MANDATORY death sentences? Fuck off Singapore.

[kambuckta]

Here in Aus at the moment there is a bit, OK, a LOT of a controversy regarding a young Melbourne fellow, Van Nguyen, who was caught in transit in Singapore transporting heroin from Cambodia to Australia. (Too many current cites to just isolate one......google it for any source you wish).

The brief synopsis though, is that Van was caught at Changi Airport with nearly 400gm of heroin in his possession. That's more than enough to attract the death penalty in Singapore.

He pleaded guilty at the court hearing, and also offered to assist the police by naming his 'sources' and the syndicate who had paid him to import the drugs. Van Nguyen claimed that he was doing it to help pay back his twin brother's gambling debts.

Regardless of his co-operation with the authorities, regardless that he has NO prior convictions or any other misdemeanours under his name, regardless that Van was only in transit when he was arrested (and thus no 'threat' to the Singaporean community), he is now going to be hanged on December 2 for his crime.

His mum got a letter last week from the Singapore Penal Service telling her the date her son was going to be executed. They offered to provide extra visiting times for family members, but also asked her what she wanted done with 'The Body' after the event.

I feel sickened by the whole thing,

Yes, Australian authorities have petitioned the Singaporean gummint to review the case, time and time again. It seems now all is lost. And a stupid young man must die for an act of utmost stupidity.

I pit MANDATORY death sentences.

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Methinks that anyone who knew someone who died from heroin abuse will have little sympathy.

[Blake]

Methinks that anyone who knew someone who died from heroin abuse will have little sympathy.

I know someone who was beaten severely by a heroin addict when he was dicovered robbing her house. To this day she doesn't know whether she was sexually assaulted because the eividence was 'ambiguous' and she was unconscious for 4 days. The list of permanent physical damage is extensive but the psychological damage is worse.

I have little sympathy for anyone who enegages in heroin use, and least sympathy for those who traffic in it. I have no sympathy at all for someone stupid enough to take heroin into Singapore of all places. Does anyone in the world not know that there is a mandatory death penalty? Do they no longer have the in-flight announcements in 5 languages they had 10 years ago?

Pitting Singapore becuase they take the damage cause dby drugs seriously rather than trreating it as a joke is ridiculous. By all means object to the death penalty if you wish, but mandatory severe sentencing of drug traffickers is a good thing and should be extended worldwide.

[Mr. Moto]

Young men die in acts of stupidity all the time.

I think overly broad application of the death penalty is moronic, as it removes the distinctiveness for truly capital crimes. Make the penalty for rape and murder equal, for instance, and you just created an incentive not to leave behind a living rape victim to testify against you.

Similarly, with this, you create extra incentive to flush out witnesses if the police are sniffing around the network. Not good.

So I have some problems with Singapore's laws as well.

Still, I have to ask, kambuckta, would you be shedding any tears over this guy if he were killed by another dealer? Or would you just shrug your shoulders at just another criminal getting killed by another?

[kambuckta]

By all means object to the death penalty if you wish, but mandatory severe sentencing of drug traffickers is a good thing and should be extended worldwide.

I am not objecting to severe sentencing. I am objecting to the imposition of the death penalty by the Singaporaen Authorities upon a person who had not purchased nor was going to be dealing drugs in Singapore in the first place.

Their mandate for applying the death penalty is to ensure that drugs are kept out of their country. The drugs were never going to BE in their country. Van Nguyen also assisted the police in their quest for finding the original dealers. Surely to God that has some place in the sentencing?

It seems not.

[kambuckta]

Still, I have to ask, kambuckta, would you be shedding any tears over this guy if he were killed by another dealer? Or would you just shrug your shoulders at just another criminal getting killed by another?

Yes, you may be right here Mr Moto. Had I not been alerted to this particular case, I probably would have shrugged off another Vietnamese Gangland killing in my hometown as just another boring news event.

But the difference is that this kid was NOT involved in any sort of crim activity before his arrest. All the indications are that he was a good kid who tried hard and just got himself involved into the wrong things at the wrong time.

My ask is that should he be executed for being a stupid fuckwit?

[neutron star]

would you be shedding any tears over this guy if he were killed by another dealer? Or would you just shrug your shoulders at just another criminal getting killed by another?

I like to hold (most of ) the governments of the world to slightly higher standards than those of murderous criminal syndicates.

[PookahMacPhellimey]

Still, I have to ask, kambuckta, would you be shedding any tears over this guy if he were killed by another dealer? Or would you just shrug your shoulders at just another criminal getting killed by another?

Sure. What drug dealing criminals do to each other is a great model for a justice system.

[PookahMacPhellimey]

Beat me to it, Neutron Star.

In addition, I also like Mr.Moto's argument of

Young men die in acts of stupidity all the time.

as well as an argument in favour of the hanging* of young men.

Young men are stupid and die all the time. That's a great reason to execute them.

*AFAIK that's how they would go about the execution in Singapore. The same thing happened to Dutchman Johannes Van Damme for much the same reason. Link. (http://www.en.nationaalarchief.nl/nieuws/pers/Zaak_Johannes_van_Damme.asp?ComponentID=6340&SourcePageID=5084#1)

[neutron star]

I know someone who was beaten severely by a heroin addict when he was dicovered robbing her house. To this day she doesn't know whether she was sexually assaulted because the eividence was 'ambiguous' and she was unconscious for 4 days. The list of permanent physical damage is extensive but the psychological damage is worse.

I have a good friend who was beaten to within an inch of his life in an unprovoked attack by a drunk in a bar. He now walks around with a metal plate in his head.

I don't (and neither does he) think that bartenders and beer companies should be held criminally responsible for his injuries.

Blame the assholes, not the drugs that they're on.

[Silentgoldfish]

I don't know ANYONE who doesn't know about the severe penalties all throughout SE Asia for being caught with drugs/trafficking drugs. I have as much sympathy for this asshole as I do for that Corby girl and that idiot lingerie model.

I'm not pro death penalty at all but if you're going to engage in an activity that you know can be punished by death in a country you're even just passing through you deserve anything you get, if only to remove your stupid ass from the gene pool.

[TheLoadedDog]

It's hard not to be affected by this case when you read about Van Nguyen's mother and brother flying to Singapore but not being allowed to even touch him before he dies. The death penalty sucks big time. Mandatory versions of this barbaric penalty suck double. And I am sickened by the comments here that he deserves it because of the damage heroin does. A rape or murder victim doesn't ask for it, but sticking that needle in your arm the first time is a choice. This shouldn't be punishable by death. Well, nothing should, but especially not this.

Especially sickening is Singapore's fucking hypocrisy towards drugs (http://www.singapore-window.org/804caq9.htm).

Fuck you Singapore.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Pitting Singapore becuase they take the damage cause dby drugs seriously rather than trreating it as a joke is ridiculous. By all means object to the death penalty if you wish, but mandatory severe sentencing of drug traffickers is a good thing and should be extended worldwide.

If you're suggesting that the U.S. treats drug abuse like a joke, with billions spent annually on the drug war, you must be on something yourself.

I don't agree with the whole idea of outlawing narcotics, but still I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the defendant in this story--he did admit to doing it and doesn't appear to have been set up or framed. OTOH you'd think he'd at least merit a commuted sentence for his cooperation with law enforcement.

[Revtim]

From simply a crime fighting standpoint there's problems with this. What incentive is there to plead guilty or give up names if the criminal is going to be executed anyway? Why did this guy plead guilty for that matter? Well, the obvious answer must be he was ignorant of Singapore law.

Also, there's no jury trial there, is there? I think (no cite, sorry) that when there's mandatory harsh sentencing, juries tend to convict at lower rates.

[kidchameleon]

Next poor young people will be put in Turkish prisons for drug smuggling in Turkey. Oh the humanity!

[PookahMacPhellimey]

Next poor young people will be put in Turkish prisons for drug smuggling in Turkey. Oh the humanity!


I pointed out earlier on that two wrongs don't make a right. Three don't either.

[Mangetout]

Was the fellow in question not aware of the enormously strict anti-drug laws in Singapore? Not that ignorance of the law should necessarily be an excuse...

[Silentgoldfish]

Was the fellow in question not aware of the enormously strict anti-drug laws in Singapore? Not that ignorance of the law should necessarily be an excuse...

Honestly, I can't see how he possibly could be. It's pretty much common knowledge in this part of the world.

[Sevastopol]

Methinks that anyone who knew someone who died from heroin abuse will have little sympathy.

You think wrong then.

I'm with the OP. Mandatory sentencing is a defilement of justice.

[kidchameleon]

I pointed out earlier on that two wrongs don't make a right. Three don't either.

But three lefts do.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for drug runners. Or murders. Or rapists.

[neutron star]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for drug runners. Or murders. Or rapists.

Nobody chooses to be murdered. Nobody chooses to be raped. Everyone who uses drugs chooses to do them. And those who make that choice need to be supplied.

Take away the nonsensical criminal penalties, and a drug runner is no different from a guy driving a beer truck. Violence related to the drug trade is a direct consequence of those laws. As penalties rise, drug prices go up with them, as do burglaries to support addictions, and cutthroat criminal business practices.

It boggles my mind to think that after all these years there are still so many people who can't see that insane laws like this exacerbate, rather than solve, problems.

[Snickers]

Mangetout is spot on - is anyone left that's not aware of Singapore's extremely strict drug laws? Geez. Were I to run drugs, and my next job included a stop in Singapore, well, I wouldn't be taking that job, that's for certain.

Not that he deserves the sentence - no, I agree. It's unnecessarily cruel. But running drugs through Singapore? Are you mad?

I wonder how Singapore views the United States' very expensive, and ultimately losing, "war on drugs."

