PDA

View Full Version : Death Penalty



Frank Walker
02-12-2005, 06:36 PM
As to the recent death penalty to Van Nguyen, I thought i would like to get a strong opinion i can almost guess the result but do you think the death penalty should be imposed

Kaitlin
02-12-2005, 06:42 PM
I dont feel sorry for him - do you think he would have showen any remorse if he hadnt been caught. But I dont think we should have the death penalty here. (Im getting good at posting an answer without answering the question :classic: )

firegoat7
02-12-2005, 07:06 PM
I dont feel sorry for him - do you think he would have showen any remorse if he hadnt been caught. But I dont think we should have the death penalty here. (Im getting good at posting an answer without answering the question :classic: )

Interesting.

You cannot be serious about theft being a death penalty can you?



Let me guess you believe drug traffickers are evil.

Well I disagree and here are my reasons.

Nobody forces you to take a drug, it is basically your choice. Why then, do people want to kill somebody for supplying the service? Surely, they are doing society a favor by providing a service that a lot of people need.

I would also like to point out that the history of heroin is quite interesting.

Who can forget the opium wars between China and England (read about it sometime) ;) .
Corporate drug companies lobbying to have heroin banned, not to mention other plants
Medical practioners arguing that it is really one of the most useful drugs in the world, when utilised properly.

But lets not forget, the reality that, heroin's illegality is the real problem. If used in doses that are consistent and legally labelled it seldom causes overdose. A good comparative arguement, would be- imagine buying alcohol without knowing how much the alcohol level was, then getting in your car and driving. Would you feel safe or secure that you had not OD?

Of course the stark reality is that alcohol and cigareetes kill way more people then hard drugs like opiates, yet both are legal? why? Added to these complications are legal drugs like Valium or Rohypnol, surely they are just as dangerous?

The simple fact is drug trafficking is an economic crime. The real big pushers make big legal profits while poor people get killed for nothing much except hypocrisy.

cheers Fg7

Frank Walker
02-12-2005, 07:07 PM
no the theft thing was just a fill-in

Kaitlin
02-12-2005, 07:57 PM
:alien: I didnt put the poll...
but...

......Why then, do people want to kill somebody for supplying the service? ....

I dont think they are supplying a service, they are just trying to get rich quick.

If he didnt get caught and got back and made a $illion dollars do you think he would care wether you felt happy or sad for him. He should probably have researched it better!

Watto
02-12-2005, 08:19 PM
:alien: I didnt put the poll...
but...


I dont think they are supplying a service, they are just trying to get rich quick.
Sure, they would almost always (unless they were somehow forced into it) be trying to get rich quick. The supply of a service wouldn't normally be the mule's first motivation although it's what they're doing on a practical level. He sounds like he felt genuine remorse about being a supplier.

[/QUOTE=Kaitlin]If he didnt get caught and got back and made a $illion dollars do you think he would care wether you felt happy or sad for him. He should probably have researched it better![/QUOTE]

We can't know how he would have felt if he hadn't got caught.

Who cares whether Van cares what we care... ? Silly point.
I think his death is a tragedy and a complete waste. As for him researching it better, he knew the penalty, he made a terrible decision and chose to ignore the consequences both for the victims of heroin and for himself.

Frank Walker
02-12-2005, 08:29 PM
He, apparently was trying to get his brother out of debt.

Looking at the Oz Ch entries, we have our own little Van Nguyen but hes a good boy.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2005, 09:11 PM
I oppose the death penalty for all offences in all countries and all times, primarily because it is irreversible and any risk of executing an innocent person is too great a risk to be allowed. It is also not a great success as a deterrent.

I think the argument put by the Singapore government that he had enough heroin to kill x number of people is a furphy because death through overdose is actually a comparatively rare event for the number of people using the stuff.

I agree with firegoat (second time in a week for that, yikes) that the problem with heroin is illegality. This creates a second problem because illegality inflates the price and therefore means that users (unless rich) often have to steal to support their habit. All societies should be looking towards more liberal and harm-reductive approaches to this drug.

