|
. : : Death Sentence - German Girl Caught with Marijuana : : . (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| caddyshack |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
But often outsiders lack the cultural background to understand the validity of existing laws.
...Either that or they simply believe their laws are perfect just and working, in which case our suggestions fall on deaf ears.
Again this is by the outsiders definition of justice... according to local definitions there may be no faults. History has proven that it is hard to predict what will happen when any country attempts to adopt western values, and whether that will involve the collapse of society (the USSR is one example).
True... if you come from a Western liberal legal tradition that is. Islamic jurisprudence would dictate that laws are based on the teachings of Mohamed and therefore are god-given.
[Muslim Cleric]The laws of Allah as handed down by Mohamed in the holy Q'uran dictate the laws... A good government merely implements them[/Muslim Cleric]
There is also a good chance the developing world world will see this as Western colonisation - another attempt by the Judeo-Christian world to ipose their values onto teh rest of the world, inciting more anti-Western sentiment which leads to more terrorism etc... "More civilized" is an outdated, and clearly subjective term. According to countries living under Sharia law, their values are more civilized than those of the infidels.
That's not a bad summary of the Western liberal definition of justice. To us the emphasis on rights sounds intuitive and "universal" because we were brought under such a system and taught to value rights and freedom. However Muslims would argue that the Western legal tradition places too much emphasis on rights and freedoms and not enough on God... according to them Allah dictates the rules which allow society to function the right way (close o God and away from sin). China still has a very restrictive system, yet it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The USSR was a superpower and a massive economy, as soon as it adopted Western values it crumbled.
If that was the case, no country would ever return to stricter, more oppressive Islamic laws, because everyone would instantly be so much happier and "less stupid" (??) when the laws are removed. As for crime flourishing in more liberal countries - this is a bit off-topic, but can you think of a country where crime is flourishing because it's to liberal?
[Sharia lawyer]What about spiritual development and closeness to God? are they not more important than economic development? Besides tehre are plenty of very wealthy Muslim countries in the Middle East[/Sharia lawyer]
Can't get much more liberal than many of the Scandinavian countries... yet they have some of the highest living standards in the world, and have had for centuries. The USSR turned into an economic and military superpower under Stalin (one of the reasons many Russians still consider him to have been a great leader), who instituted one of the strictest regimes in history. The Mongols nearly conquered the world under a harsh totalitarian leadership. Such states tend to fade into irrelevance when they soften up.
Again you're speaking from a liberal western legal definition of justice. And there is no way to prove that this definition is objectively superior to any other definition.
I'm all for abolition of the death penalty and pressuring other nations to do so. But you have to do so with the full realisation that you are simply imposing your subjective values on someone else who doesn't share your views. Americans in particular often forget this. |
what he/she said. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
But often outsiders lack the cultural background to understand the validity of existing laws.
|
Yes. That's exactly why foreigners are able to see the problem better. Too much emphasis on cultural background usually blinds people's perception of reality.
| quote: | | ...Either that or they simply believe their laws are perfect just and working, in which case our suggestions fall on deaf ears. |
No they don't. If enough pressure is put on a government, it will change the local laws. People will frown at first, but unless the change is for the worse, soon they will accept it.
| quote: | | Again this is by the outsiders definition of justice... according to local definitions there may be no faults. History has proven that it is hard to predict what will happen when any country attempts to adopt western values, and whether that will involve the collapse of society (the USSR is one example). |
But Singapore largely has adopted western values, as far as trade and commerce goes. The problem with USSR is that it was governed by idiots when they attempted to change the system. Gorbachov was gullable and believed everything the western leaders told him, and Yeltsin was probably never sober since the day he was born. Such leadership ensures a screwed up society, regardless of the system.
| quote: | | True... if you come from a Western liberal legal tradition that is. Islamic jurisprudence would dictate that laws are based on the teachings of Mohamed and therefore are god-given. |
You see, that's why local perspective is more flawed than the global one. We know Muhammed's laws are one man's ideas, while they think those laws came there straight from god himself. If you're going to attempt the religious intolerance issue, I will just point out that every religion claims it's laws are god given, and they are never the same. So there are 3 options. Either there are several gods, which most cultures tend to disagree upon, or there is one god whose words are being misinterpreted by the prophets, or there is no god and those laws are lunatic's ramble. A semiintelligent outsider can see that clearly. A religious insider can not.
| quote: | | [Muslim Cleric]The laws of Allah as handed down by Mohamed in the holy Q'uran dictate the laws... A good government merely implements them[/Muslim Cleric] |
To see why that idea is flawed, look above. Too bad some people believe in it.