[Mangetout]

Honestly, I can't see how he possibly could be. It's pretty much common knowledge in this part of the world.That's what I was thinking, which makes it all a bit weird.

[Revtim]

Was the fellow in question not aware of the enormously strict anti-drug laws in Singapore? Not that ignorance of the law should necessarily be an excuse...Well, it's a safe bet that he didn't know he'd still be executed even if he pleads guilty. Why would he have plead guilty otherwise?

[Atticus Finch]

Yes, Australian authorities have petitioned the Singaporean gummint to review the case, time and time again. It seems now all is lost. And a stupid young man must die for an act of utmost stupidity.I don't think the Aussie government has done enough. Have we threatened diplomatic or economic sanctions? Appealed to the ICJ? Had a personal appeal from one prime minister to the other? Little Johnny's flying past on his way back from a Pakistani junket, surely he could pop by and say, "Hey, if you don't mind, could you not brutally slaughter one of my citizens?"

And yet when that bimbo Corby got caught with a crapload of marijuana and made a bunch of pathetic lies about it, how many government ministers made treks to Jakarta for personal pleas? Three, wasn't it? How many QCs did the government hire on her behalf? How often did our media slander the Indonesian justice system? Of course, she was white and moderately attractive, as was that other bimbo who got caught recently.

I pit the Commonwealth Government for not doing anything like their best to save one of their own citizens.

[Clothahump]

Here in Aus at the moment there is a bit, OK, a LOT of a controversy regarding a young Melbourne fellow, Van Nguyen, who was caught in transit in Singapore transporting heroin from Cambodia to Australia. (Too many current cites to just isolate one......google it for any source you wish).

The brief synopsis though, is that Van was caught at Changi Airport with nearly 400gm of heroin in his possession. That's more than enough to attract the death penalty in Singapore.
...snip...
Yes, Australian authorities have petitioned the Singaporean gummint to review the case, time and time again. It seems now all is lost. And a stupid young man must die for an act of utmost stupidity.

I pit MANDATORY death sentences.

Have you ever been to Singapore? I have; I lived there for nearly two years.

On the immigration form that you have to fill out to enter the country, in bold, red letters is printed the warning:

Trafficking in drugs is punishable by death

At least, that warning was on the card when I had to fill it out, and I don't see why Singapore would have eliminated it since then.

I have no sympathy for him. Your own statement of
Van was caught at Changi Airport with nearly 400gm of heroin in his possession
indicates that he entered Singapore with heroin in his possession, knowing that possessing those drugs was a capital offense in Singapore. Yes, he was stupid. Yes, he's going to be executed. His willing action led to that consequence.

One would think that, instead of bitching about a mandatory death penalty, you should be applauding the fact that one less piece-of-shit drug dealer will be walking the face of the earth.

[elbows]

It is impossible to enter Singapore and NOT be aware that the penalty for drug trafficking is Death. That's because it's printed in Bold on every form you complete including the card that is stapled into your passport. It also appears, in foot high letters, on several large signs, in several languages, at every entry point.

Singapore is the third largest port in the world and could easily become a major connection on the drug trail. It has avoided this fate by taking a very hardline stance on this issue. They routinely execute Asians for these same offenses.

My understanding is that each nation is entitled to decide it's own drug laws and enforce them as they see fit. This nation stands in a location that could easily find it over run, not only with drugs but with drug transporters. Drug transporters connect through Singapore because they believe they will not be as closely scrutinized, on arrival, as if they were coming from, say, Bangkok or Rangoon. Singapore is hip to this game and, in my opinion, they have the right to act to suppress it.

This kid fully knew the risk. No one can change the one simple rule in life: If you play, you will pay!

I've spent a good deal of time in SE Asia and in Singapore. As it happens I have a friend who is a reformed drug runner, (Australian) originally drawn into it for the money, he was always the first to admit, runners get hooked on the thrill, like addicts get hooked on the drug.

I sympathize with the family but I'm just can't convince myself he didn't know the risk. And if he knew the risk, than he thought it was worth taking. If that is the case then, I figure, he earned this life lesson.

[PookahMacPhellimey]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for drug runners. Or murders. Or rapists.

I agree with what Neutron Star said about drug dealers.

In addition, there are many people I do not symphatise with. I just think that killing them (in the case we are talking about probably hanging them) is barbaric and won't solve anything.

I think that the posters who reckon he probably did know about the drug laws are likely to be right. Isn't that a nice point against the "it's a deterrent" argument?

On a personal level, I really don't get that "kill them all" attitude. I honestly don't mean to attack you for being bloodthirsty but do you really actually think "I think this young men should be hanged" when you read about a case like this? That thought would really never occur to me. Guess I've led a sheltered life.

Atticus Finch, I agree with your point in principle but I'm not sure the Australian goverment's involvement would do much good. In the very similar Dutch case I linked above the Dutch government got very involved. The people of Holland protested at the time as well and the queen of The Netherlands wrote a letter on the man's behalf. All to no avail. He was hanged anyway. Sad to say, but I wouldn't have much hope for the Australian guy either.

[Atticus Finch]

Atticus Finch, I agree with your point in principle but I'm not sure the Australian goverment's involvement would do much good. In the very similar Dutch case I linked above the Dutch government got very involved. The people of Holland protested at the time as well and the queen of The Netherlands wrote a letter on the man's behalf. All to no avail. He was hanged anyway. Sad to say, but I wouldn't have much hope for the Australian guy either.I know the Singaporean government has a reputation for being stubborn, and I don't hold out much hope. It's still the government's job to do all it can to try to save the life of one of its citizens, and I don't think they've done anywhere near all they can do.

One would think that, instead of bitching about a mandatory death penalty, you should be applauding the fact that one less piece-of-shit drug dealer will be walking the face of the earth.Fuck you for rejoicing in the death of another person. You disgust me.

[Tabby_Cat]

And yet when that bimbo Corby got caught with a crapload of marijuana and made a bunch of pathetic lies about it, how many government ministers made treks to Jakarta for personal pleas? Three, wasn't it? How many QCs did the government hire on her behalf? How often did our media slander the Indonesian justice system? Of course, she was white and moderately attractive, as was that other bimbo who got caught recently.

I pit the Commonwealth Government for not doing anything like their best to save one of their own citizens.

Corby was a different case. Corby was accused, and the problem was that she may or may not have gotten a fair trial. In the case, Van is almost undeniably guilty, and the problem is with the punishment.

As much as you may not like it, Singapore is sovereign within its territory. The death penalty is also available in the US. Now, I don't make any representations as to if the DP is or is not a good way of going about things, but the fact that he was present in the territory of Singapore means that he is subject to the laws of Singapore. It's not like he didn't know about the penalty. He was given due process, and was found guilty.

If I were present in the US, and took a leak in public, I would be a certified sex offender, and this fact would be made available to all my employers making me essentially unemployable. Is this right? Moral? Regardless, the US is sovereign on US soil, and I must be found guilty. Should the Singapore Government then appeal to the US government, saying that labelling me as a sex offender is totally unwarranted, and that, in effect, there should be an exception to your law for foreigners, to apply double standards?

In the end, what you have is a value judgement. Most of you feel that drug traffickers are not deserving of death. The Singapore Government obviously thinks otherwise.

Is it successful in deterrance? I'm sure you would be hard pressed to find drug dealers in Singapore, addiction at far lower levels than in the US. Is this lowered availability of drugs/reputation worth the DP for convicted drug traffickers? In my opinion, perhaps, excepting problems of proof. And in the end, what matters is my opinion, as a Singaporean. Well, it would be, if we were a "real" democracy. But in this area of drug trafficking, I agree, for the most part.


Incidentally, Singapore is also within the Commonwealth.





However, that said, I don't like the idea of mandatory sentencing. I believe that there are always mitigating factors, and that the judge should be given discretion, especially as a form of encouraging more evidence to be brought forward, and also in cases where the proof is more circumstancial. Mandatory sentencing seems to be where politics brazenly takes over the role of the judge, to prioritise policy over justice.

[kidchameleon]

Take away the nonsensical criminal penalties, and a drug runner is no different from a guy driving a beer truck.

And I have no sympathy for rum-runners, moonshiners or speeders(myself being one). You know the risks, be ready to take the punishment.

I can spit on some guy in Wrigleyville and get arrested. If I go to the south side and spit on a gang banger with his friends I'm likely to end up severley injured if not dead. Life isn't equitable everywhere and people need to be able to understand that.

[Atticus Finch]

Corby was a different case. Corby was accused, and the problem was that she may or may not have gotten a fair trial. In the case, Van is almost undeniably guilty, and the problem is with the punishment.Corby got a fair trial, and was as undeniably guilty as Van Nguyen, having been caught in possession of a big heaping bag of pot. In that case, I still have a problem with the punishment, but it's not as large an issue as the death penalty.

As much as you may not like it, Singapore is sovereign within its territory. <further argument snipped>I have no objection to Singapore being sovereign within its territory, and recognize its right to set its own laws. This has gone without saying in my previous posts, as has the fact that I'm making value judgements. My opinion is that the death penalty in any circumstances is unacceptable, mandatory sentencing antithetical to justice and to practical law enforcement (which I see you approximately agree with), and that Australia has failed in its obligations towards one of its citizens.

Incidentally, Singapore is also within the Commonwealth.Your point being? When did I say it wasn't?

[Weirddave]

A lot of of you are pissing and moaning for this poor, poor drug dealer, and yet....Singapore has a vastly lower crime rate WRT drugs and a vastly lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S., doesn't it? Seems to me that while their drug laws may be harsh and one could argue inhumane.....they work.

[PookahMacPhellimey]

A lot of of you are pissing and moaning for this poor, poor drug dealer, and yet....Singapore has a vastly lower crime rate WRT drugs and a vastly lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S., doesn't it? Seems to me that while their drug laws may be harsh and one could argue inhumane.....they work.


