Larian Studios Forums General Chat See This!

Nothing could be more barbaric than this. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />
Why fight a crime with a crime?

Hanged for trafficing. Almost unimaginable. Yet, they say the death sentence is not crime deterant, but I think a case like this one will make a lot of people think twice before attempting to smuggle drugs into Singapore.

Being hanged is not the correct punishment for such crimes. Hanging is from the middle ages, not for a country that is soo well developed like Singapore.
I'm pretty sure that the punishment for raping or killing is less worse then that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> Nguyen Tuong Van wasn't a crime delinquent that deserves this kind of punishment, there are other alternatives for people like him.
[color:"orange"] THE 6th COMMANDMENT- Thou Shalt Not Kill [/color]

You cannot fight crime with crime, but there are limits to this too. You cannot allow a murderer or a rapist come back to society, and the taxpayers are not willing to pay for them either. For some folks, I would agree to bring back death penalty, like Dutroux or Michel Fourniret. Or Cindy Croon from my class that tortured and killed her own little baby girl. No other punishment is suitable then death. That is imho. Even God killed the people from Soddom and Gomorra

The commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder" NOT "Thou shalt not kill." There's a huge difference in those things.

That said, I tend to waver a lot on the death penalty and its applications. There is certainly a strong case for it - and a strong case against it. To kill a person is to take away everything they are, and everything they might be from the world. That is a very bad thing. But some crimes are so horrible, and involve such death and the destruction of innocents that the death penalty seems like a not unreasonable recourse.

Sometimes it seems fitting, other times I believe nothing can justify it...

I can never decide.

So sorry to have this one wrong, I'm not that good in bible speeches <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Don't worry, Galadriel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Almost everyone gets it wrong - but the true meaning is lost with 'kill', as you see <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

hmm I feel I should say something here, being an aussie an all that, it seems he smuggled the drugs to make money to get his Brother out of debt (gambling IIRC) and yes to actually kill a person for that is a terrible terrible thing to do ...but so is smuggling drugs . I do not know what the answer is, there will always be ppl who smuggle something to somewhere, but then again how many ppl die each year from drugs ...how many babies are born dead, deformed or addicted, how many other crimes are committed to support the "habit" ?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

[color:"orange"]You cannot allow a murderer or a rapist come back to society, and the taxpayers are not willing to pay for them either.[/color]

Actually, it costs significantly more for the government to kill someone in the US than to imprison them for life (Costs of the Death Penalty). In Canada the murder rate dropped slightly after capital punishment was abolished, and the conviction rate in murder trials for the next decade doubled.


[color:"orange"]For some folks, I would agree to bring back death penalty[/color]

For some folks, a quick death is too merciful.

imprisoning for life is a way more paining way to punish some1, without taking some1 the life thats found them to be so precious.

I am totally against the death penalty.
Especially in this case...smugling drugs, you know...Oh dear how sad, nevermind.
I don't see smugling drugs as a crime that could get near a death punishment. 5 years imprison at most i would say...

oh fkk..i need some sleep...

My reason to be against the death penalty is that a Country makes at least two other people to murders.
The Judge, and the Executioner.
The drugsdealer, or murders or rapists ... in my eyes they can be executed. I have no compassion with such dirt.
But not for this price. Nobody, also a State not, can give the Responsibility over live and death in the Hands of normal people. If i give the Order this Human have to die (indifferently why), or execute a death penalty at last i`m a murder.

Actually, I'm not totally against death penalty. IMO death penalty should be carried out in cases where people committed mass murders such as the bombings of pubs and restaurants in Bali by a group of terrorists in 2005 & 2002 that killed a lot of Indonesians, Australians and more, or like what happened in London and Spain. These people are so dangerous and they deserve death penalty (although it doesn't guarantee that such horrible acts will stop happpening in the future). But in the case of Nguyen, the death penalty cannot be justified. What he did was wrong, yes and for that he had to be punished. But not death penalty! He was so young and he didn't even have a criminal record. Didn't the government of Singapore take that into considerations before they decided to hang him?

I heard the news two days before the day of his execution. And when I heard the news of his execution on Friday morning it really disturbed me and I got so sick I decided not to go to work that day.

Those who deal in drugs are certainly responsible for the deaths of many and the ruination of many lives. They may not be murderers directly, but many die because of them.

To treat them as being merely guilty of some minor crime is clearly wrong - they are not. But death... is still harsh in the extreme.

***

I find Stone's argument far more compelling - although the difference between murder and killing is definitely a matter for debate. Where judge and hangman are acting to protect others (IE society at large), it would clearly not be murder.

Nonetheless to be directly responsible for the death of another human being must stain the soul.

Yes, you might be right about that. But imo, that shouldn't be soo expensive. How come that every taxpayer sees his money going down the drain because we have the bad luck that there are soo many criminals locked up? I didn't read the whole article you posted, but I don't understand how a deadly shot or the electric chair can be more expensive then leaving a man in prison for years, feeding, washing, medical treatments, the few luxeries some get? This must cost a fortune for one prisoner/year. Anyway, we can discuss about this for years and years. And most of these prisoners get out of jail anyway after a certain amount of years, for good behavior. THAT is really what makes system of soo called "justice" soo wrong. No one should leave prison earlier for good behavior, you have to pay for what you have done, no mercy for that.


