebody who THINKS s/he is for the Death Penalty might actually FEEL against the Death Penalty. As such, ven interviews may not be a gauge of the actual level of satisfaction. And the standard analysis given, which what would you feel if... is insufficient because in the first place, it is insufficient or irrelevant to this issue, and thus is a regress argument, and secondly, feelings and emotions may change over periods of time. Even trauma will fade, although some traces may remain and the memory of it may remain. But the real trauma itself is no longer present.
One of the things I'm learning in school right now is that much of classical economic theory can be debunked easily by empirical observation i.e. they are not facts in real life. In fact, Marx is famous for his theory of worker Alienation, which reminds people of the human element involved in labour, contradicting the utilitarian reference to labour that is present in Capitalist analyses. So there; there will always be some die-hards who will stick to a theory even if they are sinking along with it.
3) Be my guest.
4) You nailed yourself here.
Cheers,
the pikamaster (who's panicking for promos) -
Nelstar,Originally posted by Nelstar:What makes you 100% certain that the murderers will not commit their crimes again?
What makes you think they will not repeat and commit even more hideous crimes?
What makes you very sure, it was any way fair to the victim when the victim died from a murder and the murderer has a chance to repeat his mistakes?
Murder = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder
In law, murder case is killing another with premeditated malice (aka planned).
Other than that, it's called involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.
Just that in many countries, people cannot accept voluntary manslaughter or the meaning behind it, we misused the word murder and start giving terms like 1st degree, blah blah...
Any spur-of-the-moment killing is still killing. You had the intent. You did it.
There is no justification in killing another just because you had the intent at the spurs of the moment.
Voluntary manslaughter is not a confirmed hanging offence even in Singapore. Go read up on how the judge determines that the criminal knows the consequences of their actions. If they knew kicking a ball can send it flying, then they kicked it at the spurs of the moment, WHAT is the LAW for?
*sigh*
3) A false analogy exists here. Your reason is never used to jsutify the Death Penalty. The victim is dead, and barring reincarnation, cannot be killed again. Even a cat does not have 9 lives in this world. 
It is unfair to the future victims. Your logic is the logic of the Precrime department in Minority Report. Go and see if you find their logic appealing. Even better, watch the movie and see whetehr you agree with the Spielberg's views or not.
5) Look at your definition again: It says especially, which is not identical to exclusively or only.
The desire to kill may not have been pre-existent i.e. it came only on the spur of the moment, such as when people throw their wives/girlfriends/children off bannisters.
9) Similarly, there is no justification for killing of another for the sake of justice, which anyway is too poorly defined.
10) The judge's information may be incomplete, and since it's only 1 person making the judgement, as opposed to a jury, there is a larger possible margin of error. Thus, a single unclear piece of evidence may lead to an innocent beign convicted, which would be very bad. I know the argument you will raise - in Singapore, there has never been a case that has had an innocent convicted before. Can we really be sure of that? Has any murder case been re-opened for re-examination, or is it more accurate to say that they become fodder for shows on Channel 5? And besides, for the sake of judicial efficeincy, the burden is placed on the guilty to prove innocence instead of the prosecution to prove guilt, so how fair and appropriate is the final ourcome? And not forgetting that avenues for appeal are severely limited in Singapore, so are our results really so conclusive. In Britain, whose law system we are supposed to be following, there was a case of a 27 year-old man charged with murder based on evidence the jury and the police thought adequate. At that time, UK still practiced the Death Penalty, adn so the man was duly executed. 20 years later, a PI who was skeptical of thsi verdict re-examined teh case and did a new investigation, and eventually discovered another person to be the murderer. This case proves that teh police do not always have the most accurate information, despite how meticulous they may be. After all, police, judges and jury are all still human.
Regards,
the pikamaster -
Nelstar,Originally posted by Nelstar:Can you tell me, what kind of intensive damage was done? Making people lose medical benefits does not kill a person. The keyword here is benefits, not harm.
You lose benefits, NO harm done.
SEE?