Yeah, and The Netherlands has one of the most relaxed drug policies anyway and has a lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S. as well. Works too. Bonus points for no one getting hanged.

[kidchameleon]

Yeah, and The Netherlands has one of the most relaxed drug policies anyway and has a lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S. as well. Works too. Bonus points for no one getting hanged.

The Dutch aren't hung? I guess it pays not to listen to rumors. :p

[Weirddave]

Yeah, and The Netherlands has one of the most relaxed drug policies anyway and has a lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S. as well. Works too. Bonus points for no one getting hanged.
Personally that is the approach I favor. However, Singapore has the right to set it's own laws, I'm not going to waste one second bemoaning the fate of some piece of shit drug dealer who breaks them.

[PookahMacPhellimey]

The Dutch aren't hung? I guess it pays not to listen to rumors. :p


Tee hee. I've completely and utterly disagreed with just about everything you've said in the thread but that one made me laugh. :D

And with that I'm going to leave the discussion as we are obviously not ever going to agree but we're going about it much to civilly for the Pit.

[Revtim]

A lot of of you are pissing and moaning for this poor, poor drug dealer, and yet....Singapore has a vastly lower crime rate WRT drugs and a vastly lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S., doesn't it? Seems to me that while their drug laws may be harsh and one could argue inhumane.....they work.So? I'm sure lots of draconian and cruel measures could be taken by the state to combat pretty much any social problem. Many feel it's not worth living in a police state, obviously.

[Johnny L.A.]

Methinks that anyone who knew someone who died from heroin abuse will have little sympathy.
I know someone who probably died from a heroin overdose. (I say 'probably' because I heard the news from someone who knew her better than I, who guessed it was heroin because that was her drug of choice.) I don't blame the dealer for her death. I don't blame the lowly courier for her death. I blame her. She's the one who abused drugs, who rehabilitated and got her life back together, and then went back to drugs.

Nguyen Tuong Van was a courier. A 'mule'. He's not the dealer. He's not the supplier. He's a young schmuck who did something stupid. He cooperated with the authorities. If heroin is really bad (I've read Naked Lunch, and I would agree -- though I've never used the stuff -- with Burroughs that one should never use heroin even once) then he deserves a long prison sentence. He does not deserve to die, even if that's what Singapore law says. In North Korea people are executed for helping people escape. Perhaps they are executed for exposing how bad things are in North Korea. Do they deserve to die, simply because death is the penalty called for under North Korean law? I don't think so.

[Gangster Octopus]

This reminds me of all those threads bemoaning all the times those non-Australians were put to death due to draconian Singaporean drug laws. Makes, sense, since it is the law that is wrong, right?

But for some strange reason, when I do a search I can't find any of them. Did I dream it?

[Tabby_Cat]

I have no objection to Singapore being sovereign within its territory, and recognize its right to set its own laws. This has gone without saying in my previous posts, as has the fact that I'm making value judgements. My opinion is that the death penalty in any circumstances is unacceptable, mandatory sentencing antithetical to justice and to practical law enforcement (which I see you approximately agree with), and that Australia has failed in its obligations towards one of its citizens.

How has Australia failed in it's obligations? Or, what obligations does Australia have? Why do you use the word "save", instead of "bend the law"? The only person that Australia is "saving" Van from is himself. Your argument is basically that you think the DP is immoral, and that it should not be applied to Van. There is no legal argument there, it is simply an appeal to principle.

So, let's bring in the other competing principles, like State sovereignty, not using economic/political coersion to subvert justice, respect for trade and a country's reputation as a "clean" port, respect for the state's right to impose criminal sanctions on their jurisdiction etc.

I notice that earlier, some other poster, as well as many talking heads, have asked for Australia to use economic or political sanctions. Does that mean that you believe in "might makes right"? That the US should force democracy on Iraq, perhaps, because they are economically and politically superior? That suddenly, this is a problem, because one of "our" people has breached the law? It's okay for those other chinks to be put to death, but this is OUR chink, dammit, and the law is NOW wrong/immoral? Again, that OUR guy should get special treatment?

I think that the Australian government has done all it should. Provided a defence, pleaded for clemency. And Indonesia was clearly different - the case was much weaker, the evidence more circumstancial, and there were suspicions of airport handlers who essentially "framed" her. Indonesian prisons aren't exactly the best place to be, either. I won't deny that it was also because she was an attractive, white girl, of course, at least that much is obvious. But legally, her case was also much stronger. In this case, he's pretty much admitted his guilt - what else is there to do?

The only thing left is to either plead for clemency, or violate state sovereignty. And I would be VERY dissappointed if state sovereignty was not respected, especially in this case, where the law was clearly stated, known, and due process given. This would smack of double standards, and if strongarm tactics were used, imperialism.


Your point being? When did I say it wasn't?

I pit the Commonwealth Government for not doing anything like their best to save one of their own citizens.

Which one? "Save"? From who? From WHAT?

[The Mad Hermit]

Time to break Godwin's law.

It may be legal in Singapore to execute a drug dealer, but does that make it right?

Nazi Germany executed "enemies of the state" as a matter of course. They were also guilty of a crime- worshipping as a Jew was made illegal.

Why is tbis case different?

[Tabby_Cat]

This reminds me of all those threads bemoaning all the times those non-Australians were put to death due to draconian Singaporean drug laws. Makes, sense, since it is the law that is wrong, right?

But for some strange reason, when I do a search I can't find any of them. Did I dream it?
Incidentally, there was a thread once, where a doper's cow-orker was sentenced to time and caning for possession of pot, narrowly escaping the death penalty because he got stiffed and what he thought was pot was not totally pot.

Co-working going to prison in Singapore (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=125601)

[Weirddave]

Time to break Godwin's law.

It may be legal in Singapore to execute a drug dealer, but does that make it right?

Nazi Germany executed "enemies of the state" as a matter of course. They were also guilty of a crime- worshipping as a Jew was made illegal.

Why is tbis case different?
Well, right off the top of my head, because smuggling drugs is a choice that an individual makes, and being Jewish (or black, or gay, etc..) is not? Think the two are just a tiny bit different?

[Ice Wolf]

I have always opposed the death penalty, and I do so in this case as well. It is being used as a deterrant -- and likely will simply serve to raise the risk level for drug trafficking, but not actually deter. It didn't in this case, did it?

However, while it is all well and good that countries put in a good word for their citizens when said citizens go out in the world and step into bear traps with their eyes wide open -- Singapore has the "no ifs, no buts" mandatory sentencing for a reason. They are notorious for having strict, no nonsense regulations. And is Australia raising cain over the fate of others of its citizens elsewhere in Asian prisons due to drugs and other felonies? (Yes, there are New Zealanders in strife of their own making as well).

It is sad. Because of one son getting mixed up with loan sharks, and the other doing something extreme such as conveying heroin via Singapore, the mother will be burying one of her children. Hopefully this passes on a "Don't Be So Stupid" message to Australian communities.

Going on trends, though -- I don't hold much hope for that.

[Atticus Finch]

Which one? "Save"? From who? From WHAT?What's to understand? The Commonwealth Government has failed to do its best to save its own citizen, Van Nguyen, from being killed by the Singaporean government. By save I mean prevent the death penalty being used. Which one - don't know what you mean - there's only one citizen in question here - Van Nguyen. From who - the Singaporean government. From what - the death penalty.

How has Australia failed in it's obligations? Or, what obligations does Australia have?A government has an obligation to protect its citizens where at all possible. The Aussie government has not done enough, and hence failed.

Why do you use the word "save", instead of "bend the law"? The only person that Australia is "saving" Van from is himself. Your argument is basically that you think the DP is immoral, and that it should not be applied to Van. There is no legal argument there, it is simply an appeal to principle.I'm not saying he's not guilty, there's no legal argument in that sense. I believe that he should be punished, but merely that the punishment should be more lenient. There's an excellent legal case for mitigation here.

So, let's bring in the other competing principles, like State sovereignty, not using economic/political coersion to subvert justice, respect for trade and a country's reputation as a "clean" port, respect for the state's right to impose criminal sanctions on their jurisdiction etc.Singapore's reputation as a clean port is no concern to Australia, and should not be a consideration for us. Respect for their criminal jurisdiction / sovereignty should be taken into account, but I believe such concerns are overridden by the magnitude of the action Singapore plans to take. You've got to say that there must be such an override in some cases, otherwise we couldn't impose sanctions on say, apartheid-era South Africa for complying with their own sovereign laws that discriminated against black people. It's a question of degree, and I think that this is a case where such concerns must be overriden.

I notice that earlier, some other poster, as well as many talking heads, have asked for Australia to use economic or political sanctions. Does that mean that you believe in "might makes right"? That the US should force democracy on Iraq, perhaps, because they are economically and politically superior? That suddenly, this is a problem, because one of "our" people has breached the law? It's okay for those other chinks to be put to death, but this is OUR chink, dammit, and the law is NOW wrong/immoral? Again, that OUR guy should get special treatment?Fuck your strawman argument about Iraq and your implication that I'm a racist.

"Strongarm tactics"? "Imperialism"? "Might makes right"? Are we talking about a huge country browbeating a little one, or launching military attacks? No, we're tallking about legitimate diplomatic action between rough economic equals, two wealthy and Westernised nations. We're talking about one country standing up for the rights of one of its citizens to not be brutally and obscenely slaughtered. If that's imperialism, then call me Stanford goddamn Raffles.

Re Corby - you don't know what you're talking about. Both Nguyen and Corby were caught with drugs in their immediate possession, no circumstantial evidence there, just red-handedness. Corby's bullshit story was even less believeable than the standard "uh, someone else must have put those drugs in my pocket". Even so, this is a side issue and I'm prepared to leave it here or argue about it in another thread.

