Death Penalty Appeal
-
not all foreigners think that the death sentence is bad.
-
Apathy is close to treason because it lets the status quo go by without any debate and it limits the alternatives and ideas that could have come up and be open for critical analysis.Originally posted by iveco:How true could that be indeed. It seems as if apathy is tantamount to some sort of treason. -
No disagreement with that. No alternatives can be regarded as impossible before any detailed discussions with diff views exchanged. Don understand why it could be anti-establishment.Originally posted by LazerLordz:If I didn't care about Singapore, I would have walked the path of silent apathy and the consequential silent endorsement of the death penalty in our hearts.
To sound out alternatives is something beneficial, but if you wish to strike that out as impossible and anti-establishment, then you do not have the Republic's interest at heart.
The end to the discussion is not who win but allow both or all sides to understand the opposite views in the process, and decide if we should reconsider our position or feeling our position enhanced? Should death penalty be continued? Or should we consider a change? Should we just abolish death penalty or amend parts or whole of our legal procedure? Should the change be immediate or in the near future?
If the government announced election by end of Nov, should death penalty be an issue? If an opposition member were to say “vote me and I will abolish death penalty”, how do you think ppl will react to that?
Winning the argument here means nothing, but if we have a solid proposal for change and we can convince our ppl that such changes are relevant and beneficial to the society in general, we should see the result in the election. Quoting articles from AI website, or showing how OZ views our law, or just to follow world trend, will not help.
If the silent majority of singaporean are fully aware of the alternatives and they choose to endorse the present system, how can they be considered apathy and are therefore committing treason?
I am no retentionist (or any ideological kind) and I donÂ’t think death penalty is the only solution to everything. IMHO death penalty could be abolished if our society reaches the maturity and homogeneity as those countries in Scandinavia. It is not impossible but certainly not now.
Unless the views of the abolitionists are relevant to the society, they cannot convince the ppl, and if the ppl are not convinced, whether it is PAP or opposition, whether it is authoritative as in Singapore or democratic as in America, it will be status quo and the abolitionists can only continue talking. -
To the (adolescent) pikamaster,
Do you rmb how old I am? (HINT: I'm not even in NS yet.) Â….and I wish to WIP too, for the moment.
Well, not really interested in how old u r. If u r young, u have much to learn, if u r old u have not seen much of life.
Yr posts do not convince me a little wee pit, so may be I do not understand 100%.
Forbes does not agree with u, so his letter “contains absolutely no substance at all”.
Ariels does not agree with u, so his letter is also “lacking in substance”.
Laughably and shockingly, Â…..It's shocking not because Singapore is not civilized, but because of the callous disregard Ariel shows the other Southeast Asian nations of Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillippines, Brunei, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos. His statement implies that all these societies are far less civilized than Australia.
How does Ariel’s “arguably our most civilized neighbouring state” be implying “that all these societies are far less civilized than Australia.” What did he say that with “wider implication to what he says was used as a justification for the mass torture at Guantanamo Bay”?
We are all worthless because we do not agree with you.
4) Foreign counsels are prohibited from beign involved in local cases. Do they have to be involved in local cases to be of any use?
7) Refer to the Case Study on Poon Yuen Yang. But read the rest of the report too, when you have the time, so that you can understand the abolitionist-human-rights stand better, and get the facts fo the argument straight.
Between the report fr AI and the rebuttal from GCTÂ’s office, I choose to believe in our ppl doing their job.
With America, the champion of human rights still implementing death penalty, I cannot help but when there is a conflict in human rights, the rights of the victims and the innocent citizens come before the right of the criminal.
9) Please read up on the opium farming industry and have you heard of something called "international exports"?
What has ecstasy pills got to do with opium farming? Do you really know what you are talking about?
11) wth. This is the most nonsensical thing I have seen written on a discussion on the Death Penalty!!! :X If you want to deal with a problem, you look at all perceptions so that you can see which perceptions need to be changed to solve the problem. That is elementary psycholgy and human relations for you. OMG, which planet do you live on?
why do you need the perceptions of the drug lords? To be more sympathetic to them? To change their perceptions or change your perceptions in solving the problem? I am living on planet earth in a country called Singapore. I donÂ’t need human relationship with the drug lords in Myanmar. Are you in Burmese jungle?
12) Let's put it this way ... I'm not going to buy a drug even if it was shoved in my face. And I'm pretty much a child, or a teenager anyway, so where goes your argument?
You need to show IC to watch NC16, can smoke only in the toilet and it is illegal for the hawker a peh to sell you a beer, or do you have the money for anything?
