Hanging

Remove all ads!

I have to say that I'm with the pro -- cap group on this one. This wasn't some bizarre law that the guy had no idea existed. As near as I could tell from the article, it was not a frame up or a misunderstanding. Nor was it a brief lapse in judgement or skill (like running a red light because you're trying to tune the radio.)

This guy CHOSE to smuggle drugs, knowing that the penalty in Singapore would be quite harsh. Of COURSE now he's sorry, penitent, and all that -- all criminals are . . . . when they get caught! His trying to hide behind his Australian citizenship is also vile in the extreme. Being Australian means that the Government of Singapore has to treat him differently than any other criminal? What B.S.

When it comes to his family, any suffering they feel as a result of losing their darling little boy is to be laid at the feet of that "darling little boy." He's the criminal, not the law enforcement officers and legal system that is trying desperately to keep their population safe from drugs.

As for the method of execution, a topic that has been discussed many times on these boards, hanging is fairly humane if the neck is snapped ASAP. If it is not, then it is not so much death by hanging as death by strangulation. Most of the other methods of execution that I have seen discussed in literature tend to be more vicious -- the gas chamber apparently can take a very long time, and no one really knows how much pain is involved in lethal injection.

 

Not enough. The prisoner is given a powerful sedative prior to the lethal injection. He/she just goes to sleep. I'm all for having prisoners face an equally painful death as they inflicted on their victims.

Enough people die using heroin that I sleep quite well knowing another heroin smuggler is dead. Too bad we can't convict drug dealers for any drug related death of their customers.

 

Then how does that make you better than the murderer? To take a human life, whether it is legal or not, is still killing.

 

Ah, yes. Killing and murder are two (slightly) different things. I don't care about being 'better.' I'm not against killing to protect society. I don't care whether or not some of the scum in our prisons live through the night. I don't believe I should need to pay to keep them alive. If we (as a world) put more criminals to death we would have a safer world (attrition and fear would eventually win out). That said, I also believe the key to lowering the crime is education and fairness -- but fear helps.

 

@LKD how do you know it doesn't hurt to be hung, or any other death penalty for that matter? it's not like you can "try" it, or am i missing something?

@chev prisoners for sure


on topic: i never think death penalty is a fair sentence, not even when gambling with it

 

Alright, what happens if you kill them a month after their crime. A month later, the detectives find evidence that proves he was innocent. Too bad for the dead guy, right?

 

There is an appeals process, which does allow for what Saber touched on, but usually, the outcome doesn't change...

 

Uh, Balle, if the death is quick, there is comparatively little to no pain. It is also my understanding that once the neck is snapped, your ability to feel pain is severely curtailed, which HAS been demonstrated by people who have broken their necks in accidents.

In addition, beheading removes the head from the body (duh) and as such the death is quick and very obvious. I was referring to methods of execution that involve the prisoner obviously suffering for a long period of time, such as crucifixion, strangulation or similar methods wherein the agony being experienced is clearly visible.

As for the whole "better than them" issue, my feeling is that if Bob has taken the life of Ted for purely selfish reasons (financial, temper tantrum, etc.) then we as a society have a responsibility to protect the rest of society from Bob's depredations. If we do not, and he then takes the life of Rob, then we have learned nothing and basically spit on Rob's life and are saying that Bob's life has more value than that of Rob's, not to mention insinuating that Ted's life was worth nothing. The only surefire way to ensure that Bob will not kill anyone else is to kill him. Society does not do this for selfish reasons, but for the protection of that society and the many, many other decent members that make it up.

To me, this extends to a large number of crimes. We cannot just ask horrible criminals to "please stop dealing drugs, raping women or bombing buildings, pretty please?" We also cannot afford to house and feed these societal parasites humanely. The only way to protect society from predators is to eliminate the predators. While I acknowledge that criminals are people too, the rights of society take precedence over those of the people who clearly do not respect that society.

 

This has seen a lot of coverage in Australia. I do not believe Nguyen deserved to die, although there can be no doubt of his guilt and his crime. Personally, I am convinced of the following:

1. That hanging is a brutal and just plain nasty manner of execution.
2. That capital punishment is unacceptable, and should never be practiced even against the worst offenders.
3. That any mandatory sentencing legislation which requires the death penalty is fundamentally flawed.
4. That Van Nguyen was duly punished according to the law in Singapore.
5. That no other nation can dictate to Singapore what its criminal law should be, irrespective of what they think of it.
6. That it is the duty of everyone who does not agree with the death penalty (in this case or any other) to make their sentiments known, but recognise that popular sentiment alone can not change the laws.