[Foaming Cleanser]

From the link (http://www.singapore-window.org/804caq9.htm) supplied by TheLoadedDog.Both the Burmese generals and drug lords have been able to take advantage of Singapore's liberal banking laws and money laundering opportunities. In 1991, for eaxample, the slorc laundered $400 million through a Singapore bank which it used as a down payment for Chinese arms. Despite the large sum, Burma's foreign exchange reserves registered no change either before or after the sale. With no laws to prevent money laundering, Singapore is widely reported to be a financial haven for Burma's elite, including its two most notorious traffickers, Lo Hsing Han and Khun Sa (also known by his Chinese name Chang Qifu).Recognize Singapore for what it is: a police state, as corrupt as any you care to name. Like every police state it has an overabundance of psychopaths at the top and no shortage of goons to keep the peasants in line. If thugs weren't in power, it wouldn't be a police state.

Despite its spin, Singapore doesn't kill drug traffickers out of some high-and-mighty duty to protect its citizens. It kills them for the same reason Colombian drug lords and drug gangs anywhere do. It stops the competition.

[Weirddave]

OK, Atticus, we get that you're outraged that this drug smuggler is going to be killed, in complete accordance with local laws and due process, because he's an Australian citizen, and you're ranting that the Australian government isn't "doing enough" to prevent him from paying the consequences of his own actions. What, pray tell, would you have them do?

[Atticus Finch]

OK, Atticus, we get that you're outraged that this drug smuggler is going to be killed, in complete accordance with local laws and due process, because he's an Australian citizen, and you're ranting that the Australian government isn't "doing enough" to prevent him from paying the consequences of his own actions. What, pray tell, would you have them do?Haven't I already given examples?
- A personal appeal, PM to PM. Howard, our PM, is in the area and could do this face to face.
- A prisoner exchange program.
- An appeal to the ICJ.
- As a last resort, diplomatic / trade influences or sanctions.

Let's face it, there are many things a government can do, the only question is the degree of motivation.

Surely you approximately agree, just given a question of degree? If a female US citizen were found guilty of some kind of crime of extra-marital sex in a court in, say, Sudan, and was sentenced to death by stoning, wouldn't you want the US government to exert diplomatic pressure, if not send in the Marines?

[Clock]

Time to break Godwin's law.

It may be legal in Singapore to execute a drug dealer, but does that make it right?

Nazi Germany executed "enemies of the state" as a matter of course. They were also guilty of a crime- worshipping as a Jew was made illegal.

Why is tbis case different?
To equate the legal system of Singapore with that [which posed as one] of Nazi Germany is ludicrous.

Yes it makes it right to execute persons who despite the numerous warnings displayed most everywhere on entering Singapore informing you that xxDEATH is the penalty for trafficking in drugs

[John_Stamos'_Left_Ear]

Mandatory sentencing is a defilement of justice.One can have little sympathy for a heroin smuggler and still think that mandatory sentancing is a crock, you know.

[Spoons]

What's to understand? The Commonwealth Government has failed to do its best...I've been a bit confused by the usage of "Commonwealth" in this thread. It seems to me that Atticus and Tabby Cat are talking about two different Commonwealths:

Atticus is referring to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Tabby Cat is referring to the Commonwealth itself--that collection of nations that used to be the British Empire. You know, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc. etc.

Am I right?

[Tabby_Cat]

From the link (http://www.singapore-window.org/804caq9.htm) supplied by TheLoadedDog.Recognize Singapore for what it is: a police state, as corrupt as any you care to name. Like every police state it has an overabundance of psychopaths at the top and no shortage of goons to keep the peasants in line. If thugs weren't in power, it wouldn't be a police state.

Despite its spin, Singapore doesn't kill drug traffickers out of some high-and-mighty duty to protect its citizens. It kills them for the same reason Colombian drug lords and drug gangs anywhere do. It stops the competition.

I am VERY skeptical about that article. While I am not in a position to take it apart totally, at the very least I can answer the money laundering allegation.

From the IMF: warning PDF (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:NQs34B-e44YJ:www.imf.org/external/np/aml/eng/2003/090503.pdf+money+laundering+singapore&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

As well as Singapore being one of the founders of APG (http://www.apgml.org/Jurisdictions/) (incidentally, Australia is one as well)

The fact remains that Burma is still a member of Asean, and that engagement is part of getting Burma out of the drugs rut. As it is, Burma was almost expelled from Asean for not releasing Ang San Su Ki. Is that what you would call "bedfellows"? Perhaps we should re-consider the relationship South Korea has with North Korea - they're trading, therefore the South is keeping Kim in power and killing millions of North Koreans by proxy.



And I take great offence in calling Singapore a police state. As anyone who has visited Singapore can tell you, it is no police state. Many dopers have even lived there, and while I must admit that sometimes the PAP does use some underhand means to stay in power, brutality is not part of it.

[neutron star]

Well, right off the top of my head, because smuggling drugs is a choice that an individual makes, and being Jewish (or black, or gay, etc..) is not? Think the two are just a tiny bit different?

One could always compare it to the Spanish Inquisition. Jewish people were given a choice to convert to Catholicism. Those who didn't (or only pretended to) suffered the consequences.

(I've read Naked Lunch, and I would agree -- though I've never used the stuff -- with Burroughs that one should never use heroin even once)

I haven't read Naked Lunch, but the implication there is that one could develop a habit from the very first use, and that just isn't the case. In Junky, Borroughs writes that it takes months of daily use to develop a habit.

I'm sure that it happens quicker for some than others, and it's certainly not something you want to get addicted to (then again, what is?), but the reality of the situation is that a large percentage of the populace simply isn't very susceptible to opiate addiction.

Before the U.S. started enacting drug laws, heroin was available over-the-counter to anyone who asked for it, and somehow we managed to avoid becoming a nation of junkies. Even now, opiate-derived drugs are some of the most frequently prescribed medicines in the country, yet most people who use them for pain do not get addicted.

As far as sympathy towards the smuggler goes, I definitely have it, even if he did know the risks. I sympathize with anyone convicted of an unjust law.

[Atticus Finch]

I've been a bit confused by the usage of "Commonwealth" in this thread. It seems to me that Atticus and Tabby Cat are talking about two different CommonwealthsIt seems so. When I say "Commonwealth Government", I'm talking about the government of the federated entity or commonwealth of Australia, specifically the Howard Liberal / National Government. There is no government for the loose group of nations known as the Commonwealth of Nations, the former British Empire, and that particular commonwealth has nothing much to do with this discussion. To avoid any confusion, I'll just talk about the Australian Government.

[Charlie Tan]

Actually, Singapore might properly be called fascist, which often works with the trappings of a democracy or republic. Having lived in Spain (post-Franco) I can assure you that the law abiding Spaniards regarded the Franco regime as generally benevolent, if a little oppressive at times.
The mixture of strong welfare state (which lets everyone have a job, free school for kids, health care, affordable housing) combined with a free market, is typical of fascism. And fascism tend to work. The free market provides the means to keep the citizens happy, as opposed to the communists system, which basically went under because no one wanted to buy Bulgarian shoes (or whatever P.J. O'Rourke said). People who are well fed, have mortgages, car payments and a job tend not to riot in the streets.

A country with 4.5 million people that have a standing army of 100.000 and a reserve of 350.000 might not have all that military to be ready in case Malaysia decides to invade, but to keep things in check in their own country. And a country where pornography, oral sex and homosexual sex are considered fellonies, and where bloggers who critisize the government are sent to jail for sedition, is not what I call democratic.

[Johnny L.A.]

And a country where pornography, oral sex and homosexual sex are considered fellonies...
Wait a tick. You mean it would be illegal for me to lick a clitoris in Singapore?

[even sven]

I'm against the death penalty.

But I have no sympathy for people who go overseas and get involved in drugs. The degree of overseas idiocy I've seen is incredible- people asking their taxi driver from the airport for drugs, people selling drugs to other foreigners in high-profile places on a regular basis (Even India, who is loathe to convict anyone for anything, eventually had to arrest the Israelis that opened a pot brownie stand on an ancient ruin), and people lighting up in public in well trafficed places. I even saw one guy accept drugs from a policeman (turned out okay that time...but gah! What an idiot!) Do drugs at home if you must. But once you leave your country, you better be on your best behavior.

Everybody knows what happens to drug dealers in Singapore. And running drugs through Singapore isn't something that happens without a lot of planning. It's not even like a murder or something at home.....this guy went out of his way to bring drugs in to a place where that could get him killed. He bought a plane ticket. He walked past all those big signs.

Tourism is the world's largest industry. Once a nation gets a name as a place to take a vice-vacation, it's hard to shake. Thailand has been trying for years and still the first thing that comes to mind is "sex with little kids." No country wants to be the great place for Australians to do drugs.

[Tabby_Cat]

Short answer: Yes, but no one's ever been charged. Well, not for oral/homosexual sex, at least. I actually read the case that established this, and it was... odd. (Well, actually the problem is that the Chief Justice Head Honcho is off his rocker. Everyone knows that, but nobody wants to tell him. As a lawyer, I hope SOMETHING gets done about him soon.) Not sure about the porn, but hey, who's telling? ;) Haven't heard of anyone being busted for possession of porn, that's for sure.


All that aside, I agree with the charge of fasicism, actually. It's rather misunderstood, but Singapore does display many fascist tendencies. Heck, the right wing part of the US has many fascist tendencies, and Japan has so many fascist parties it's practically a fascist democracy. The main aim of fasicism was the placing of the state above the self, and employing a totalitarian regime to support this. Often, the state controls industry as well. Clearly, Singapore falls within this definition, on all counts. However, so does practically the rest of Asia. It is a particularly Asian trait to have the nation above self, and for government to be totalitarian. Is this bad? I don't know. In the case of Singapore, it certainly works. I think that anything else WOULDN'T work. Imagine if New York (Singapore is smaller than New York) was run democratically. Giuliani was probably somewhat fascist as well, and he certainly worked.