| quote: | | There is also a good chance the developing world world will see this as Western colonisation - another attempt by the Judeo-Christian world to ipose their values onto teh rest of the world, inciting more anti-Western sentiment which leads to more terrorism etc... "More civilized" is an outdated, and clearly subjective term. According to countries living under Sharia law, their values are more civilized than those of the infidels. |
That is a possibility, but not a large one. You see, most terrorist grupations do indeed proclaim those things you mentioned as their cause for terrorist actions, but the real cause is different. There are 2 causes infact. One of them is that the american and SSSR governments gave large financial support to those groups in order to weaken the other side's influence. The second reason is poverty. Poor countries can see their economy is in ruins, people are uneducated and illiterate, they are therefore more gullable, so they accuse the evil west of their problems. It's not hard to find people with no real reason to live in countries such as those. They still want to be useful to the society though. Radical fundamentalists give them that hope. All they need is a little spark to turn them into terrorists.
| quote: | | That's not a bad summary of the Western liberal definition of justice. To us the emphasis on rights sounds intuitive and "universal" because we were brought under such a system and taught to value rights and freedom. However Muslims would argue that the Western legal tradition places too much emphasis on rights and freedoms and not enough on God... according to them Allah dictates the rules which allow society to function the right way (close o God and away from sin). China still has a very restrictive system, yet it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The USSR was a superpower and a massive economy, as soon as it adopted Western values it crumbled. |
Yes, except that I wasn't really raised in a western liberal country. There was a sort of softened version of communism here (something along the lines of the current chinese system) until 1991. But communist countries you mention are quite a good example. Not many claimed to be against the system during its reign. Still, as soon as change came, an overwhelming majority was willing to change that system. Many people in oppressive regimes want change, they're just too afraid to say it because they will get hurt. But when a change comes, very few of them are willing to dispute it. Now the chinese system is not nearly as restrictive as it used to be. It did start out as a version of communism similar to the soviet model, but after the cultural revolution things did soften up a lot. Also, that revolution brought with itself a few positive things. It destroyed many old and somewhat barbaric traditions, and in turn opened up a possibility for a faster transition into the global system. The people accepted it, as they usually accept anything. The chinese economy is anything but restrictive, though. It could almost be described as liberal capitalism. Now as far as human rights go, it's not as liberal as the western countries, but it's way above islamic law. My opinion is that some western countries have a bit too liberal laws, so China is really not that far away from the optimal balance. And soviet union didn't crumble because it adopted western economical system, but it was the other way around. They adopted the western economical system because their economy crumbled and they could see no way out. The transition was uncontroled though, so many things went wrong. For a successful transiton check out countries like Czech republic. They're almost at the level of the EU countries now.
| quote: | | If that was the case, no country would ever return to stricter, more oppressive Islamic laws, because everyone would instantly be so much happier and "less stupid" (??) when the laws are removed. As for crime flourishing in more liberal countries - this is a bit off-topic, but can you think of a country where crime is flourishing because it's to liberal? |
They would, and here's why. When I said too liberal, I meant it as having a judicial system that virtually lets anything go without punishment. It's a society close to anarchy rather than a tolerant one. An untolerant society can have very liberal laws. People will always attempt to gain for themselves as much as they think they can, so lenient laws will increase a crime rate. Take this for example, at one time the maximum sentence here for any kind of crime was 20 years. Murderers often got away with 5 year sentences, got on parol after 2.5 for good behaviour. The rate of homicides jumped and every few days you could see someone being murdered. Sentences for corruption were almost non existant, that gave a huge rise to organized crime, and soon the entire economy was falling apart. When new and more strict laws regulating those problems came about, the situation has improved.
| quote: | | [Sharia lawyer]What about spiritual development and closeness to God? are they not more important than economic development? Besides tehre are plenty of very wealthy Muslim countries in the Middle East[/Sharia lawyer] |
Spiritual development should have nothing to do with government. It is a person's free will to choose his religion. A person must accept religion because he/she wants to, not because it is forced upon an individual. Even the prophets like Muhammed and Jesus said something along those lines. Religion is purely optional, not mandatory. Therefore a legal system must be deprived of religious elements.
| quote: | | Can't get much more liberal than many of the Scandinavian countries... yet they have some of the highest living standards in the world, and have had for centuries. The USSR turned into an economic and military superpower under Stalin (one of the reasons many Russians still consider him to have been a great leader), who instituted one of the strictest regimes in history. The Mongols nearly conquered the world under a harsh totalitarian leadership. Such states tend to fade into irrelevance when they soften up. |
It's a bit different with scandinavian countries because they are very rich and have good welfare, so it is largely unprofitable to turn to crime. Still, they are organized and criminals will most likely be punished for their behaviour. But, those countries are living in a very peaceful surroundings. If a war was to break out near them, they'd fall the same day they'd be attacked.