But then again if Durai is hanged, I'm not crying
the NKF issue has two sides: the donors and the patients. The patients probably lost medical benefits, ya. But the donors lost huge sums of money, stuff that could have been used to purchase other stuff such as food. I believe a large proportion of these donors to be heartlanders i.e. they are of the lower-income groups. Henceforth, NKF has done great economic/financial harm to these people. Not to mention if the donors are old folks, then they have had emotional harm done to them too, since they have been conned of money. Even the patients have been harmed; some emotionally, after having been forced to act "poor thing" on the NKF's national advertisements and being threatened with reduced treatment should they refuse to comply. (That is part of what the CAC was investigating FYI.) These patients need the kidney treatments; kidney treatments are not mere benefits for them.
So indeed much harm has been done.
the pikamaster -
HahaOriginally posted by Nelstar:What makes you think it suits the whims of our leaders more than the people? 
'cos they don't consult the people before making decisions! -
Runningismylife,
1) I'm afraid you're either very dumb or very dense. No difference when it boils down to your intelligence. I'll repeat it one last time, if you still don't get it, i'm afraid there's nothing much i can do. Law has its roots in philosophy; it evolved out of the need for greater expression of social consciousness and what is deemed right in morality. As such, law is not a homogenous concept in that it is rigid and uncompromising. On the contrary, law has proven to be otherwise. Your argument that we're following British law thus making our law monolithic is laughable. Law encompasses all variants of different law codes used in different countries. IN FACT, the difference in law in different countries show the ability of law to deviat in different circumstances to suit different needs. (Be it, philosophical or political.) Hence you're either arguing for the sake of arguing, or being very careless in your arguments.
(the numbering of my paragraphs in this post corresponds to the paragraph order in your previous reply)
1) PAP clearly follows the utilitarian theory, I think. Anyway, a large chunk of our laws date from colonial times, even including the Sedition Act, and most of our laws are based on British laws too. (So is our education system supposed to be too, but that's debatable.) So I can say that our law is monolirhic in that it follows the British model, I guess.
2) Check wikipedia for Criticisms of Utilitarianism.
I agree that I am making a regress argument, or appear to be at least. I was using this "regress argument" to counter *your* regress arguments. Because of utilitarian theory's inadequacies, its basic premise on satisfaction is a regress argument, since you cannot accurately measure the level of satisfaction. Psychology also informs us of the existence of the conscious and the subconscious, while thinking lies in the conscious. Feelings usually lie in the subconscious, thus somebody who THINKS s/he is for the Death Penalty might actually FEEL against the Death Penalty. As such, ven interviews may not be a gauge of the actual level of satisfaction. And the standard analysis given, which what would you feel if... is insufficient because in the first place, it is insufficient or irrelevant to this issue, and thus is a regress argument, and secondly, feelings and emotions may change over periods of time. Even trauma will fade, although some traces may remain and the memory of it may remain. But the real trauma itself is no longer present.
One of the things I'm learning in school right now is that much of classical economic theory can be debunked easily by empirical observation i.e. they are not facts in real life. In fact, Marx is famous for his theory of worker Alienation, which reminds people of the human element involved in labour, contradicting the utilitarian reference to labour that is present in Capitalist analyses. So there; there will always be some die-hards who will stick to a theory even if they are sinking along with it.
3) Be my guest.
4) You nailed yourself here.
Cheers,
the pikamaster (who's panicking for promos)
2) No one is advocating the implementation of utilitarianism in all attributes of life. What i've merely said was to justify the existence of utilitarianism still in this world. Utilitarianism cannot be debunked but it can be criticised. Nothing is perfect, and it would be incredibly naive to view utilitarianism as useless just because it has be criticised. We're taught economics in utilitarian terms for a simple reason: the world is too complex for us to make it more complex. We do not need grandiloquent philosophies which cannot be executed practically. Quixotic idealism cannot dominant one's thought. Hence, it is fair to say that most government in the world rely (i did not say sorely) or refer to utilitarianism at some point in their policies. Stupid you think? Pragmatic i'd say.