Communism was misguided - Marx imagined a time where the means of production could produce more than enough for everyone. Dunno what version of Communism China is running. Prolly a beta.

Problem 1 - Technology hasn't arrived yet. If we had replicators, maybe we could be communist.
Problem 2 - Humans are greedy bastards.

About the dissidents, I only need to point you to Dr Chee Soon Juan, leader of the "Democratic party" to show you how UNpopular American style democracy is here. He's still around, somewhere, but most people think that he's a clown. In open elections, PAP won by a landslide. Part of this is due to the fact that the opposition is so incompetent, but there are people who genuinely think that the PAP is doing fine. I happen to be one of them - the PAP is keeping the economy up, standard of life is great, inflation is lower than in the UK (SHEESH guys, are you printing banana notes?!) and their policies don't get in my way much.

Of couse, Singapore style fascism probably only works because we're so small, and because we're in such a good position such that monetary wealth isn't a problem. In a larger area, I don't think you could restrain discontent to this degree.

Hijack much? :p


Atticus, I agree with what you propose, up to coersion through sanctions. I think that no country should interfere with another country's internal affairs. Think about Iraq - the problem is that you're trying to force something on someone else, based on your economic or military power. It never works, because the people LIKE it that way.

If you're talking about simply making an exception for your own countrymen, then you're being hypocritical. Either you're saying "DP is barbaric but I don't care, as long as my guy is okay" or "We are better than you, so it shouldn't apply to us".

[TheLoadedDog]

If you're talking about simply making an exception for your own countrymen, then you're being hypocritical. Either you're saying "DP is barbaric but I don't care, as long as my guy is okay" or "We are better than you, so it shouldn't apply to us".
In this case, I think attitudes are mixed. On one hand, there is a feeling of "hey, one of us is going to be killed by those evil foreigners!!" To this extent, your criticism is valid. However, there are also people here (Foreign Minister Downer included) saying, "The death penalty is barbaric, and even if Nguyen dies, which he probably will, our pressure on Singapore over this case may acheive a greater good in the long term by promoting opposition to the DP in Singapore - for all people, locals and foreigners alike."

[Clothahump]

Fuck you for rejoicing in the death of another person. You disgust me.

Where did you ever get the idea I was rejoicing over the death of another person? Drug dealers are not human. They are scum, and have less value to humanity than crotch rot fungus.

[Grelby]

Where did you ever get the idea I was rejoicing over the death of another person? Drug dealers are not human. They are scum, and have less value to humanity than crotch rot fungus.

Fuck you. This kind of attitude - reducing others to being less than people - is the attitude that leads to slavery, terrorism, war, race hate and a host of other evils. I'm not saying that drug dealers are good. Drug dealing is bad. That doesn't mean that they are less than human. Jesus, are you even following along? The kid is not a drug dealer, he is a transporter. They are NOT the same thing.

Look, buddy. HUMANS are capable of some pretty terrible things. HUMANS kill and rape others. HUMANS decapitate their helpless captives and videotape it to send a "message" to a horrified world. HUMANS wage wars for noble causes and kill thousands of innocent bystanders in the process. These are all horrible things, but they are all done by people. Many people are able to do these things because they've convinced themselves that their victims are less than human, and have no value. It's a despicable attitude whether possessed by terrorist guilty of hundreds of murders or an American citizen who has never personally harmed another person in his or her life. So fuck you.

This kid did something really fucking stupid. It's his own goddamned fault, and he put himself in that situation. What he was doing, in addition to being stupid, was wrong. But then, I do the wrong thing too, sometimes.

This kid does not deserve to die.

[Atticus Finch]

Atticus, I agree with what you propose, up to coersion through sanctions. I think that no country should interfere with another country's internal affairs. Think about Iraq - the problem is that you're trying to force something on someone else, based on your economic or military power. It never works, because the people LIKE it that way.I'm against the war in Iraq - that particular dog won't hunt, mate. As to whether sanctions etc are ever acceptable, consider the case of South Africa I posited earlier. Many countries imposed diplomatic / trade sanctions on SA because of their internal policy of apartheid, and they were right to do so, don't you think? It's a matter of degree.

If you're talking about simply making an exception for your own countrymen, then you're being hypocritical. Either you're saying "DP is barbaric but I don't care, as long as my guy is okay" or "We are better than you, so it shouldn't apply to us".I am strongly opposed to the death penalty, no matter whose countryman / woman is killed. I have campaigned against its application to citizens of various countries and have done some legal work against it. I can't really talk any more about that though.

Why am I kicking up a stink about this particular case? Well, I have more chance of making a change, as I have a kind of connection to the case - that is, as an Australian citizen I can pressure my government to fight harder.

[Atticus Finch]

Where did you ever get the idea I was rejoicing over the death of another person? Drug dealers are not human. They are scum, and have less value to humanity than crotch rot fungus.You're an idiot and beneath my contempt. So this is the last time I'll respond to you.

[Grelby]

Actually, let me make this abundantly clear: "fuck you" does not even begin to describe my feelings about your attitude, Clothahump. To say "I am not rejoicing in the death of another human being," is simply so unmitigatedly evil and despicable that I am a loss for words strong enough to condemn you for it. Suffice it for me to say that you are a horrifyingly frightening and sick person, and that I am grateful beyond words that the majority of people do not seem to share your disgusting opinions.

Yes, I am that disturbed.

[Tabby_Cat]

I'm against the war in Iraq - that particular dog won't hunt, mate. As to whether sanctions etc are ever acceptable, consider the case of South Africa I posited earlier. Many countries imposed diplomatic / trade sanctions on SA because of their internal policy of apartheid, and they were right to do so, don't you think? It's a matter of degree.

So, you're against intervention in Iraq, but not in SA. Why? What's the difference?

I submit that the difference was that in SA, Blacks were disenfrenchised. They had no choice. They hated the state of affairs, but didn't have any way to change it. In Iraq, however, people were generally okay with Saddam, or at least didn't hate him enough to raise a stink, even if they didn't like him very much. Regardless of the outcome, it's clear that what they DON'T want is western style democracy. I'm not disagreeing with you here - I think what happened in Iraq is bad as well, because it's forcing upon a people something that they don't like. It won't work that way.

And that's what you want to do, in "DP is bad and barbaric and should be abolished". I'm sorry to say, the people of Singapore (and Texas. Can't leave out Texas. ;)) don't think so. Forcing your views on them is about as likely to work as forcing democracy on Iraqis. This is EXACTLY the kind of imperialism I'm talking about - "I know that the DP is inhumane and if I beat you about the head enough you'll get it too, you barbarian".

[Atticus Finch]

So, you're against intervention in Iraq, but not in SA. Why? What's the difference?You completely skewered my argument with that skillful straw man there. You're totally right, an all-out invasion and occupation on false pretences is just the same as diplomatic / trade sanctions. I surrender! Allow me, master, to bow before your mighty argumentative skill!

In Iraq, however, people were generally okay with Saddam, or at least didn't hate him enough to raise a stink, even if they didn't like him very much.Yeah, Saddam and the Iraqis were good buddies. The Iraqis never attempted uprisings which were brutally put down, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands. The Kurds? Would never raise a stink. The Marsh Arabs? Totally cool with being evicted from their homelands, didn't bother to raise a stink about it.

What planet are you on?

Regardless of the outcome, it's clear that what they DON'T want is western style democracy. I'm not disagreeing with you here - I think what happened in Iraq is bad as well, because it's forcing upon a people something that they don't like. It won't work that way.Maybe, just maybe, their problems with the US doesn't stem from an antipathy towards democracy, they just don't like being bombed by their 'liberators' and having glowsticks shoved where the sun don't shine. Nah, that couldn't be it.

This is EXACTLY the kind of imperialism I'm talking about - "I know that the DP is inhumane and if I beat you about the head enough you'll get it too, you barbarian".How is it imperialism, if we're talking about two advanced Westernised nations? Singapore and Australia are approximate equals here. Similarly, how exactly is Australia imperialistically oppressing the US, by any measure the most powerful nation in the world?

Where's the difference between this example, and the South African example? There is injustice, I say we campaign against it in legal and democratic ways.

[Linty Fresh]

I have to admit that my first thought to go through my head was "Fuck him. He got what he deserved." I happen to think that drug dealers (including couriers) join child molestors and paid assassins at the bottom of the food chain.

Then I read some of the responses and thought about it some more, and I realized that the death penalty is going too far. I'm very suspicious of countries that trumpet law and order above all other values, and yeah, Singapore is a police state, albeit one of the milder ones. It bans books critical of the culture and breaks up festivals not in accordance with the "moral values of most Singaporeans" as a police member said once about banning a gay Christmas party.

While I don't believe that the American constitution should be slapped on every nation in the world, I do believe that certain things are just wrong. My belief in the sacredness of free speech leads me to oppose the hate crime laws in Canada, and my belief that the death penalty should be applied sparingly (if at all) leads me to oppose this.

Throw this little shit into prison for 20 years and watch me not care. But death? No.

[neutron star]

I happen to think that drug dealers (including couriers) join child molestors and paid assassins at the bottom of the food chain.

I'm sorry. Remind me again exactly which people drug dealers are hurting who don't want to be hurt? Were office workers at Bayer as low as child molesters when they were selling heroin?

Where did you ever get the idea I was rejoicing over the death of another person? Drug dealers are not human. They are scum, and have less value to humanity than crotch rot fungus.