Now, about Stalin, his country was strong from the outside, but got progressively weaker from the inside as the time went by. In the end it simply couldn't have afforded it's military and the role of a superpower.
The mongol rule was very short, but on the inside, it was not as totalitarian. For example, there was a freedom of religion, and there was even a christian church in the middle of the mongol capitol.
| quote: | | Again you're speaking from a liberal western legal definition of justice. And there is no way to prove that this definition is objectively superior to any other definition. |
The overall level of tolerance and individual happines proves it is a better way. Take it this way, most people from islamic regimes would live in the west. Most people from the west wouldn't live in islamic regimes. Therefore most people from both sides like the western system more.
| quote: | | I'm all for abolition of the death penalty and pressuring other nations to do so. But you have to do so with the full realisation that you are simply imposing your subjective values on someone else who doesn't share your views. Americans in particular often forget this. |
Nah, I am not against the death penalty. I am just against obviously unfair laws. And my views are more objective than islamic ones you mentioned. My views are based on logic and reasoning, while their views are based on judge's interpretation of religion. |
|
|
| dj_moonshine |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
If that is the case, most empirical studies seem to suggest that it is not working (or at least not any better than life imprisonment). |
well i think maybe its becuase the governments arent strict enough. for eg. in america they put you to sleep and you die without even going through any pain. in india or in the uk, u get hanged which just takes like 5 seconds until u die. in china i think they torture you first and then you get shot later behind ur head. its obviusly not going to stop someone to commit a crime if their punishment is just gonna be going to sleep, the govt. needs to make it more strict and more harsh, im sure that way no one will dare to break the law. just my opinion.. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_moonshine
well i think maybe its becuase the governments arent strict enough. for eg. in america they put you to sleep and you die without even going through any pain. in india or in the uk, u get hanged which just takes like 5 seconds until u die. in china i think they torture you first and then you get shot later behind ur head. its obviusly not going to stop someone to commit a crime if their punishment is just gonna be going to sleep, the govt. needs to make it more strict and more harsh, im sure that way no one will dare to break the law. just my opinion.. |
So essentially you're supporting torture as a criminal sanction? Do you think that the statistical certainty that innocents will be tortured is justified?
Drug_Tito, good discussion... I will respond to your post when I have more time...
|
|
|
| dj_moonshine |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
So essentially you're supporting torture as a criminal sanction? Do you think that the statistical certainty that innocents will be tortured is justified?
Drug_Tito, good discussion... I will respond to your post when I have more time...
|
no i dont think that if innocents are tortured is justified, if ur proven to be guilty, then u should be given the punishment. however, if u commit a second degree crime, i dont think you should get a death sentence, and its hard to say wat kind of sentence you hould recieve. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_moonshine
no i dont think that if innocents are tortured is justified, if ur proven to be guilty, then u should be given the punishment. however, if u commit a second degree crime, i dont think you should get a death sentence, and its hard to say wat kind of sentence you hould recieve. |
Well its a reality of our legal tradition that innocent people are "proven to be guilty". It's a statistical certainty, cases of which have been well documented. The Criminal burden of proof in common law jurisdictions is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Many people sitting on death row have been released because of DNA evidence... Who knows how many innocents were executed before dna testing was possible? And who knows what sort of advances will be made in forensic science in the future. For me the mere fact that the US government is most probably killing innocent people for crimes they didn't commit (no matter how rarely this occurs), makes capital punishment unjustifiable. To incorporate torture into it would, IMHO be a crime against humanity. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by blazed it
sorry didn't bother to read the whole thread, but does anybody know the fate of this girl? |
that question wasn't answered, at least i couldn't find an answer in 2 pages of arguing..
does anyone know what came out of this whole thing? |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Yes. That's exactly why foreigners are able to see the problem better. Too much emphasis on cultural background usually blinds people's perception of reality. |
But you forget that foreigners' opinions and views of the situation are informed by their own cultural background. So in the end it becomes one culture forcing its values on another.
