|
Van Nguyen - Hang or not to hang? (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trance Nutter |
| quote: | Originally posted by DIDI
This is a really good arguement for decrimilisation not capital punishment.
|
So............ decriminalisation solves this problem how?:conf:
Serious question there, you made the comment but didn't really explain why. |
|
|
| DJ_Ballistic |
yeah ive never 100% understood decrminilisation but i think the purpose is that, if u make it legal people will be less willing to hide their use of it, and thus would be easier for people to help them deal with it?
and i think it also removes the allure for those few heads who do it purely coz its illegal, "rebelling" i think they call it.
There will always be people dumb enuf todo heroin, but i think decrminilising it would help reduce the number of fatalities as a result of it, well thats the way ive always thought decrminilisation worked... |
|
|
| DIDI |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
So............ decriminalisation solves this problem how?:conf:
Serious question there, you made the comment but didn't really explain why. |
Ok serious answer. I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell of it happening but if we don't keep going for it it's guaranteed not to happen. So in an ideal world where it has happened;
Firstly controlled dosage and purity mean minimal ods.[theres always going to be people who go too far]
Secondly if there is access to affordable drugs, and remember drugs are expensive because they are illegal , there is no need to burgle either your or my home.
Other benefits could be a better differential between drugs. Harder drugs could be more strictly controlled than say, mdma, and I know which I would prefer if I had the choice between alcohol or a controlled dosage cheap pill. Which brings me to the next benefit, because we would be free to discuss it openly and ask questions , education would be much better.[though the internet is a wonderful thing!!]
There will always be people who abuse but it will be much easier to get help if you're not viewed as a thieving junkie.
But the biggy for me is no illegal drugs , no drug dealers, no drug mules, no hangings in foreign countries. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psygnosis
I highly doubt anyone here saying that it's the justified way to deal with situations or how he deserved it would have actually said the same thing if their own family member was on the line or a friend. |
Me. If a close friend or family member did something that deserves punishment, I do not put my personal feelings above the law and interest of my society. I'd feel pretty crappy about it, but it's not my fault that my friend or family member did something stupid.
| quote: |
First off, it IS wrong, none of this eye for an eye bull. If a person gets busted and is a citizen of another country, they should have the right to be dealt with under their own countries laws.
So tell me this, if you were gay or some other disgusting and you went to Iran, and if they hang you.. is that the right thing? since you must know you will get the hanging if you are caught over there. |
Why? Then why would another country let citizens of another nation into their country when they can't control what's going on inside their own nation?
Do you think it would be fair if for example, a Xaxonian kills a man in Nephelia and goes back to Nephelia to get a slap on a wrist (according to Nephelian law) while he'd serve a life sentence for Xaxon?
The ability to travel to another nation is not a right, but a privilege. Conduct yourself wisely. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by DIDI
But the biggy for me is no illegal drugs , no drug dealers, no drug mules, no hangings in foreign countries. |
So, if it isn't illegal, then it should be okay to sell it in stores?
Hmmm... that's kinda going off topic though. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
So do you believe this was 'just'? Or just not 'right'? |
Define justice for me, my friend. If the principles of "justice" are in any way connected to the principles of moral conduct, then the outcome in this case was neither "right" nor "just".
| quote: | | Justice according to established law of Singapore was served. |
Justice, according to the established law of Singapore, can go itself so far as I'm concerned. According to the established law of China, sedition is a capital offence. Does that make it right for the government of that nation to line up political dissenters against a wall and shoot them? According to the established law of Iran, sodomy is a capital offence. Does that make it right for the government of that nation to publicly hang homosexuals?
Laws are just words on a piece of paper. That doesn't automatically make them "just".
| quote: | | I don't think anyone here disagree that Van Nguyen is guilty of drug trafficking. |
I don't think anyone here was trying to make that argument. The proper establishment of guilt is a fairly minor point in deciding whether or not the death penalty is "right", especially for crimes like this.
| quote: | | Now is this 'right'? Because according to you, no one deserves this 'sort of barbarism'. So what penalties should mass murderers get? |
Mass murderers, who obviously pose a threat should society, should have their right to live in society revoked and should spend the rest of their lives in jail. Could you tell me exactly what we would acheive by executing them? If we have apprehended them and rendered them defenceless, is there any need to kill them to ensure they never commit a similar crime? Does executing criminals actually make society any safer than imprisoning criminals?