Your quote plainly shows that there are very few drug dealers lower than yourself, you narrow-minded, ignorant, fuckwit. Indeed, the vast majority of dealers have never hurt a fly. If they did, the murder rate would be a hundred times what it is now.

If you're going to keep painting this thread with shit, it might we worth your while to use a slightly smaller brush.

[don't ask]

Haven't I already given examples?
- A personal appeal, PM to PM. Howard, our PM, is in the area and could do this face to face.
- A prisoner exchange program.
- An appeal to the ICJ.
- As a last resort, diplomatic / trade influences or sanctions.

Let's face it, there are many things a government can do, the only question is the degree of motivation.


Howard has spoken to Lee face to face several times recently.

Prisoner exchange programmes require the prisoner to serve the same sentence in their home country i.e the death penalty.

An appeal to th ICJ requires Indonesia to grant that the court has jurisdiction. In the US last year an ICJ ruling for a stay of execution was ignored by the state court and the prisoner immediately executed.

Howard quite rightly believes that the use of economic sanctions is inappropriate - it serves only to force government interference in the judiciary.

I agree that it is terrible that this guy is being executed. His one and only dumb act was an attemp to pay off his brother's gambling debts - he himself was getting nothing for the one-off run.Personally I have no problems with the death sentence for the pathalogically violent but I would rather see the drug trade hamstrung in the Dutch manner.

I think if the Indonesians were smart they would come up with a law like this: Smuggling = DEATH or $100 contribution to rehab services for each dose being carried and deportation. Nguyen would be up for $2,600,000 in fines. If enough Aussies felt sorry for him they could subscribe and free him. Your average career smuggler wouldn't be able to summon uo enough suport.

[Linty Fresh]

I'm sorry. Remind me again exactly which people drug dealers are hurting who don't want to be hurt? Were office workers at Bayer as low as child molesters when they were selling heroin?

Quite a few dealers sell to kids. Are you telling me that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to make this decision?

Drug dealers get into little tiffs over who gets to deal drugs where. More than a few elderly ladies, third graders, and schoolteachers catch stray bullets.

Is a drug dealer doing business near your house? Get ready for your property value to drop to the level of that nasty mold you have in your basement sink, especially when the addicts start breaking into nearby residences to finance their habit.




Or did you mean the high-minded dealers who stick to the Dealers' Code Of Conduct?

[Shagnasty]

Singapore's got their own think going on. We are supposed to be tolerant of other cultures right (I mean that seriously)? Last I heard, their laws were working out pretty well for them. This guy knew the risks going in and he decided to play anyway. He had the choice of not playing games with Singaporean law but he did and got caught. No big deal. People get killed by consciencely taking risks everyday. As long as the punishment wasn't altered after the fact, then I see no problem with it.

[Linty Fresh]

Singapore's got their own think going on. We are supposed to be tolerant of other cultures right (I mean that seriously)? Last I heard, their laws were working out pretty well for them. This guy knew the risks going in and he decided to play anyway. He had the choice of not playing games with Singaporean law but he did and got caught. No big deal. People get killed by consciencely taking risks everyday. As long as the punishment wasn't altered after the fact, then I see no problem with it.

Like I said, this was my gut reaction. But think about it, Shag. Protesting is illegal in North Korea. That'll get you put into a "management camp" faster than you can say "Dear Leader." It's legal, perfectly in accord with the North Korean constitution (Yes, they actually have one.). Does that make it right?

Drug dealing is a good deal worse than dissent, but the basic question stands. Is this punishment just? It goes deeper than what's legal by our constitution. We're talking basic human rights.

I think the rule on respecting other cultures is that you use respect for human rights as the benchmark. I can use this philosophy to respect Islam and condemn Islamic countries for abuses simultaneously without being hypocritical. Of course, that brings up the whole question of what these rights are. Of course there are gray areas, but I think drug dealing falls well short of that.

[buns3000]

A lot of of you are pissing and moaning for this poor, poor drug dealer, and yet....Singapore has a vastly lower crime rate WRT drugs and a vastly lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S., doesn't it? Seems to me that while their drug laws may be harsh and one could argue inhumane.....they work. This would be a good argument if these were the only two countries in the whole world.

Where did you ever get the idea I was rejoicing over the death of another person? Drug dealers are not human. They are scum, and have less value to humanity than crotch rot fungus. Gee, how impressively uncompromising! You are a blackhearted redneck with nothing sensible to contribute to this discussion.

[Shagnasty]

Drug dealing is a good deal worse than dissent, but the basic question stands. Is this punishment just? It goes deeper than what's legal by our constitution. We're talking basic human rights.

Basic human rights aren't something that are written in stone. It can be culturally dependent and subject to opinions. You can probably define some human rights that should be universal but I don't think this falls under that category. For one, he was engaging in an illegal act that threatened the lives of others. Human rights never extend to that point.

Singapore uses threat of death to protect their country from a very serious problem that can kill others, strain law enforcement, hurt the economy, and tear families apart. This is heroin, not marijuana he was bringing in. Singapore also has a different level of drug problem than we do here in the U.S. so our standards don't really apply. This guy's actions represented a very serious threat to the citizens of Singapore and the country as a whole. You can look at this as a case as something like treason.

Singapore wants to run a law enforcement and deterrent experiment that fits in with their culture and goals as well as protects its citizens from a threat up to and including death themselves. I see no problem with that. The guy chose to play the game and lost. The game was completely consensual from the start just like two high school kids playing chicken. Sure, it is a shame when someone dies but you can't really call anyone a victim.

[Linty Fresh]

Basic human rights aren't something that are written in stone. It can be culturally dependent and subject to opinions. You can probably define some human rights that should be universal but I don't think this falls under that category. For one, he was engaging in an illegal act that threatened the lives of others. Human rights never extend to that point.

Singapore uses threat of death to protect their country from a very serious problem that can kill others, strain law enforcement, hurt the economy, and tear families apart. This is heroin, not marijuana he was bringing in. Singapore also has a different level of drug problem than we do here in the U.S. so our standards don't really apply. This guy's actions represented a very serious threat to the citizens of Singapore and the country as a whole. You can look at this as a case as something like treason.

Singapore wants to run a law enforcement and deterrent experiment that fits in with their culture and goals as well as protects its citizens from a threat up to and including death themselves. I see no problem with that. The guy chose to play the game and lost. The game was completely consensual from the start just like two high school kids playing chicken. Sure, it is a shame when someone dies but you can't really call anyone a victim.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, partly because the difference is one of basic philosophy and partly because I don't want to get into the positions of defending drug dealing shitbirds and their flunkeys. I certainly won't shed a tear when this shitbird swings, but that doesn't mean I think it's right.

I will say that it sure doesn't seem that deterrence is working and I also bet that in this kind of society, the powers that be will suddenly find it in their hearts to be merciful if the dealer in question turns out to be a cabinet minister's son.

[Foaming Cleanser]

You can look at this as a case as something like treason.Because it's a drug carrier invading the state's drug turf.

This is the lead paragraph (http://www.singapore-window.org/804caq9.htm) from the same story linked above by TheLoadedDog, then me:"SINGAPORE'S economic linkage with Burma is one of the most vital factors for the survival of Burma’s military regime," says Professor Mya Maung, a Burmese economist based in Boston. This link, he continues, is also central to "the expansion of the heroin trade." Singapore has acieved the distinction of being the Burmese junta’s number one business partner - both largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. More than half these investments, totaling upwards of $1.3 billion, are in partnership with Burma’s infamous heroin kingpin Lo Hsing Han who now controls a substantial portion of the world’s opium trade. The close political, economic and military relationship between the two countries facilitates the weaving of millions of narco-dollars into the legitimate world economy.Nov. 9, 2005 (
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/051109sm.htm):SINGAPORE'S tough stand on drug traffickers is at odds with its own economic relationship with a Burmese drug lord, according to Singapore's leading opposition figure, Dr Chee Soon Juan.

"If the Government really wanted to eradicate or even minimise the problem, it would not be in bed with drug barons holed up and operating freely in Burma," he told a forum in Singapore.

The forum was held to highlight the plight of Nguyen Tuong Van, the Melbourne man convicted of trafficking heroin who exhausted all his legal options of appeal when in Singapore's President, Sellapan Ramanathan Nathan, rejected his appeal for clemency.October 1997 (http://www.singapore-window.org/1020naus.htm):The Nation [magazine] has learned that the highest levels of the Singaporean government, using the New York-based Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan, as a custodial operative, are engaging in joint business ventures with one of the world's most notorious drug lords and with the drug-backed military dictatorship of Burma (Myanmar). This has been confirmed by corporate, government and legal documents from four countries and was contended by high-ranking US narcotics and government officials in private interviews.
<snip>
This dual-track policy is condoned and encouraged at top levels of the Singaporean regime, including by Lee Kuan Yew, the country's undisputed strongman. Lee, whose antidrug policies are among the strictest in the world, is participating in the country's deepening business relationships with renowned heroin trafficker Lo Hsing Han of Burma and his son and business partner, Steven Law. Their operations in Burma, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and the United States are now the focus of an ongoing U.S. government narcotics and money-laundering investigation, The Nation has learned.And (http://www.singapore-window.org/11242nat.htm):
The US government has reported that more than half Singapore's $1 billion-plus investment in Burma is tied to Lo Hsing Han and his family.
Singapore's drug turf (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/BurmaSingapore_Drugs.html): Singapore's economic linkage with Burma is one of the most vital factors for the survival of Burma's military regime," says Professor Mya Maung, a Burmese economist based in Boston. This link, he continues, is also central to "the expansion of the heroin trade.") Singapore has achieved the distinction of being the Burmese junta's number one business partner -both largest trading partner and largest foreign investor. More than half these investments, totaling upwards of $1.3 billion, are in partnership with Burma's infamous heroin kingpin Lo Hsing Han, who now controls a substantial portion of the world's opium trade. The close political, economic, and military relationship between the two countries facilitates the weaving of millions of narco-dollars into the legitimate world economyI am VERY skeptical about that article. While I am not in a position to take it apart totally, at the very least I can answer the money laundering allegation.