How do you know? Have you conducted a survey?
| quote: | | If enough pressure is put on a government, it will change the local laws. People will frown at first, but unless the change is for the worse, soon they will accept it. |
Wouldn't changing a law that the vast majority of the nation suports (to an extent where people would frown if it was changed) be undemocratic? Secondly what's "for the worse" is purely subjective. For some people it is "better" to have many people die than to have the laws of Allah be broken.
| quote: | | But Singapore largely has adopted western values, as far as trade and commerce goes. The problem with USSR is that it was governed by idiots when they attempted to change the system. Gorbachov was gullable and believed everything the western leaders told him, and Yeltsin was probably never sober since the day he was born. Such leadership ensures a screwed up society, regardless of the system. |
Yeah the USSR was a bad example. But again adopting Western economic principles, and even adopting democratic principles does not mean that the whole country has to align its morals and ethics with those of (largely Judeo-Christian) societies.
| quote: | | You see, that's why local perspective is more flawed than the global one. We know Muhammed's laws are one man's ideas, while they think those laws came there straight from god himself. |
Can you prove that they didn't?
| quote: | | If you're going to attempt the religious intolerance issue, I will just point out that every religion claims it's laws are god given, and they are never the same. So there are 3 options. Either there are several gods, which most cultures tend to disagree upon, or there is one god whose words are being misinterpreted by the prophets, or there is no god and those laws are lunatic's ramble. |
Or there is a god, I have the correct interpretation of his laws, and all the other religions have an incorrect version. Prove me wrong!
| quote: | | To see why that idea is flawed, look above. Too bad some people believe in it. |
[muslim cleric]Again I say to you: Allah handed his true teachings down to us through Mohammed and the holy Q'uran. It is the job of the government to ensure that his laws are followed and not corrupted by the teachings of other "confused" faiths.[/muslim cleric]
| quote: | | That is a possibility, but not a large one. You see, most terrorist grupations do indeed proclaim those things you mentioned as their cause for terrorist actions, but the real cause is different. There are 2 causes infact. One of them is that the american and SSSR governments gave large financial support to those groups in order to weaken the other side's influence. The second reason is poverty. Poor countries can see their economy is in ruins, people are uneducated and illiterate, they are therefore more gullable, so they accuse the evil west of their problems. It's not hard to find people with no real reason to live in countries such as those. They still want to be useful to the society though. Radical fundamentalists give them that hope. All they need is a little spark to turn them into terrorists. |
For whatever reason a great majority buy into their crap, and react violently without any external incitement, to any Western intervention.
| quote: | | Yes, except that I wasn't really raised in a western liberal country. There was a sort of softened version of communism here (something along the lines of the current chinese system) until 1991. But communist countries you mention are quite a good example. Not many claimed to be against the system during its reign. Still, as soon as change came, an overwhelming majority was willing to change that system. Many people in oppressive regimes want change, they're just too afraid to say it because they will get hurt. But when a change comes, very few of them are willing to dispute it. Now the chinese system is not nearly as restrictive as it used to be. It did start out as a version of communism similar to the soviet model, but after the cultural revolution things did soften up a lot. Also, that revolution brought with itself a few positive things. It destroyed many old and somewhat barbaric traditions, and in turn opened up a possibility for a faster transition into the global system. The people accepted it, as they usually accept anything. The chinese economy is anything but restrictive, though. It could almost be described as liberal capitalism. Now as far as human rights go, it's not as liberal as the western countries, but it's way above islamic law. My opinion is that some western countries have a bit too liberal laws, so China is really not that far away from the optimal balance. |
Yes, but from within the USSR the signs of dissatisfaction were there for a long time before the collapse. It was clear that no one believed the ideology any longer. I've known people from Islamic countries, and it sems the populace there is only growing stronger in their convictions and supporting more and more hard-line regimes... As for CHina, economically they're doing the right things and are reaping the benefits. But I would certainly prefer not to live in a country with CHina's justice system and their human rights record.
| quote: | | And soviet union didn't crumble because it adopted western economical system, but it was the other way around. They adopted the western economical system because their economy crumbled and they could see no way out. The transition was uncontroled though, so many things went wrong. For a successful transiton check out countries like Czech republic. They're almost at the level of the EU countries now. |
The SOviet economy showed signs of weakening. But IMHO, if the transition to a free-market economy had been executed more gradually, and if Gorbachev was a harder man, they could have made the transition very well. The Russian economy still shows good fundamentals, and there are trillions (if not tens of trillions) of potential investment capital to be made, but thanks to that Yeltsin and the corruption he left, it will probably not be realised in my lifetime.