I would like to appeal to other forumners out there to evaluate the argument between me and pikamaster. It's better to have outside evaluation than to have anyone of us, in case he's mistaken, to believe the entirety of his argument. Thanks -
Monetary harm is intangible and no matter how big the lost, it's only jail term and no hanging.Originally posted by pikamaster:Nelstar,
the NKF issue has two sides: the donors and the patients. The patients probably lost medical benefits, ya. But the donors lost huge sums of money, stuff that could have been used to purchase other stuff such as food. I believe a large proportion of these donors to be heartlanders i.e. they are of the lower-income groups. Henceforth, NKF has done great economic/financial harm to these people. Not to mention if the donors are old folks, then they have had emotional harm done to them too, since they have been conned of money. Even the patients have been harmed; some emotionally, after having been forced to act "poor thing" on the NKF's national advertisements and being threatened with reduced treatment should they refuse to comply. (That is part of what the CAC was investigating FYI.) These patients need the kidney treatments; kidney treatments are not mere benefits for them.
So indeed much harm has been done.
the pikamaster
The reason being, money can be earned again. -
jail him for life.
not because he deserves to live.
but just to eliminate any possibility of killing an innocent scapegoat
no matter how remote that possibility -
The death penalty goes way back into biblical times.
Lex Talionis.
The Law of retribution. -
3) The deterrent factor CANNOT BE DISREGARDED. No matter whether the person will repeat or not, he had committed a crime that had damaged enough lives. Hanging is not a solution, but a strong deterrent to make others not repeat another's actions. Can you tell me which deterrent can be more strong than death in any penalties in crime?Originally posted by pikamaster:Nelstar,
*sigh*
3) A false analogy exists here. Your reason is never used to jsutify the Death Penalty. The victim is dead, and barring reincarnation, cannot be killed again. Even a cat does not have 9 lives in this world. It is unfair to the future victims. Your logic is the logic of the Precrime department in Minority Report. Go and see if you find their logic appealing. Even better, watch the movie and see whetehr you agree with the Spielberg's views or not.
5) Look at your definition again: It says especially, which is not identical to exclusively or only. The desire to kill may not have been pre-existent i.e. it came only on the spur of the moment, such as when people throw their wives/girlfriends/children off bannisters.
9) Similarly, there is no justification for killing of another for the sake of justice, which anyway is too poorly defined.
10) The judge's information may be incomplete, and since it's only 1 person making the judgement, as opposed to a jury, there is a larger possible margin of error. Thus, a single unclear piece of evidence may lead to an innocent beign convicted, which would be very bad. I know the argument you will raise - in Singapore, there has never been a case that has had an innocent convicted before. Can we really be sure of that? Has any murder case been re-opened for re-examination, or is it more accurate to say that they become fodder for shows on Channel 5? And besides, for the sake of judicial efficeincy, the burden is placed on the guilty to prove innocence instead of the prosecution to prove guilt, so how fair and appropriate is the final ourcome? And not forgetting that avenues for appeal are severely limited in Singapore, so are our results really so conclusive. In Britain, whose law system we are supposed to be following, there was a case of a 27 year-old man charged with murder based on evidence the jury and the police thought adequate. At that time, UK still practiced the Death Penalty, adn so the man was duly executed. 20 years later, a PI who was skeptical of thsi verdict re-examined teh case and did a new investigation, and eventually discovered another person to be the murderer. This case proves that teh police do not always have the most accurate information, despite how meticulous they may be. After all, police, judges and jury are all still human.
Regards,
the pikamaster
5) The definition in law for murder IS exclusively in many countries. The idea of murder is pre-planned. You should take up law to know about it. Of course I'm not blaming you for not knowing. Whatever the reason, it's wrong to kill right? Then why make it right by telling people it's ok to kill at the spurs of the moment and give second chance? Would that not complicated matters in court? Do you know how difficult is it to rule a crime based on the plans made by the killer?
9) The keyword is that killing ONE for warning of many others. What's the point of having laws when the people do not feel obliged to follow? The crime rates in US clearly show between states where the law is humane even when the population is smaller) and more people commit crimes than those with death penalty for hideous crimes in 1992. (My teacher then gave us a newspaper cutting) Can you tell me what roughly happened when there ain't a law to fix it?
10) Even a jury cannot be right. Let me just say one thing. No one, or nothing is 100% right, but we try to make do. The laws are not there because they are right, the laws are there because they protect the main interest of the majority of the people. If you did not commit a crime, why do you FEAR injustice? And in any case of injustice, there is something called 'APPEAL'. You get a good lawyer, and produce substantial evidence to overrule certain misguided facts, you can appeal successfully.
In Singapore, we don't hang immediately.