13) I'm not a parent. And please don't keep misquoting me.
At least learn to respect what yr parents are doing for you.
14) Because you are teaching him that finding someone else to blame and dealing violently with that person is the best way to solve a problem. (And IMHO, private arms possession is illegal in Singapore. Breaking a law to stop the breaking of another law is still breaking the law.)
HmmÂ…..y r too young to know how an adult can shoot a drug trafficker. DonÂ’t waste time thinking about this.
1) Taking away the life of a man is much more serious than taking away his youth - at least in the latter situation, the man still has the chance of living out the remainder of his life as a useful and law-abiding citizen.
There are countless evidences of criminals repeating the crimes after jail. You can argue till cows come home between giving the criminal the chance to live out the remainder of his life as useful (?) and law-abiding citizen, and protecting the would-be victims of the criminals committing the same crime after release.
3) America and Singapore are not the only countries in the world. Of course, there are other countries which still retain the death penalty in practice. But overall, there is an international trend of abolishing the death penalty in law and abolishing it in practice (2 different things).
I donÂ’t follow trend, especially when it comes to protecting the life of innocent citizens.
I think you retentionists are confused about what respect of the law is. It means to adhere to the law when it is fair and just, not refraining from criticizing the law even when it is unjust. After all, Respect for the Law also entails respect for the principle of Law itself, and by criticizing unjust or unfair laws, one is adhering to that principle.
I am no retentionist, and am not confused. Our laws and judicial system are not perfect but certainly not unjust and unfair.
Oh haha your words sound so empty - what if another party comes into power and overturns the law? Will you support it then? And IMHO, most Singaporeans are apathetic, and hence do not bother about retentionism or abolitionism, or are afraid to speak up against the government, so don't try and commit a fallacy of Gross Generalization here, ok?
HmmmÂ…what makes you think the majority of Singaporean are not fully aware of the need and therefore endorse the death sentence? Singaporean may be apathetic to many political issues but isnÂ’t it an assumption that they are also apathetic and are afraid to speak up on this issue? Talk about Fallacy of Gross Generalization?
And may I ask when did you ever speak up against the government about abolitionism? Hypocrite!! Oops, I forgot, you are still hiding under yr momÂ’s apron.
6) Please look deeper, and realize that you are trying to promote Singapore's model, or at least are supporting the government's promotion of the model, as the best in the world. Please don't retreat into Ad Misericordiam arguments.
I am only trying to protect my own way of life. I promote SingaporeÂ’s model to whom? ArenÂ’t you the one promoting an outside model, approved by AI, into Singapore? HmmÂ….this is called retreating into Ad Misericordiams arguments.
What I notice about retentionists - and the government worst of all - is that they adopt a very insular world-view, where what they do or wish to do is right. They refuse to accept criticism from other people, or even see what other people do. They fail to understand that their society and culture is not as unique (remember this?) as they think it is, and stubbornly refuse to learn from others.
Did the government of Singapore send rebuttal to AI to clearly state its position. Our society is indeed unique (which two countries are similar?), and we, the ppl decide what we want to do, and we choose not to follow your way. Stubbornly refuse to learn? ThatÂ’s arrogant accusation.
Simply to say, even if abolitionists provided evidence directly relevant to personal situations, retentionists will reject it with the most spurious arguments e.g. "let the murderer/trafficker go free" (sound familiar?)
So try harder. -
Solid proposals for changes often include input from many areas around the world.Isn't it full of hubris to think we are on top of the pile?Originally posted by sgdiehard:No disagreement with that. No alternatives can be regarded as impossible before any detailed discussions with diff views exchanged. Don understand why it could be anti-establishment.
The end to the discussion is not who win but allow both or all sides to understand the opposite views in the process, and decide if we should reconsider our position or feeling our position enhanced? Should death penalty be continued? Or should we consider a change? Should we just abolish death penalty or amend parts or whole of our legal procedure? Should the change be immediate or in the near future?
If the government announced election by end of Nov, should death penalty be an issue? If an opposition member were to say “vote me and I will abolish death penalty”, how do you think ppl will react to that?
Winning the argument here means nothing, but if we have a solid proposal for change and we can convince our ppl that such changes are relevant and beneficial to the society in general, we should see the result in the election. Quoting articles from AI website, or showing how OZ views our law, or just to follow world trend, will not help.
If the silent majority of singaporean are fully aware of the alternatives and they choose to endorse the present system, how can they be considered apathy and are therefore committing treason?
I am no retentionist (or any ideological kind) and I donÂ’t think death penalty is the only solution to everything. IMHO death penalty could be abolished if our society reaches the maturity and homogeneity as those countries in Scandinavia. It is not impossible but certainly not now.
