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.