Singaporean law provides that anyone carrying 15 grams or more of heroin is automatically subject to the death penalty. Anyone in that position is condemned to hang, with absolutely no discretion at all for the judge. That is my primary concern with Nguyen's punishment - that, plus the half-arsed attempt by the Government to deny that they could have extradited him (although it seems to be a pattern, now; first David Hicks, then Nguyen). Here's a useful link to a legal opinion from yesterday's The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/nguyen-the-advice-that-might-have-saved-a-life/2005/12/05/1133631200199.html

I hold the belief that we should avoid killing wherever possible, and I'm not a vengeful person; everyone deserves justice, yes, but that includes criminals as well. Of course, defining "justice" is like asking how long a piece of string is. I don't claim to know the full story of Nguyen, but he certainly didn't seem to be a real danger to Singapore - especially since the drugs he was transporting were intended for Australian markets.

Nguyen knew what the consequences would be if he was caught, although he was apprehended in neither the source nation nor the intended nation. From all accounts, he was an almost ideal victim, from a media perspective. Indeed, Nguyen and his lawyer don't seem to have been anywhere near as vocal, rabid or dogmatic as pro- and anti-death penalty proponents on this one. If I had to describe it, I would say theirs was a resigned but resolute stance.

No-one can dispute that Nguyen was lawfully executed for his offence. That doesn't make it morally right, IMO (and to hear some people in Australia talk about it, you'd think that they believed that The Law could never possibly be flawed - unless it affected their back pocket, of course).

And as for the cost-effectiveness comments... well, a bullet or a rope is cheaper, certainly. Throwing someone off a bridge or drowning them is cheaper still - should we do that instead? Hell no. That doesn't make it better; I believe that if we want to stand in judgement on someone, we need to demonstrate that we are fit to do so.

Killing someone for a crime is pure retribution, at best, and while some people may see it as justice, I do not. Besides, there are plenty of other horrible things that we use as punishment which, in many ways, can be even worse.

LKD - I hadn't heard about him trying to hide behind his citizenship, and we've been flooded with news about Nguyen. What I did hear about was a possible case for extradition, which relied on Nguyen's Australian citizenship. That, as I see it, was more about escaping the gallows than ducking justice, since I don't see any "justice" in mandatory death penalties.

And I'd agree. I would also contend that denying them liberty, privileges and everything except basic rights or earned entitlements is preferable to exterminating them. Criminal law should be first and foremost about protecting people, not stripping them of their rights, even down to their very existence. While I'm happy that people like Garry David and Martin Bryant will never be released from prison, I also still believe that proper judicial systems must display majesty, justice and mercy to be worthy of respect.

 

I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with the case of Schapelle Corby which stirred widespread public sympathy in Australia and which led to a rekless and indeed criminal attack on the Indonesian mission in Canberra. I would have expected a more indignant attitude from the Australian public.

 

Some of the more cynical commentators over here have wondered out loud whether the response would be different if Nguyen was an attractive white female (like Corby or Michelle Leslie). I'm guessing that Nguyen's full confession and conviction might have had something to do with it; Corby has always loudly protested her innocence.

I'm fairly certain that a degree of innate racism has played a part in this, though - a young Asian man trafficking drugs is a fairly potent symbolic image for Australians, and not a good one. Nguyen's case was never described in great detail by many news reports; it was as though they were purposefully avoiding it and focusing solely on the nature of his punishment. His trial was 3 years ago; it shouldn't have been hard to get that information.

Mind you, had Corby's case taken place in Australia, the prosecution wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Between sloppy evidence handling and a lack of substantive proof of Corby's offence, I wouldn't have been surprised if a judge threw the case out. Of course, the onus of proof is different in Indonesia - you have to prove yourself innocent, rather than having to be proven guilty.

 

Lock him up for a long time, and then, once he gets out, when he gets a job, make him pay off what he used. If he was in jail for 10 years, and it cost the government 5000 dollars, make him pay it off as soon as possible. Hopefully, the jail time and the addition of making him pay will teach him his lesson. Perhaps.

 

Thanks for the response NS. I can't say that I am familiar with the weight of the evidence against either Nguyen or Corby and this is another thing that curdles the blood. What if Nguyen was innocent and his life was taken not only needlessly but unlawfully? The police in Singapore are notorious for "extracting" confessions through agonising brutality. Then his death can bring no appeasement to any party and the word "justice," which is so liberally employed, can prompt only a sad, derisive guffaw.

Like you, I can never accept the grotesque and chilling spectacle of the state, in all its power and with a calculated and deliberate slowness, ice-cold, evil, and inhuman, strangle the life from another human being; even that of the convicted drug smuggler.

 

Folks, this is a lot more complex than just bumping off a heroin dealer. No-one denies that Nguyen was guilty, not even him, his family or his lawyer. This thread is firstly about whether anyone should ever be hanged (and more precisely, whether Nguyen should have), and probably secondly about whether anyone should be put to death by the state. It is not about whether Singapore's government or judicial system is corrupt, it is about the severity of punishment.