Having said the above I condemn much of the chest-beating in the direction of Singapore that is going on over this. It is too nationalistic. Australians are kicking up a huge fuss about the execution of "one of our own" but most of those same Australians have never said a word about the death penalty issue as it applies within other countries. People are boycotting Singaporean goods over this. That is silly, as recently pointed out:


If you seriously believe that capital punishment is abhorrent, and you genuinely want to register a strong protest against the execution of Van Tuong Nguyen, think very hard before you start boycotting Singaporean companies and products. Because if, like the Australian government, you're dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment and you want to express that view logically through your hip-pocket, you should be just as logical in how you apply your moral indignation. Which means boycotting companies and products from all countries and jurisdictions that still use the death penalty, not just one of them.

You could start with anything made in China (3,500 people executed annually using lethal injection or shooting, according to Amnesty International, although the figure could be as high as 10,000), move on to all the oil, seafood, furniture and clothing coming in from Vietnam (60 people executed each year on average), avoid all Mobil's petroleum products and Compaq's computers (Texas, home state of both companies, has executed 355 people since the US re-introduced the death penalty in 1976), boycott Primus Telecommunications (whose parent company is based in Virginia, a state where there have been 94 executions since 1976), stop eating pistachio nuts from Iran (160 executions a year, by hanging or stoning), quit driving Thrifty rental cars (based in Oklahoma, where there have been 79 executions since 1976), not to mention ignoring all Coca Cola products (head office Georgia, home of 39 executions since 1976). We think you get the picture and it isn't blurry at all if you are logical.

PHAT
03-12-2005, 09:38 AM
95% of what has already been said in this thread I would agree with - what a clever bunch you are.

I would like to add:

Since it is the illegality of heroine that leads to it's horrors, the politicians who keep the legal status quo are as morally guilty as VN for the heroine scene. What ever you think should be scum-VN's fait, apply it also to the scum in parliament.

Rincewind
03-12-2005, 12:26 PM
Looking at the Oz Ch entries, we have our own little Van Nguyen but hes a good boy.

I played Van and his dad Quan at the ANU Open this year. They are good people.

Davidflude
03-12-2005, 01:05 PM
Iam against the death penalty because

1) it is used in dictatorships where fair trials are rare. The same applies to Texas.

2) there are instances of the innocent being convicted. Would you have hung Lindy Chamberlaine.

bergil
03-12-2005, 01:06 PM
Drug traffickers are evil because the product they supply is almost always never pure. They cut their products with all sort off things from glucose to Ajax to make as much profit as possible.


I oppose the death penalty for all offences in all countries and all times, primarily because it is irreversible and any risk of executing an innocent person is too great a risk to be allowed. It is also not a great success as a deterrent.
I agree that the risk of killing an innocent person is what makes me against the death penalty in general. Execution is not a deterrent but a punishment, people like Ivan Malat or Anita Cobby's murderer's are never to be reformed.

Prison is supposed to be about reforming the offender but some crimes like high treason in time of war or serial killing deserved no such consideration.




I think the argument put by the Singapore government that he had enough heroin to kill x number of people is a furphy because death through overdose is actually a comparatively rare event for the number of people using the stuff.
True but if thats their law and you break it, unlucky!

I don't think Van Nguyen should have been executed for this crime but as I said before unlucky. I happen to know someone who was caught with more heroin bringing it in from Bali, Lucky for him he was caught in Sydney and got a 7.5 year non parole sentence. He was given a 2 weeks paid holiday in Bali and $25,000, his legal fees ate that up so all he has left is 2 weeks memories of Bali to show for his time in prison. He's still alive so thats better than Van.

EGOR
03-12-2005, 01:13 PM
Weird, a thread where everyone seems to agree.
I am also bascilly in agreement with most things posted.
Whether something is legal or not will never change peoples desire to use it. I do not agree with any drug taking (apart from medical reasons), this includes smoking and alcohol (I'm willing to concided that alcohol in genuine moderation is ok). However, laws governing what is legal and what is not seem to be driven more by economics and perception (or votes), rather than a real desire to stop dangerous and deadly dug use, which is what it should be all about.
I'm also totally against the death penalty.

ElevatorEscapee
03-12-2005, 04:37 PM
No one has mentioned the "Financial Cost" consideration yet...

ie: If someone has committed such ghastly crime that they are sentenced to either life imprisonment or death, which is cheaper:

i) to kill the person?

ii) to house, feed & clothe, etc the person for "the term of their natural life"?

(bearing in mind that the term of someone's natural life may be shortened considerably if they are held in hellish conditions).

Of course the most financially expedient solution will bear more moral weight in the society with fewer resources. (ie why should innocent naked children starve whilst convicted murderers get regular food, clothing and shelter?)