Unless the views of the abolitionists are relevant to the society, they cannot convince the ppl, and if the ppl are not convinced, whether it is PAP or opposition, whether it is authoritative as in Singapore or democratic as in America, it will be status quo and the abolitionists can only continue talking.
We are trying to state our point and you are trying to state yours.But the govt happens to be on your side of the argument and they are not giving outlets for our(i.e the other side) to make their point known.
This is the issue here, not whether I am totally right or whether you are.It's about whether we can inform and educate from the abolitionist point of view.And my case all along was to remove the mandatory sentencing rule and give back to the judiciary the power to decide on capital crimes because the issue of drugs is basd on potential future deaths/injury/mental illness(take your pick) and not of a killing already committed.
Your move.
-
hehe, my move? I am quite happy to stay where I am, accepting the current system as it is till I see a good alternative. It is whether YOU, not we, the abolitionist can inform and educate from the abolitionist point of view. I have given enough feedback for the abolitionists to ponder, whether you consider these the points of retentionists or whatever. When the opportunity comes for an open debate on the issue, the abolitionists should not be surprised by what the general public would say.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Solid proposals for changes often include input from many areas around the world.Isn't it full of hubris to think we are on top of the pile?
We are trying to state our point and you are trying to state yours.But the govt happens to be on your side of the argument and they are not giving outlets for our(i.e the other side) to make their point known.
This is the issue here, not whether I am totally right or whether you are.It's about whether we can inform and educate from the abolitionist point of view.And my case all along was to remove the mandatory sentencing rule and give back to the judiciary the power to decide on capital crimes because the issue of drugs is basd on potential future deaths/injury/mental illness(take your pick) and not of a killing already committed.
Your move.
How can we remove the mandatory sentencing rule? start a webs page calling for signatures to abolish death penalty, if you can get over 100,000 signatures, may be that will be enough for the government to consider, or can you convince an opposition member to use this as his theme for the next election, if he does get elected on this count, you are getting somewhere. (why am i suggesting this to you??
)
It is your call my friend, not mine. -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
LL, let me understand your position clearly.
This is the issue here, not whether I am totally right or whether you are.It's about whether we can inform and educate from the abolitionist point of view.And [b]my case all along was to remove the mandatory sentencing rule and give back to the judiciary the power to decide on capital crimes because the issue of drugs is basd on potential future deaths/injury/mental illness(take your pick) and not of a killing already committed.
Your move. [/b]
Are you totally against death penalty or just the removal of mandatory sentencing, which means the judges will have the final say whether the convicted should be sentenced to death.
If judges are given the final say, meaning greater element of human touch in considering the circumstances of the convicted, before death sentence is given, I am more agreeable to such change, as this is not abolishing death penalty but an amendment to the judicial procedure. But, will you still be qualified to be "abolitionist"? -
Eventually I would still like to see the death penalty struck off.But given the reality of Singapore's sad pace of real change, even a change in judicial procedure will take ages, not to mention one that needs a amendment to the penal code for it to happn in the first place.Originally posted by sgdiehard:LL, let me understand your position clearly.
Are you totally against death penalty or just the removal of mandatory sentencing, which means the judges will have the final say whether the convicted should be sentenced to death.
If judges are given the final say, meaning greater element of human touch in considering the circumstances of the convicted, before death sentence is given, I am more agreeable to such change, as this is not abolishing death penalty but an amendment to the judicial procedure. But, will you still be qualified to be "abolitionist"? -
2) Might be considered abolitionist in practice, depending on the behaviour of the Judge(s) and the President after the removal of mandatory sentencing.Originally posted by sgdiehard:LL, let me understand your position clearly.
Are you totally against death penalty or just the removal of mandatory sentencing, which means the judges will have the final say whether the convicted should be sentenced to death.
If judges are given the final say, meaning greater element of human touch in considering the circumstances of the convicted, before death sentence is given, I am more agreeable to such change, as this is not abolishing death penalty but an amendment to the judicial procedure. But, will you still be qualified to be "abolitionist"? -
I see. What's the ambiguity?Originally posted by LazerLordz:The one argument that has no clear-cut answer is #6.
-
Singapura will push ahead with the execution of an Australian man convicted of drug smuggling, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has said. He received a letter from the country's Foreign Minister confirming that the execution of Melbourne salesman Nguyen Tuong Van, 25, would go ahead despite pleas for clemency from the Australian government.
But Mr Downer said the Government would continue to press for his life to be spared.