That is also true, and believe me, some folks I would torture to death if I could, but wont that makes us as bad as the criminal himself? It would lower us to the level of worms and insects. I'm glad I'm no judge or executioner, I don't have the stomac to do that kind of a job. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shhh.gif" alt="" />

Punishing criminals is not about revenge! It's about preventing pepole to commit crimes (pepole doesn't avoid doing things just because it's wrong, but what if they might go to jail for it...), and if they've commited a crime, reajust him back to society. Or at least scare himenought not to commit crimes again. If he got five years, and he's scared enought after three years, then why not release him? Forceing him to sit off the last two years just because won't do anyone any good (especially not those tax payers <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />). But as you say, good behaviour should be rewarden in other ways. But that doesn't change the fact, pusnish criminals isn't about revenge, it's about scaring pepole from doing crimes, and if that isn't possible, then lock em up for good so they can't harm the 'good' side of society.

Übereil

thou shall not murder = you can kill as its legally not murder?

Murder is usually defined as unjustified killing. If you are forced to kill someone in defence of yourself or your family or loved ones, it is not murder.

Most religions allow for self defence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

***

Ubereil...

You are not entirely correct. The point of criminal law is that it exists as a covenant between the people and their rulers, that if we give up our right to revenge, they will exercise justice on our behalf.

Law should thus never be about revenge, but it should ALWAYS be about justice. If someone is ready for release after a couple of years mentally, it in no way expiates a crime that would carry a sentence of ten years.

Justice is for the victims and society as a whole as well as the guilty.

Of course, the number of politicians who realise that can be counted on the fingers of Captain Hook's hand, but that IS the idea <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

In a capital case where the prosecution is going for the death penalty rather than life without parole, the trial itself takes longer (more motions filed, more witnesses and various experts called to testify), so costs more. Even so, if prisoners sentenced to death were actually killed right away, that would cost less than life imprisonment. However, there is an automatic appeal if they are convicted, so that means another trial and another couple years. When the defense has exhausted their appeals on the state level and can't get any more stays of execution, they may be able to appeal to a federal court.
In short, 10 years in a high security prison and multiple trials (assuming the prisoner does eventually get killed) cost more than life in prison.


I believe there should be the possibility of early release, to provide hope and reward good behaviour, but it should definitely not be automatic. If someone can prove to a reasonable degree that they have changed for the better, then on their first offense they should be let out. If they re-offend, they should have to finish the remainder of their first sentence before starting their second. Knocking half or two thirds off of everybody's sentence, then releasing a bunch of 'minor' criminals because the jails are full, is a bad idea.

I also think the basic sentence for crimes should be multiplied by the number of convictions (minor and violent crimes counted separately), while early release is divided by that. If you get 10 years for robbing a bank with possible release after serving 3/4 of the sentence, then your second conviction for robbing a bank should be 20 years, with release possible after 7/8 of the sentence.


I didn't mean to imply that some prisoners should be tortured (even if they deserve it), just that death itself is too merciful. This is especially true since prisoners sentenced to die can drag out the execution process and do all kinds of thing to mess with 'the system' and cause further hardship to their victims (and their families). IMO, fifty years or so in a small box, then death, is a better punishment than years of trials and then (maybe) death.

There are a lot of behaviors in this world than can be qualified as barbaric. As for their "why", call it dissuasive means; be it working or not.

My position is very similar to Elliot Kane's. And in this situation, I think it was wrong; there are extremely few cases that are justifiable for death penalty in my mind. But I don't feel up to state a decisive opposing opinion on it, neither to reject it completely.

I agree with Elliot & Stone's view that dealing drugs (at least, the hard addicting ones and especially those made with junk like rat poison & stuff like that) should not be considered as a minor crime but my point is more mitigated though; those who buy it are not innocents and white either, it doesn't only go one way. It's the same issue on responsibility than with cigarette, alchool & gambling (even fastfood lately)...

In any case, a penalty should not be motivated by vengeance. IMO & in my little experience, vengeance never makes a person heal (the one that is in the position of the victim; yeah and the one he/she avenges on too of course <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> ). It doesn't make them feel really better either; it's spoiled energy that can even do worse. The only way to calm the beast inside is to tame it and learn to live with it; and that beast hurts a lot more than the one who did the crime, wherever he may be.

I don't think we'll be able to find a universal justice system, that works every situation and cases. Our "justice" has a too instable, fragile base and too much contradictions.

"Those who would seek revenge should first dig two graves" is my favourite quote on this one. Not sure who said it, but it's so true...

This post was originally in response to a similar question in another forum, about capital punishment in the US.

Punishment has two results: rehabilitation of the perpetrator and threatening potential criminals. Sometimes threatening with the ultimate punishment, death, dissuades more criminals than could be rehabilitated. They'll never catch me? Perhaps, but how can you know until they do?

Unfortunately, modern punishment is less effective with terrorism. Many terrorist criminals don't care if they die or go to prison. It's for the cause. How do you threaten someone who has nothing to lose? You'd have more effect cutting their arms and legs off and sending them home alive. But I doubt that would work either.

I'm not against capital punishment. It only applies to definite crimes and not where there may be doubt. In Nguyen Tuong Van's case, he had the drugs strapped to his body. He knew the result of being caught in Singapore with drugs, and if he didn't, he's a fool for not knowing the law of the land. He knew the risk and took it anyway. If he succeeded, the payoff was big. If not, he died. He took his chances.

I think that capital punishment can be acceptable as long as one of the conditions is guilt is unquestionable.