Now imagine applying that consideration on a world scale... Should we as a species be keeping acknowledged war criminals alive, whilst allowing innocent people to die of malnutrition and easily preventable diseases?

Having said that, I am personally against the Death Sentence in this country simply because it has been demonstrated that our legal system is flawed in that the innocent can be convicted of the most heinous of crimes.

Personally, what I think that what we really should be considering as a soceity is: why do we treat people who break "the law" in the way that we do?

What do we want to have happen to the people who commit crimes?

Do we genuinely want them to reform and become "law abiding" citizens?

Or do we wish to "punish them to teach them a lesson"... if so, what is the lesson we wish to teach? "What you did was wrong, don't do it again!?"

Psychologically speaking, is the criminal justice system all that much different from parenting?

Parents will often punish their children for behaviour they consider to be "unacceptable"... and hope that the child learns "acceptable behaviour" from the punishment.

The people locked up in Australian prisons aren't children, yet by being "punished" for their crimes, is Australian society treating them as anything less?

If we really want people to reform from being "law breakers", is it wise to lock them up in close confines with other, perhaps more hardened "law breakers"?

Or should we have a good hard look at helping these people to become what they can be, rather than making it even more difficult for them to make a go of their lives?

Just my two penneth worth. :)

Kaitlin
03-12-2005, 05:49 PM
I heard on the radio that in Sweden shops can (or maybe it was soon to be) no-longer sell alcohol, only government run outlets will sell it. Probably all over the world, alcohol will go the same path like smokes, not banned but made less sociably acceptable. They would have to do it slowly and the first sign will be when the government stops the advertisment of beer and bundy bear at sporting evens. If you probably told someone ten years that they would not be able to smoke where they liked, they might have laught at you. Now everyone knows smoking is bad for you. Alcohol made me throw up and gave me really bad headaches that I had to stay in bed all the next day so I arleady know its bad for me... you may not think its bad for you yet but que the government and the 'evil' media mogules together and they will subtley educate you ~ probably untill it cost heaps more to buy... or the Hotels spokespeople give them lots of money so they can open on Santa Clause Day.

And...

Firstly despite Howard's waffle about the death penalty being repugnant to Australians it is still technically on the books in this country for one offence (treason) and successive governments have made no attempt to remove it.

I thought about that before - isnt blowing up buildings and crashing stuff into them in an attempt to upset stuff and casue the government to chaos equal to treason - why then did they need all them new law .... hmmm wait maybe the old treason one could only be applied after they had done something and the new ones are to stop them - ok well just forget you just read the secon half of my post

:classic:

four four two
03-12-2005, 05:59 PM
The government in Sweden has had a strong control over the sale of alcohol for quite awhile now. Excessive binge drinking is quite common in scandinavia. ;)

PHAT
03-12-2005, 07:16 PM
[bunch of stuff]

Good post EE.

The question that needs to be asked about incaseration and capital punishment is, what do we as a society wish to achieve.?

There are only four possible goals for gaols

1. Punishment
2. Rehabilitation
3. Protection of citizens
4. Deterence.

Let's look at these and see how our system stacks up.

Deterence: Crimologist are in general agreement that fines and gaol are not very effective deterant strateries. By far, the best deterent is perceived chance of being caught, regardless of the penalty. The level penalty for a serious crime make no difference to the rate of offence - especially true for murder.

Protection: No doubt, when behind bars, dangerous people are not a problem for the rest of us. However, there are real people in gaol for minor offences - non-payment of a fines et cetera. Those people certainly are not safe. Young male offenders can likely to to contract HIV and/or HepC - a death sentance for being poor and stupid. But that ain't all folks, when these infectous persons reenter the society, they kill others with the disease.

Further to the protection we want, we get no protection from the psychologically damaged people who are released with more anger and poverty than they went in with. There are some who should never be let out!

Rehabilitation: There is none.

Punishment: It makes most victims feel good for a short time. However, after a few years they offen start to think differently about the person what done them wrong. In the long run, vengence feels hollow.


At this point I will let the rest of you suggest alternatives to gaol for those who are found guilty of XYZ. Suffice to say, I view the current system as disfunctional and counter-productive.

Kevin Bonham
03-12-2005, 07:36 PM
Drug traffickers are evil because the product they supply is almost always never pure. They cut their products with all sort off things from glucose to Ajax to make as much profit as possible.