| quote: | | They would, and here's why. When I said too liberal, I meant it as having a judicial system that virtually lets anything go without punishment. It's a society close to anarchy rather than a tolerant one. An untolerant society can have very liberal laws. People will always attempt to gain for themselves as much as they think they can, so lenient laws will increase a crime rate. Take this for example, at one time the maximum sentence here for any kind of crime was 20 years. Murderers often got away with 5 year sentences, got on parol after 2.5 for good behaviour. The rate of homicides jumped and every few days you could see someone being murdered. Sentences for corruption were almost non existant, that gave a huge rise to organized crime, and soon the entire economy was falling apart. When new and more strict laws regulating those problems came about, the situation has improved. |
From a sociological perspective, that's a very simplistic view of the rule of law. In drug policy, for example, global experience seems to show that a semingly more relaxed approach achieves more. Furthermore, look at the US - they could instantly reduce their murder rates drammatically by putting in tougher gun laws, yet look at the phenomenal opposition any such move receives.
| quote: | | Spiritual development should have nothing to do with government. It is a person's free will to choose his religion. A person must accept religion because he/she wants to, not because it is forced upon an individual. |
This is a normative statement. If I disagreed how would you prove me wrong
| quote: | | Even the prophets like Muhammed and Jesus said something along those lines. |
Yes, but he still said this is the true religion and this is the true law. And even something about killing infidels somewhere i think. The point is its about the dominant interpretation.
| quote: | | Religion is purely optional, not mandatory. |
According to whom? again normative statement, subjective by definition.
| quote: | | Therefore a legal system must be deprived of religious elements. |
The "therefore" does not really ring true as you have not provided any objective proof. Just a subjective conclusion based on your subjective opinion(s).
| quote: | | It's a bit different with scandinavian countries because they are very rich and have good welfare, so it is largely unprofitable to turn to crime. |
It's always profitable to turn to crime
| quote: | | Still, they are organized and criminals will most likely be punished for their behaviour. |
I'm sure all criminals are punished for their behaviour. It's amatter of what is defined as a "crime".
| quote: | | But, those countries are living in a very peaceful surroundings. If a war was to break out near them, they'd fall the same day they'd be attacked. |
Not sure how this is relevant.
| quote: | | The overall level of tolerance and individual happines proves it is a better way. Take it this way, most people from islamic regimes would live in the west. Most people from the west wouldn't live in islamic regimes. Therefore most people from both sides like the western system more. |
This form of utilitarian logic is quite archaic and has proven time and time again to be flawed. Levels of happiness are dependant on living standards, which are dependatn largely on economic factors. People in Muslim countries would only move to the West for economic reasons, and usually still complain about the perversity of Western society when they are here. If most Muslim countries had equal living standards (in economic terms), I am certain people there would be just as reluctant to leave as those residing in Western countries. Their crime rates are extremely low. There is little alcoholism or drug abuse. Also many of their traditional and religious views are reflected in the law. WHy would they want to leave.
| quote: | | Nah, I am not against the death penalty. I am just against obviously unfair laws. And my views are more objective than islamic ones you mentioned. My views are based on logic and reasoning, while their views are based on judge's interpretation of religion. |
Perceptions of logic in normative judgements are illusory. Your views are shaped by your upbringing as much as theirs is. All views about what "should or "shouldn't" be allowed, whether based on Western, Islamic, Confucian etc... paradigms are equally subjective - that is completely so. |
|
|
| EriK_V |
| these laws are pieces of . |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
that question wasn't answered, at least i couldn't find an answer in 2 pages of arguing..
does anyone know what came out of this whole thing? |
if someone would be so kind as to help me, thank you very much |
|
|
| djSlain |
Now, some of u may come to know me as VERY against drug use and the sort.
However, the united states has a system that should be reviewed and adopted into other countries to deter Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The punishment should fit the crime and this is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous about having the death sentence over drug use/trafficking. Yes, i do believe drug users and distributors should be put behind bars for some time, but the death sentence? this NEEDs to be reviewed by higher international figures as i feel this just might border against human rights!
I can SLIGHTLY understand the middle eastern way of stopping shoplifters by slicing off their hands. of course, i say slightly as it is under debate in my own head of wether its the correct or wrong form of discipline. But to take someone's life and put it on a seesaw over drugs is insane! This lady is in bad luck, that's all i can say. Give her a punishment, but not to such an offensive degree that is both cruel, unusual and just damn WRONG |
|
|
| blazed it |
I bring yuo teh answer
Ms Julia Bohl sentenced to five years in prison
Singapore. German national Julia Bohl, who had been arrested and charged with possession of illicit drugs in Singapore, was sentenced to 5 years in prison. The 23-year old woman had pleaded guilty to having condoned drug-trafficking in her rented flat. She had also taken and been in possession of drugs herself. The authorities had dropped the charge of (active) trafficking, which saved her from the gallows.
source
teh motherfukkin saga is over. |
|
|
|
|