Nguyen was a first-time offender. He was a drug trafficker, not a drug dealer; he was caught with an amount of drugs that no seasoned dealer would ever carry in public, or in one place. His alleged reasons for doing it were connected to his brother's criminal past and debts. He did not pose a re-offending risk and was not himself a drug user, as many (probably most) dealers are. In short, there is plenty there to build a narrative that positions Nguyen as a hero or martyr (and one which I would reject). It's a long way from the image of a calculating market-share-driven drug cartel heavy.

Was what he did stupid? Yes, it was. Was it wrong? Well, it was certainly illegal, no matter what your perspective. Should he have been sentenced to death for it? To be hanged for it? I find it hard to believe that anyone could examine the case in depth and still say Nguyen deserved to die.

BTW, before anyone decides to say "Do you know what heroin addiction does?", yes, I know what it does. I know what drug addiction does, too; it's not pretty, and it's put more than one person I know into a large wooden box. And yes, knowing that, I still don't think Nguyen deserved to die, although he did deserve a prison term. Not as much as the bastards involved in the drug trade do, though.

@ SBF: You're welcome. There's no evidence to hand that Nguyen's confession was forced; indeed, there seems to have been evidence that he co-operated fully with police after his apprehension. Whether that's accurate or another obfuscation is unclear, at this point.

@ Saber: It costs a heck of a lot to keep someone in prison for 10-20 years; and by a heck of a lot, I'm talking about six figures per person per year. You have to account for infrastructure, employing guards and prison staff (and their security vetting) and a whole lot of other stuff as well as just the upkeep of the prisoner. It ain't cheap, but it's better than most of the alternatives.

 

Yes, but you could still have them try to pay it off afterwards. By making them put all of their money after food, water, etc, into repaying their debt, it will make them regret their crime, and it will be a warning to others. 10-20 years plus a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars would be more than enough to make people think twice before committing crimes (hopefully).

 

Saber, I'm not arguing that it's not a bad idea in principle, I just don't think it's a feasible one in practice. I would like it to be, believe me - if the burden of correctional spending could turned into a "user pays" system, I don't think you'd hear too many complaints from "law-abiding citizens", although you'd have to cut back the time in jail for proportionality in sentencing if they pay back costs for years afterwards. Realistically, I just don't see it happening.

It's well known how much harder it is to get a decent paying job after serving a prison sentence. I would expect a lot of people would probably just resort to crime to pay off their initial debt - which could get them another jail term, with more debt to pay off, repeat ad infinitum. You could end up making things worse (and certainly, some politicians and anti-offender groups would paint the picture as even darker still).

 

Well, in any case, I don't think we should kill them to save us money - thats just pure, simple, immoral, greed.


EDIT: Or, what you could do is devise a technological advance that makes it so you need less amount of guards, less energy spent in prison (in other words, a more efficient power source), and things like that. Obviously, this is a vague idea, but instead of having, say, 1 guard per block of cells (or however it is divided up), have a huge central security system run by multiple computers (for backups and the like), so you can cut the number of guards down from 1 per block to 1 per 5 blocks, or something.

In anycase, I'd rather not solve crime with crime.

 

I'll give you pure, simple greed, but immoral pushes it too far. If killing a criminal results in lower taxes that free up money for a young child's essential medicine, I'd...well, I couldn't pull the switch myself for personal reasons, but you see where I'm going with this. Refusing to kill a mass murderer and causing in an innocent's death would be more immoral, IMHO. Morality is far too fluid to condemn an entire range of situations.

EDIT:

That's the beautiful thing about crime, though; it's malleable. Laws are made and changed, and the death penalty is not a crime in Singapore (among other places). In some places it's a crime for a woman to show her face, or even to be raped. Though this seems mind-bogglingly stupid to most of us, it's still a crime. A woman showing her face in such a place is flaunting the law and should be punished for the offense. (The being raped thing I can't defend no matter how hard I try. I mean, it's not voluntary and certainly not her fault! I'm sure there's some explanation, but frankly it's quite beyond my thought processes.)

Again, there are plenty of what I would consider stupid laws, but assuming that a different set of laws is better is just ethnocentrism. Different societies require different rules, and we have no right to decide what is right for someone else. If you're truly so disgusted by these laws, then just don't go there. Despite what some may think, we (the US) do not have the moral high ground even on someone as despicable as Saddam. (Osama's a different story... )

[ December 07, 2005, 05:44: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Death penalty IMO is wrong because there's too big a risk to make an irreversable mistake. The evidence should be extremely condemning indeed, and there should be no doubt whatsoever of the perpetrator of the crime.

Hanging drug smugglers is wrong, because they can't be 100% positive that the person doing the smuggling does it by her free will, or even knowingly.

So maybe only people with previous convictions should be given death penalty...first five times you'd get busted, it'd be jail-time and after that, if the crimes would be serious enough, it'd be the rope.

Somehow this doesn't sound as a very appealing solution...