From the IMF: warning PDF (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:NQs34B-e44YJ:www.imf.org/external/np/aml/eng/2003/090503.pdf+money+laundering+singapore&hl=en&client=firefox-a)How does this disprove the money-laundering allegation? When Singapore is mentioned, it is only as a member of an anti-money-laundering group of countries. There is nothing there proving Singapore is anything but a member of a phony committee.As well as Singapore being one of the founders of APG (http://www.apgml.org/Jurisdictions/) (incidentally, Australia is one as well)So what?The fact remains that Burma is still a member of Asean, and that engagement is part of getting Burma out of the drugs rut. As it is, Burma was almost expelled from Asean for not releasing Ang San Su Ki. Is that what you would call "bedfellows"?Yes, it is. Almost being expelled means it wasn't expelled. And why would it be? The Asean collective is hardly a bulwark of democracy and free speech.The fact remains that Burma is still a member of Asean, and that engagement is part of getting Burma out of the drugs rut.And onto an eight-lane paved highway.Perhaps we should re-consider the relationship South Korea has with North Korea - they're trading, therefore the South is keeping Kim in power and killing millions of North Koreans by proxy.Ridiculous. South Korea isn't using North Korea as a front and broker for billions worth of drugs and money-laundering.And I take great offence in calling Singapore a police state. As anyone who has visited Singapore can tell you, it is no police state. Many dopers have even lived there, and while I must admit that sometimes the PAP does use some underhand means to stay in power, brutality is not part of it.There's this (http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=1305) :Singapore is a modern police state where Internet posters are investigated, interrogated, warned, prosecuted and punished and even committed to a mental institute for psychiatric tests. A system of surveillance, legislation, control and prosecution has kept the political potential of the Internet in check.And this (http://members.internettrash.com/rolfbmiller/engl-zuech.html) :Many newspaper carried photos taken in Singapore's Changi prison in 1994, showing a prison officer helpfully demonstrating, with the aid of a human dummy strapped over a trestle, how Fay would be caned on the bare buttocks with a four-foot long, halfinch thick rattan. The cane is applied with the entire force of a martial arts expert's body, and causes intolerable pain, bleeding and lifelong scarring.Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/prisons/asia.html):Singapore, followed by Taiwan, has the highest known incarceration rate in Asia. (No information is available regarding the number of prisoners in North Korea, however.)From Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6656):Repressive laws such as the internal security act in Malaysia or a policy of systematic censorship enabled the regimes led by Mahathir Mohamad and Goh Chok Tong to maintain "Asian values" and dispel any notion of one party replacing another in power by means of elections.Singapore is a police state rolling in drug money, and the thugs running the place will kill anyone it sees as moving in on its turf. Executions are its blinking-neon Trespassers Will Be Shot signs.

[Foaming Cleanser]

Sorry. The quote in my post above, under the "lead paragraph" link, is repeated under the link "Singapore's drug turf."

[PunditLisa]

While the german authoritarian in me is saying, "He knew the risks." the mother in me is weeping right along with this kid's mother. :(

If we simply must make a distinction between drug runner and drug dealer, then I'd say that the bulk of my anger is not directed towards Singapore as much as those heartless bastards who recruit kids into the business, knowing that if they get caught, they'll hang.

Poor mom.

[Guinastasia]

Well, right off the top of my head, because smuggling drugs is a choice that an individual makes, and being Jewish (or black, or gay, etc..) is not? Think the two are just a tiny bit different?

Well, true. But, you would also be jailed or punished for helping the Jews, or speaking out against the Nazi party.

Now, I'm not necessarily comparing Singapore to Nazi Germany. But the argument that "well, they're a sovereign nation" is bullshit. Hey, someone tell that to Bush, because hey, Iraq was a sovereign nation, so Saddam Hussein was perfectly in his rights to be a cruel tyrant.

But since I'm against the whole Iraq debacle, here's a better analogy. Afghanistan was a sovereign nation. So, therefore, they had every right to say "Go piss up a rope!" when we called them on harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda members.

So, the way I look at it, the guy was an idiot, but I'm anti-death penalty, and Singapore is all out of proportion when it comes to crime and punishment. (Remember that kid getting caned for spray-painting cars? Yeah he was a brat, but caning? Jesus!). Put the guy in jail for a long time, sure. But death? Surely if he's that stupid, he'll eventually eliminate himself from the gene pool.

[The Mad Hermit]

Well, right off the top of my head, because smuggling drugs is a choice that an individual makes, and being Jewish (or black, or gay, etc..) is not? Think the two are just a tiny bit different?

Yes and no.

Someone is getting killed in both cases. There's no parole, time off for good behavior, or rehabilitation possible.

If you think that there are reasons to kill someone, any reason at all, then you can be the one to look them in the eye and take their life.

On the other hand, do you advocate the death penalty for all crime? Do you agree with every law in each country equally, or are there some you don't agree with? Do you think that once a law is passed that it cannot ever be changed?

Never mind answering here. I've seen a lot of posts from posters who would gladly kill other people over whatever hot-button topic is being discussed at the moment. Only you can decide if I'm referring to you personally.

[clairobscur]

One could always compare it to the Spanish Inquisition. Jewish people were given a choice to convert to Catholicism. Those who didn't (or only pretended to) suffered the consequences.
.


Not really related to the thread, but actually, the Jews who suffered from the inquisition were the ones who converted to catholicism (or more likely their descendants) .

The Inquisition had no juridiction over the Jews, only over christians (catholic or not, the protestant being just considered as heretics). The inquisiton prosecuted *christians* who were suspected, rightly or wrongly, to still hold on Jewish beliefs, practices or customs. Being able to prove you had not been baptized could save your day (though then you'd have to face prosecution by regular courts, since jews weren't allowed in the kingdom).

[roger thornhill]

Doper hemlock, who doubles as my publicist when not doing his daytime job as English Language Trainer for a local company, has a nice little section on Harry Lee's kingdom (http://www.geocities.com/hkhemlock/mus-sin.html) on his website. While there, you might check out the link near the bottom to "Lee Kuan Yew and Eugenics". Guaranteed to make you think (Harry's a raving loony).

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

Because it's a drug carrier invading the state's drug turf.

This is the lead paragraph (http://www.singapore-window.org/804caq9.htm) from the same story linked above by TheLoadedDog, then me:Nov. 9, 2005 (
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/051109sm.htm):October 1997 (http://www.singapore-window.org/1020naus.htm):And (http://www.singapore-window.org/11242nat.htm):

...snipped...

[

Another take on the story (http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/96/1115/nat2.html) Saying that the PAP government never respond to the accusation may be something of inaccuracy. It's just that, well, they just keep repeating themselves and doesn't shed any light on the incident. According to this Newsweek's article, "Lo has partial stakes in [it]".

The report may also potlically charged, as it is being backed by the Free Burma Coalition (http://www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199711/msg00311.html).

I am not claiming if either one is true or false. That I leave it to the individual reader. But this is sure a damn sticky issue.

[zoogirl]

Quick and probably very stupid question.

Had Van actually gone through Customs and exited the airport or was he just waiting for a connecting flight? No, I didn't read the links. It just struck me that I wasn't sure he was actually in Singapore.

Anyway, put me down as another "way too excessive" vote. I say that as someone who lives in the worst area in Canada for homelessness and drug use and the attendant crime. Matter of fact, one of the locals relieved me of my bike last week.

OTOH, a girl I've known off and on since '74 used to be a serious addict and likely an occasional dealer. She cleaned up a few years ago, took a bunch of courses and now runs a rehab. Had she been executed for her crimes, a couple dozen other women would likely be dead now too - the ones that she got off the street.

You just never know.

[kambuckta]

This guy's actions represented a very serious threat to the citizens of Singapore and the country as a whole.

Van Nguyen's actions posed no threat whatsoever to Singaporean citizens or 'to the country as a whole' in any meaningful sense. He was detected with drugs whilst in transit from Cambodia to Australia at the airport making connecting flights. The heroin was never intended for the Singapore market, and thus I find that the Singaporean chest-beating, bleating that they are protecting their borders from scummy drugs and dealers overwhelmingly pathetic in this instance.

There is no reason to execute this man. It will not stop the flow of drugs around the world, it will not cure heroin users of their addiction, it will not stop some other stupid young twit from hoping to make a quick needed $ trying the same thing next week, or next month, or whenever Nguyen's face is off the headlines.

[neutron star]

Quite a few dealers sell to kids. Are you telling me that a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to make this decision?

That drug dealers don't ask for I.D. (though many will refuse to sell to kids on principle [yes, plenty of dealers do have principles]) is a direct result of prohibition. It's not the fault of the drugs themselves, and it shouldn't unduly prejudice people against dealers any more than an adult who buys beer for kids should turn people against legitimate purveyors of that drug.

Drug dealers get into little tiffs over who gets to deal drugs where. More than a few elderly ladies, third graders, and schoolteachers catch stray bullets.

Again, a consequence of prohibition. Not only that, but problems of that nature are far less frequent than TV dramas would lead you to believe. You're tarring the entire profession with the misdeads of a select few.

Is a drug dealer doing business near your house? Get ready for your property value to drop to the level of that nasty mold you have in your basement sink, especially when the addicts start breaking into nearby residences to finance their habit.