I'm not necessarily against the death penalty because these people don't "deserve to die" (whatever that might mean) I'm against it because it reduces society to the level of barbarism. If we are to say that no man has the right to murder another man, then why is it that governments should be conferred this moral privilage? How is a legally sanctioned murder any more "just" than a murder commited by vigilantes or a complete psychopath acting in deference to what he sees as a higher code of morality?
| quote: | Another question that begs to be asked is do people deserve second chance? If yes, how many second chances?
Perhaps Van Nguyen made a mistake like we all do. But perhaps if he didn't get caught, he'd keep trafficking drugs. |
Or perhaps the way in which his outlook changed during his three years in prison demonstrates the capacity of the criminal to reform himself. So long as there is a capacity there for a human being to take a "second chance" in life, then yes - I believe that they do "deserve" one.
| quote: | | I suppose it all depends on whether you believe that the primary purpose of criminal system is to punish, or to rehabiliate. (Obviously we can see what Singapore's stands is) |
And that's all the death penalty is - "punishment". Completely mindless retribution. It serves no function other that to satisfy a blood-lust and the primitive desire to exact brutal retribution on those we perceive to have done society wrong. It serves no "preventative" purpose (the rates of execution in Singapore will bare this out), it serves no "prtoective" purpose (how is a man remanded in prison any more dangerous than a dead man?) and it serves no economic purpose (due to the appeals process, executing a man will always be more expensive than imprisoning him for life). Even if you want to argue that the "primary purpose of the criminal system is to punish", you still need to establish in what regard the death penalty is preferable to the penalty of life imprisonment. Put simply, even disregarding the morality of capital punishment, it isn't.
| quote: | | So, when you can prove that this 'defenceless' man is capable of and probably has the will to cause harm, this is not sufficient justification? (For example, a psycho with history of violent crimes) |
A "psycho" confined to a prison cell is capable of causing harm to no-one other than himself. As I said, what is to be gained by murdering him?
| quote: | | One can argue that Van Nguyen's weapon was that stash of drugs he was carrying, to be used against others. *shrug* |
One could also argue that drugs are not actually a weapon. I'm not trying to suggest that the trafficking of a drug such as heroin should go unpunished, but to treat a heroin pusher as a common murderer, simply because the substance he sells has the capability to cause death and misery, is to miss the point that drug dealers wouldn't be able to make money from it if the demand wasn't there. Ask any reformed drug addict where the responsibility for their decisions lay, and I can guarantee you that they will blame only themselves, never the men they were able to buy the drugs from. Again, I don't want to condone the trafficking of drugs, but as other have said before me, drug use is a choice. We would be better served by treating the real causes of hard drug use (disaffection and miseducation) than harshly pursuing the superficially perceived ones.
| quote: | | I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what I've posted. |
Why would you go to the trouble of posting something if you can't see any element of truth in it? :conf:
| quote: | | Me. If a close friend or family member did something that deserves punishment, I do not put my personal feelings above the law and interest of my society. I'd feel pretty crappy about it, but it's not my fault that my friend or family member did something stupid. |
You're absolutely right. The fact that a member of society (or a member of someone's family) chose to destroy their lives by becoming involved with hard drugs, is no reason to destroy (literally) the life of those trafficking the drugs. Freedom and responsibility are always commensurable - in a free society, we should expect that people be held personally responsible for the choices they make. This goes, quite rightly, for Van Nguyen (although the fact that he deserves to be reprimanded for his actions in now way justifies the implementation of the death penalty) just as it goes for those who have chosen to use the drugs he would have otherwise brought onto the streets of this country. I've read a number of letters to the editor in the local papers written by people who have known others who have had their lives ruined or prematurely ended through heroin use and they use this emotive argument to justify the hanging of those involved in the distribution of this drug. The question I have to ask is that if you know the pain of losing someone involved in drugs, then why would you ever wish the same pain on the family and friends of Van Nguyen?
| quote: | Why? Then why would another country let citizens of another nation into their country when they can't control what's going on inside their own nation?