"All we can realistically do is work through what we tend to call the legal issues," he said.
Mr Downer said Nguyen's family would receive two weeks notice of his execution.
Nguyen was caught with 396 g of heroin strapped to his body and in his hand luggage at Changi in 2002.
He faces execution within weeks after losing an appeal for clemency last month.
Government and opposition MPs this week presented Singapore High Commissioner Joseph Koh with petitions from more than 100 parliamentarians and 300 parliamentary staff calling for his life to be spared.
His lawyer Lex Lasry, QC, argued that his client's co-operation with police and remorse should have been counted when his clemency application was considered. -
someone in australia said this "why show sympathy to someone who does not show sympathy to those whom this drugs are intended for"
-
Sympathy for someone sentenced to death is forgiveness but sympathy for life term is not.Originally posted by dragg:someone in australia said this "why show sympathy to someone who does not show sympathy to those whom this drugs are intended for" -
govt explained that the death sentence imposed on the australian is to protect us.
he was transiting, the drugs were not meant for our market.
how does it protect us. -
MIW's logic is: If the drugs were meant for our market and we had no DP, the trafficker would get away scot-free, and the drugs would harm US.Originally posted by dragg:govt explained that the death sentence imposed on the australian is to protect us.
he was transiting, the drugs were not meant for our market.
how does it protect us. -
Singapore unable to change its decision in Australian drug trafficking case: FM Yeo
By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia
SINGAPORE : Singapore said it was unable to change its decision of not granting clemency to an Australian, who had been sentenced to death for drug trafficking by a Singapore court.
In advising the President, Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo said the Cabinet had carefully considered all relevant factors of Nguyen Tuong Van's case.
This includes his sad personal circumstances and his value as a potential source of information.
Mr Yeo said this in his letter addressed to Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.
He said Singapore was unable to change its decision due to the seriousness of the offence and the need to hold firm the national position against drug trafficking.
Mr Yeo stressed that it was not a decision taken lightly.
He accepted that the Australian government must try its best to help Nguyen.
Singapore on its part has a responsibility to protect the people from the scourge of drug addiction which has destroyed many lives and inflicted great suffering on many families.
The government also has the responsibility of preventing the country from becoming a conduit for the trafficking of illicit drugs in the region.
Mr Yeo noted that Nguyen imported almost 400 grammes of pure heroin which would have supplied more than 26,000 doses to drug addicts.
Mr Yeo has also written a separate letter of reply to the Australian shadow foreign minister, Mr Kevin Rudd. - CNA/de -
It's getting so predictable that I can write a program and all these apologetics can just key in the latest condemned man/woman's name and it will generate an auto-reply.
-
Well, now it really looks like you can all say Bye Bye to Nguyen.
-
...and spending all your resources in educating the ppl against drug abuses,.....and never, ever, bring any illegal drugs near singapore, by land, air or sea.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Well, now it really looks like you can all say Bye Bye to Nguyen. -
You know, it is good to keep Singapore DRUG FREE. But our government's tough uncompromising stand on hanging anyone convicted under this section, is going to reap the same kind of uncompromising treatment from countries who's people they hung.
I wonder as I'm not sure; were there any China national's hung so far???
Be it for Murder or Drug Trafficking? -
but in this instance he is transiting, why bother?Originally posted by pikamaster:MIW's logic is: If the drugs were meant for our market and we had no DP, the trafficker would get away scot-free, and the drugs would harm US. -
you think MIW cares about our citizen sentenced to death overseas? it is not our policy to get involved.Originally posted by ShutterBug:You know, it is good to keep Singapore DRUG FREE. But our government's tough uncompromising stand on hanging anyone convicted under this section, is going to reap the same kind of uncompromising treatment from countries who's people they hung.
I wonder as I'm not sure; were there any China national's hung so far???
Be it for Murder or Drug Trafficking?
china is the record holder killing at least 10000 a year. and they promised to kill less. -
thought we've been through this point before ? ...Originally posted by dragg:but in this instance he is transiting, why bother?
so here goes the same argument :
if some terrorist is transiting through Singapore with a bomb ... do we arrest them ? .... -
Changing this policy is something that we need to consider in time to come..Originally posted by dragg:you think MIW cares about our citizen sentenced to death overseas? it is not our policy to get involved.
china is the record holder killing at least 10000 a year. and they promised to kill less. -
it is unfair to compare that way.Originally posted by Fatum:thought we've been through this point before ? ...
so here goes the same argument :
if some terrorist is transiting through Singapore with a bomb ... do we arrest them ? ....
bomb and drug is guarded under different laws.