This, too, is a product of illegality encouraging dealers to maximise their profits because of the personal risks they face. It is also a product of illegality driving the price up and therefore increasing the incentive to dilute and cut. Legalise and regulate and this problem will more or less disappear - you do not see it with legal pharmaceuticals. I agree there are some really serious scum out there - someone I know became addicted to a drug he had never used after it was cut into a deal of something milder by a dealer with precisely that intention.


Prison is supposed to be about reforming the offender but some crimes like high treason in time of war or serial killing deserved no such consideration.

For cases like this, where there is no possible advantage in early release, I have no objection to real life sentences. Zero reoffense risk, offender can be released if found innocent, and the only downside is the cost (see below).


I don't think Van Nguyen should have been executed for this crime but as I said before unlucky.

Oh, I agree that his fate was self-inflicted. He took the risk and that was the consequence.


No one has mentioned the "Financial Cost" consideration yet...

ie: If someone has committed such ghastly crime that they are sentenced to either life imprisonment or death, which is cheaper:

i) to kill the person?

ii) to house, feed & clothe, etc the person for "the term of their natural life"?

(bearing in mind that the term of someone's natural life may be shortened considerably if they are held in hellish conditions).

I haven't researched this in detail but I understand that while the execution itself is not so expensive, the legal costs of due process (constant appeals etc) for an execution are massive.

PHAT
03-12-2005, 07:51 PM
... the legal costs of due process (constant appeals etc) for an execution are massive.

Shoot the laywers instead.

bergil
03-12-2005, 10:20 PM
This, too, is a product of illegality encouraging dealers to maximise their profits because of the personal risks they face. It is also a product of illegality driving the price up and therefore increasing the incentive to dilute and cut. Legalise and regulate and this problem will more or less disappear - you do not see it with legal pharmaceuticals. I agree there are some really serious scum out there - someone I know became addicted to a drug he had never used after it was cut into a deal of something milder by a dealer with precisely that intention.
Whilst there is a element of truth to what you say, dealers could not care less about the welfare of their customers and to say they cut it because of pressure to make more money because of the risks is a bridge to far.


For cases like this, where there is no possible advantage in early release, I have no objection to real life sentences. Zero reoffense risk, offender can be released if found innocent, and the only downside is the cost (see below).
No I can't agree, in cases like Malat, where the guilt was undeniable they should execute. There are very few cases like this but I see no benefit to the community to house them where they may corrupt or harm others amongst them.

How much cult status would Manson have now if hanged years ago?

PHAT
04-12-2005, 05:51 AM
... in cases like Malat, where the guilt was undeniable they should execute.
I know that the following challenge is a hoary old device, in this ongiong debate but, I cuts to the chase.

Would you personally slip the noose around his neck and then physically pull the lever?

Be careful, your answer will condem either you or your argument. :cool:

Frank Walker
04-12-2005, 08:55 AM
hmm...
If getting hanged is painful perhaps he could have tried to run around like a crazy moron and then get shot dead in the matter of a second.

bergil
04-12-2005, 11:15 AM
I know that the following challenge is a hoary old device, in this ongiong debate but, I cuts to the chase.

Would you personally slip the noose around his neck and then physically pull the lever?

Be careful, your answer will condem either you or your argument. :cool:
In Malat's case, I think I would have to say yes. That's not easy to prove until put in that situation and how that may change a person afterwards?

After thinking about it, If you believe that there is no place in society for people like that, then you would answer yes. Finding out if your actions can back your words is another matter.

PHAT
04-12-2005, 06:54 PM
In Malat's case, I think I would have to say yes. That's not easy to prove until put in that situation and how that may change a person afterwards?

After thinking about it, If you believe that there is no place in society for people like that, then you would answer yes. Finding out if your actions can back your words is another matter.

FFS. Just send the convicted lifer to a prison island. And you don't have to go to Hell - assuming that is part of your world view.

And, no, I could not pull the lever ........... unless the victim was one of my circle of loved ones. Even then, it is still a "maybe".


As I said before, your answer would and now has, condemmed you. You are a wannabe murderer. Don't come near me if anarchy breaks out, because for my own safty, I will kill you on the spot.

[Note to mods: this is not a threat, it is only a hypothetical senario.]