Do you think it would be fair if for example, a Xaxonian kills a man in Nephelia and goes back to Nephelia to get a slap on a wrist (according to Nephelian law) while he'd serve a life sentence for Xaxon? |
Countries are merely the lines that someone has arbitrarily drawn around a piece of dirt. If human rights are universal (as I believe they are) then Xaxonian men should be afforded the same universal rights as Nephelian men, regardless of what piece of dirt they happen to commit a crime on. The absurd leniancy of Nephelian law can in no way justify the absurd severity of Xaxonian (or Singaporean) law.
| quote: | | The ability to travel to another nation is not a right, but a privilege. Conduct yourself wisely. |
Okay, thanks for the advice. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Oh and anyone who hasn't read the editorial from the Australian on Friday needs to do so immediately. It's one of the best I can ever remember reading:
| quote: | | To assert that states that murder criminals are backward and brutal may offend many nations with which Australia enjoys excellent relations. Tough. It is true. |
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...55E7583,00.html |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Good post. Interesting thoughts
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
[quote]Why would you go to the trouble of posting something if you can't see any element of truth in it? :conf: |
To have a good discussion? Playing a devil's advocate of some sort is amusing at times. :)
| quote: |
Define justice for me, my friend. If the principles of "justice" are in any way connected to the principles of moral conduct, then the outcome in this case was neither "right" nor "just". |
It's justice according to established law of sovereign nation of Singapore. Whether it's right or wrong, well, we're debating that right now aren't we? :)
| quote: |
Justice, according to the established law of Singapore, can go itself so far as I'm concerned. According to the established law of China, sedition is a capital offence. Does that make it right for the government of that nation to line up political dissenters against a wall and shoot them? According to the established law of Iran, sodomy is a capital offence. Does that make it right for the government of that nation to publicly hang homosexuals? |
No, but as of this moment, the govt of Singapore doesn't give much care to what you think, because they believe that their law is best for order and safety for their society. An Aussie (or Canadian) has very little say in this atm. AI has been screaming about this for years now and they, a more effective organization, hasn't done much to change the mind of govts. *shrug*
| quote: |
Laws are just words on a piece of paper. That doesn't automatically make them "just". |
Laws are more than just words on piece of paper. It must be more, if there is to be any order in a society.
| quote: |
I don't think anyone here was trying to make that argument. The proper establishment of guilt is a fairly minor point in deciding whether or not the death penalty is "right", especially for crimes like this.
Mass murderers, who obviously pose a threat should society, should have their right to live in society revoked and should spend the rest of their lives in jail. Could you tell me exactly what we would acheive by executing them? If we have apprehended them and rendered them defenceless, is there any need to kill them to ensure they never commit a similar crime? |
One could also ask how much does it cost to keep a criminal in jail. | quote: | | Does executing criminals actually make society any safer than imprisoning criminals? |
Well, you don't have to deal with the chance of criminals being loose again.
| quote: |
I'm not necessarily against the death penalty because these people don't "deserve to die" (whatever that might mean) I'm against it because it reduces society to the level of barbarism. |
At heart, humans are quite... uncivilized. Given a choice of killing a fellow man for a scrap of food in order to survive, you'd be surprised how many people go for the kill. Civilization is an illusion.
| quote: | | If we are to say that no man has the right to murder another man, then why is it that governments should be conferred this moral privilage? How is a legally sanctioned murder any more "just" than a murder commited by vigilantes or a complete psychopath acting in deference to what he sees as a higher code of morality? |
Because govts aren't humans. It's a rather impersonal... thing.
Govts also have that power of live or death because it must, in order to be an effective state, it must have a monopoly of violence in the territory it controls, or else it risks being taken over by other entities. (Yeah, I took that definition from a political science class)
| quote: |
Or perhaps the way in which his outlook changed during his three years in prison demonstrates the capacity of the criminal to reform himself. So long as there is a capacity there for a human being to take a "second chance" in life, then yes - I believe that they do "deserve" one. |
Or he could be saying, 'Oh . If I don't show that I've 'repented' and willing to change, I don't get any chance of clemency at all.
So what should be degree in which someone should get a second chance? A murderer gets free after his sentence and be able to live out his life which his victim don't get any chance at all. How about the victim's family? What comfort do they have?
| quote: |
And that's all the death penalty is - "punishment". Completely mindless retribution. It serves no function other that to satisfy a blood-lust and the primitive desire to exact brutal retribution on those we perceive to have done society wrong. It serves no "preventative" purpose (the rates of execution in Singapore will bare this out), it serves no "prtoective" purpose (how is a man remanded in prison any more dangerous than a dead man?) and it serves no economic purpose (due to the appeals process, executing a man will always be more expensive than imprisoning him for life). Even if you want to argue that the "primary purpose of the criminal system is to punish", you still need to establish in what regard the death penalty is preferable to the penalty of life imprisonment. Put simply, even disregarding the morality of capital punishment, it isn't. |
Good point. I'll buy that for 2 cents.
| quote: |
A "psycho" confined to a prison cell is capable of causing harm to no-one other than himself. As I said, what is to be gained by murdering him? |
Well, there is the docs and the wardens who have to take care of this guy. But that's just getting into nitpick.
| quote: |
One could also argue that drugs are not actually a weapon. I'm not trying to suggest that the trafficking of a drug such as heroin should go unpunished, but to treat a heroin pusher as a common murderer, simply because the substance he sells has the capability to cause death and misery, is to miss the point that drug dealers wouldn't be able to make money from it if the demand wasn't there. Ask any reformed drug addict where the responsibility for their decisions lay, and I can guarantee you that they will blame only themselves, never the men they were able to buy the drugs from. Again, I don't want to condone the trafficking of drugs, but as other have said before me, drug use is a choice. We would be better served by treating the real causes of hard drug use (disaffection and miseducation) than harshly pursuing the superficially perceived ones. |
Ok. How do you solve 'disaffection'?
| quote: |
You're absolutely right. The fact that a member of society (or a member of someone's family) chose to destroy their lives by becoming involved with hard drugs, is no reason to destroy (literally) the life of those trafficking the drugs. Freedom and responsibility are always commensurable - in a free society, we should expect that people be held personally responsible for the choices they make. This goes, quite rightly, for Van Nguyen (although the fact that he deserves to be reprimanded for his actions in now way justifies the implementation of the death penalty) just as it goes for those who have chosen to use the drugs he would have otherwise brought onto the streets of this country. I've read a number of letters to the editor in the local papers written by people who have known others who have had their lives ruined or prematurely ended through heroin use and they use this emotive argument to justify the hanging of those involved in the distribution of this drug. The question I have to ask is that if you know the pain of losing someone involved in drugs, then why would you ever wish the same pain on the family and friends of Van Nguyen? |
Because they think Van Nguyen ed up big time and deserves the rope? If one is being rather cold hard logical about this, family and friends of Van Nguyen has very little say in dealing of punishment of Van Nguyen.
| quote: |
Countries are merely the lines that someone has arbitrarily drawn around a piece of dirt. If human rights are universal (as I believe they are) then Xaxonian men should be afforded the same universal rights as Nephelian men, regardless of what piece of dirt they happen to commit a crime on. The absurd leniancy of Nephelian law can in no way justify the absurd severity of Xaxonian (or Singaporean) law.
|
Oh boy. The question of universal human rights. Human rights get really, really complex but I'll try to keep my point simple.
Universal human rights do not exist. Rights exist as long as there is someone, or some mechanism to enforce that right. So that means, as of right now, Australia can't do much about Nguyen's execution (a perceived human right violation) because Australia do not have the means to enforce and protect the rights of one of its citizens.
You can scream blue that universal human rights exist, but like any protection against use of force, unless you can do something about it, might as well not exist at all. That's just reality. IMO
There's few topics discussing human rights in TOTA forum also. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Justice, according to the established law of Singapore, can go itself so far as I'm concerned. According to the established law of China, sedition is a capital offence. Does that make it right for the government of that nation to line up political dissenters against a wall and shoot them? According to the established law of Iran, sodomy is a capital offence. Does that make it right for the government of that nation to publicly hang homosexuals?