Dozy
04-12-2005, 06:58 PM
[Note to mods: this is not a threat, it is only a hypothetical senario.]Crikey, Matt, that's not a cringe is it? It's the first time I've seen a post with a built in escape hatch.

Personally I wonder if the poll goes far enough.

American author Robert Heinlein (sci fi if you haven't heard of him) says that bad manners should be a capital offence.

I can grok that!

Rincewind
04-12-2005, 07:37 PM
I can grok that!

Now that is a strange thing to say. ;)

bergil
04-12-2005, 07:56 PM
As I said before, your answer would and now has, condemmed you. You are a wannabe murderer. Don't come near me if anarchy breaks out, because for my own safty, I will kill you on the spot.

[Note to mods: this is not a threat, it is only a hypothetical senario.]
You have shovelled some crap before but this is a steaming pile bigger than your usual. You say I'm a wanna be murderer then in the same sentence say I should stay away if anarchy breaks out or I'll kill you on the spot!

I'm am dissapointed in your new low and will have to take your threat seriously as you seem to be mentally unstable.

Dozy
04-12-2005, 08:01 PM
Now that is a strange thing to say. ;)Maybe, maybe not ... but I think I remember you using it a few months ago?

PHAT
04-12-2005, 08:01 PM
Crikey, Matt, that's not a cringe is it? It's the first time I've seen a post with a built in escape hatch.

Well, let's say I have learned that the mods are, as a bunch, MORONIC. As such we need to s-p-e-l-l o-u-t the linguistic geography for the half witted faecal hiatii.

PHAT
04-12-2005, 08:07 PM
I'm am dissapointed in your new low and will have to take your threat seriously as you seem to be mentally unstable.

:lol:

Dude, I s'pose you will be voting for a liberal democracy. :wink: It has the lowest rate of instability - and the lowest rate of capital punishment too :owned:



But seriously, you should rethink your application for the hangman's job before people get the wrong idea about YOU.

Dozy
04-12-2005, 08:08 PM
the half witted faecal hiatii.Hang on, mate, you've got me guessing on this one.

By faecal hiatii do you mean a sewage plant in the Caribbean or simply a double dose of constipation (ie plural of faecal hiatus would be hiatii) !?

PHAT
04-12-2005, 09:17 PM
Hang on, mate, you've got me guessing on this one.

By faecal hiatii do you mean a sewage plant in the Caribbean or simply a double dose of constipation (ie plural of faecal hiatus would be hiatii) !?

I reckon the plural of hiatus is prolly hiatii. Hope this helps.



Perhaps I could have said "faecal annuli" :hmm:

Mischa
04-12-2005, 10:23 PM
yes it does, thx honey

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2005, 12:01 AM
Whilst there is a element of truth to what you say, dealers could not care less about the welfare of their customers and to say they cut it because of pressure to make more money because of the risks is a bridge to far.

Then why isn't the same shonkiness present in the legal pharmaceuticals industry, and in the production of alcohol? A few possibilities here - one is that the drug trade attracts scum not because of the product involved but because illegal activities are attractive to such personalities, while legal activities are not. Another is that if the price is low those who try to be shysters about it are far more easily exposed and outcompeted. A third is that illegality, leading to covert production, makes inspection of quality far more difficult.


No I can't agree, in cases like Malat, where the guilt was undeniable they should execute. There are very few cases like this but I see no benefit to the community to house them where they may corrupt or harm others amongst them.

How can the guilt ever be truly "undeniable" and how would you define that legally? Obviously the formulation "beyond reasonable doubt" is not enough to stop innocent people being convicted of offences now and then.

As for corruption/harm, I have no objection to solitary imprisonment for these cases; eg Martin Bryant is housed more or less in solitary at Risdon (mostly for his own protection).

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2005, 02:50 AM
DP is not still applicable for treason in Australia, contrary to one of my comments above (which I have edited). Removed in 1985.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2005, 04:26 PM
From "what song ..." thread:

(re Nick Cave's "Mercy Seat")


And in this song he was guilty..(unlike "Let Him Dangle" by Elvis Costello where the system was guilty)... and found to be even though he lied to try and get out of it.....
"An eye for an eye, And a truth for a truth, And anyway I told the truth
But I'm afraid I told a lie."

I'm curious. If retributivism supports an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, etc, then what punishment does a retributivist support for drug trafficking? Injecting the trafficker with heroin until he becomes addicted with a certain %age chance of death by overdose? What if the trafficker was already an addict?