Laws are just words on a piece of paper. That doesn't automatically make them "just".
Countries are merely the lines that someone has arbitrarily drawn around a piece of dirt.
|
exactly right. i find it amazing that people cant seem to grasp these concerns.
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Govts also have that power of live or death because it must, in order to be an effective state, it must have a monopoly of violence in the territory it controls, or else it risks being taken over by other entities. (Yeah, I took that definition from a political science class) |
hehe, yes i remember the expression. monopoly of violence. you are indeed correct with your assertion that states must have a monopoly. but that refers to the actions of the police & and armed forces. theres no inherent need for executions as part of that monopoly of violence. the two have absolutely no relation to each other. its dishonest to assert that they do. a stable state must have a monopoly to ensure its stability, but that does not mean any and every action carried out by the state is correct & beyond judgement.
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Universal human rights do not exist. Rights exist as long as there is someone, or some mechanism to enforce that right. |
yes, rights are pretty pointless without some form of enforcement & protection. absolutely. but the absence of law or mechanism hardly renders human rights non-existant.
all it means is that countries & citizens should do all they can to maintain & promote human rights everywhere they can.
to argue that
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
You can scream blue that universal human rights exist, but like any protection against use of force, unless you can do something about it, might as well not exist at all. |
is pretty defeating and pointless, especially since its the violations in contexts without an enforcement mechanism that are the most important and (most likely) prevalent. there are a plethora of un-winnable wars that are always worth fighting imo.
the fact that there arent safeguards, guarantees and protections for each citizen on this planet is more (not less) reason to strive towards a charter for the protection of all human rights. |
|
|
| JayKuE |
Sorry guys, if the following has already been aforementioned.
50-50 poll on this scenario. me blind, but if a pretty white girl with a sad story of her motives were sitting on death row, I'm sure the nation polls would have a backwards turn, 95-5 towards the abolishing of the death row sentence.
It irks me immensely that people see thinks in 2 colours. There are 492 shades of grey in each and every situation, which people seem to easily dismiss. And , we all accept this. Things are simply right or wrong - that is the law.
He is guilty of the crime. No argument. But again, does the punishment fit the crime?
Is it so difficult to take the person away from the crime. Assess the possibility of rehabilitation, reassimilation etc. etc. the assess reformation. Then make an assessment for punishment.
"we have no right to interfere with other nation's laws!"
Christ, if the punishment were to be, if he were fed to 20 cannibals - then to have his head exhibited on a pogo stick to demonstrate how unacceptable drug trafficking is, would you still have the same frame of mind?
Capital punishment is a barbaric medievil act - an act in which, the closest of friends and family are left with the collateral. They would not undergo the suffering they have endured, and will endure for the rest of their lives - in comparison to a 20-30 year or perhaps life imprisonment.
If you didn't have a tear in your eye, watching Kim Nguyen, express how she'd "hold is hand forever", your heart ain't just cold, its an icicle.
"Responsibility for 26,000 hits"
Comments of he taking responsbility for heroin addiction, further sickens me.
One day, people wil realise the Heroin industry is not driven by cartels, traffickers - "the marketers".
It is a product that need not be sold to a consumer, it is an industry driven by the "addict".
Just ask William S Burroughs :)
Want to fix the problem, start from the lowest of the food chain.
Control the problem, and slowly your trafficking problem will diminish.
And Johnny Howard, my dear Johnny Howard - cry me a river of crocodile tears mr johnny howard.
Quite a shame, the Australian government refuses to make further a stance for its citizens in precarious circumstances. But I've questioned Mr Howard's motives - after Iraq, and especially after the Bali 9. - Not difficult to see where he places the value of human life in comparison to trade agreements eh
I'm not going to lie, while I do believe my points hold credible, my opinion may be biased -
Having crossed paths with Van, his brother and even Bronwyn a million moons ago.... Van, he was a nice guy. |
|
|
| charlee |
| quote: | Originally posted by JayKuE
And Johnny Howard, my dear Johnny Howard - cry me a river of crocodile tears mr johnny howard.
|
I saw his picture in the paper & it made me feel sick :whip: |
|
|
|
|