No matter where you are, there are dealers doing business near your house. Not every dealer has people coming in and out at all hours of the day and night. Many are small time, and others do their business away from home so as not to attract attention.

I've known a lot of small and mid-level (along a few higher-level) drug dealers in my time, and, for the most part, they were nice people. The vasy majority were no different from you or me.

I actually considered drug dealing to be immoral for quite some time until I met a particularly intelligent seller and had several long conversations with him on the subject. He convinced me.

I have never and would never sell drugs myself, but if someone else is merely supplying a product that's in demand and not hurting anyone in the process, I cannot fault them for it. Granted, that product may be deadly, but between tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, prescription drugs, etc., we have more than a few legal products that earn the same distinction.

[antechinus]

Van Nguyen's actions posed no threat whatsoever to Singaporean citizens or 'to the country as a whole' in any meaningful sense. He was detected with drugs whilst in transit from Cambodia to Australia at the airport making connecting flights. The heroin was never intended for the Singapore market, and thus I find that the Singaporean chest-beating, bleating that they are protecting their borders from scummy drugs and dealers overwhelmingly pathetic in this instance.

So as Zoogirl suggested, he was not even in Singapore?

Van is a stupid idiot for doing what he did. His stupidity is on par with the stupid US contractors that are regularly hung up or burnt alive in the streets of Iraq.

Continuing the Iraq analogy ...
Telegraph (Filed: 22/10/2005) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/22/wirq122.xml)
The mob grew more frenzied as the gunmen dragged the two surviving Americans from the cab of their bullet-ridden lorry and forced them to kneel on the street.

Killing one of the men with a rifle round fired into the back of his head, they doused the other with petrol and set him alight. Barefoot children, yelping in delight, piled straw on to the screaming man's body to stoke the flames.

However, Singapores behaviour is despicable and barbaric, just as is these Iraqi insurgents.

International pressure should continually be applied to attempt to abolish death sentences in all nations. The death penalty itself is vulgar and disgraceful, but hanging for carrying drugs - how could any 'civil nation' be able to get away with this.

[zoogirl]

I should probably clarify the "in Singapore" part.

I kind of had the impression that airports are a sort of neutral territory, or at least the connecting flight portion is. I'm basing that at least partly on the story of the poor guy that's been living in one for several years. Something about having improper paperwork - can't go out of the airport into the country itself, can't go home because he can't get on a plane. There he sits.

So, unless Van actually cleared Singapore customs, was he "in" Singapore, legally?

[kambuckta]

Antechinus, as horrid as your cite is, I don't see the connection between the actions of Iraqi civilians taking out their vicious angst upon American civilians and the imposition of the death penalty upon Truong Van Nguyen by the Singaporean judicial system.

Care to elucidate? Is it just the 'stupidity' factor?

I agree though that the DP is barbaric and has no place in a modern civilised society. I ESPECIALLY agree when the DP is mandatory, and that no mitigating circumstances can be offered to lessen the penalty for the offender, as I personally believe should be the case with Van Nguyen.

And yes, it is my understanding that he had not left the transit lounge, so was not in fact on Singaporean 'soil' when the arrest was made. I might be mistaken though.............can anybody clarify this (IMHO) important piece of trivia please??

[Nancarrow]

OK, first off let me be the fourth, fifth or nth to call Clothahump a vile, repulsive, horrifying individual. At least if his bon mot earlier was sincere.

Clothahump, have you really never understood that the essential first step to acts of atrocity is to select a group of demonstrably human organisms, and declare them to be not human?

The stumbling block to get over, if you're going to machine gun a few hundred jews in an extermination camp, is that they're humans, and they therefore evoke empathy. But convince yourself they're not humans, just cattle, and it all becomes much easier!

Hate American dominance of the Arab world? Fly some planes into a big building in the heartland of the American economy! Now, thousands will die, but that doesn't matter, if you can convince yourself they're not actual humans, right?

Now I do think that you're a disgusting piece of shit, but on the other hand I very much don't want you to be killed. Why? Because YOU'RE A HUMAN!

Incidentally, Adolf Hitler was also human. Mohammed Atta was human. Osama bin Laden is human too. If your mind can't handle this fact, too fucking bad.

Now I actually came in here to mop up this turd from Weirddave :

Well, right off the top of my head, because smuggling drugs is a choice that an individual makes, and being Jewish (or black, or gay, etc..) is not? Think the two are just a tiny bit different?

Jesus H Christ you stupid sack of shit.

OK. You are indeed correct that smuggling drugs is a choice whilst being Jewish, black or gay is not. And we are indeed horrified by oppression/extermination of those three groups of people. But, a sane and compassionate human being (such as you might argue with on this board), is horrified by oppression NOT because its targets cannot help themselves, but because IT IS WRONG to oppress somebody for those attributes.

When I hear of some guy being beaten to death because he's black, I do NOT think 'how awful, the poor guy can't help that he's black'. I think 'how awful to kill someone for being black'. It has jack shit to do with whether the attribute they are being oppressed for is a choice or not.

Now you may think that dealing drugs is wrong, or that it is not wrong - you clearly believe the former where I believe the latter. But in that case, let THAT criterion be your guide to determine whether punishment is right or not.

Let me try one last time:

To distinguish between drug dealers and jews on the basis of the perceived morality of their defining characteristic is valid, even if we stongly disagree on that morality. But to distinguish between them on the basis of their freedom of choice, is asinine.

Weirddave , do you concede this point?

Weirddave , do you care to retract that very dumb post you made earlier?

Weirddave , if I were to add the phrase <hears crickets...> to the end of this post, would that be snarky or just prescient?

[Linty Fresh]

I've known a lot of small and mid-level (along a few higher-level) drug dealers in my time, and, for the most part, they were nice people. The vasy majority were no different from you or me.

:dubious: I mean, other than the fact that they were selling illegal shit that would eventually kill you. But yeah, other than that, your local drug dealer is a hell of a guy. Here's a fun experiment, neutron. Go up to one of your vending buddies and tell him you're gonna sell him out. Let's see how nice and peaceful he is, OK?

. . . problems of that nature are far less frequent than TV dramas would lead you to believe. You're tarring the entire profession with the misdeads of a select few.

Tell that to the law-abiding citizens of Camden, NJ, Compton, CA, and Flint, MI who live in fear from a stray bullet. Tell that to the parents of some midwestern town who just lost their kid to a meth addiction. I'm sure they'd just love to hear about how the majority of drug dealers are misunderstood and slandered by the media.

And profession? These guys aren't lawyers.


I actually considered drug dealing to be immoral for quite some time until I met a particularly intelligent seller and had several long conversations with him on the subject. He convinced me.

Change "convinced" to "suckered" and I'm with you.

. . . if someone else is merely supplying a product that's in demand and not hurting anyone in the process, I cannot fault them for it. Granted, that product may be deadly, but between tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, prescription drugs, etc., we have more than a few legal products that earn the same distinction.

And I actually agree with this statement. I would have no problem legalizing most drugs and regulating them the way we do alcohol. But the fact that it's illegal matters, neutron. The fact that drugs are illegal means that their selling and distribution are going to be monitored by bad people who are willing to do violent things to see that profits stay high. Your kinder gentler drug dealers are either very small time or they're working for the kinds of people who aren't going to have much of a problem dealing to kids or blowing away some granny if it means taking out a business rival. You can't just absolve the drug dealers by saying "It's prohibition's fault." The reality is far darker.

[Sublight]

Incidentally, there was a thread once, where a doper's cow-orker was sentenced to time and caning for possession of pot, narrowly escaping the death penalty because he got stiffed and what he thought was pot was not totally pot.

Co-working going to prison in Singapore (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=125601)

That was my co-worker. Guy's still there, too. As severe as the punishments are, the prisons themselves aren't so bad, going by what he and his family have told us.

[Nancarrow]

:dubious: I mean, other than the fact that they were selling illegal shit that would eventually kill you.

That statement is false.
Replace the words 'would eventually' with 'could possibly' and it becomes true.

But yeah, other than that, your local drug dealer is a hell of a guy. Here's a fun experiment, neutron. Go up to one of your vending buddies and tell him you're gonna sell him out. Let's see how nice and peaceful he is, OK?

Are you suggesting that a person's pleasantness can be determined by considering how they would react if you told them that you were going to destroy their life? Do you try this with any of your buddies? (the fact that your buddies are not drug dealers is irrelevant to the logic of your point)


Tell that to the law-abiding citizens of Camden, NJ, Compton, CA, and Flint, MI who live in fear from a stray bullet. Tell that to the parents of some midwestern town who just lost their kid to a meth addiction. I'm sure they'd just love to hear about how the majority of drug dealers are misunderstood and slandered by the media.

Many people have been killed over the last few years in acts of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims. A tiny tiny minority of muslims. Possibly, some of the victims' families harbour hatred of muslims because of that. These people would be asshats.

Some drug dealers are responsible for a great deal of suffering in our society. That doesn't make the statement 'the majority are misunderstood and slandered by the media' incorrect. Nor the concept that most drug dealers are great guys. If such sentiments are actually false, it is not simply by virtue of the fact that some are scumbags.

And profession? These guys aren't lawyers.

Indeed, unlike bartenders, purveyors of illegal drugs do so illegally. What's your point?

Change "convinced" to "suckered" and I'm with you.

Don't you even want to hear the arguments put forward by a drug dealer?


The fact that drugs are illegal means that their selling and distribution are going to be monitored by bad people who are willing to do violent things to see that profits stay high.

Wow, give the man a gold star! But I would propose to you that it is in fact possible to deal drugs in such a manner that it is only the fact of the dealing that is illegal, and no beating, robbery, murder, arson or extortion is required.

So, are the majority of drug dealers murderers and suchlike, or is it only the minority? Well to be truthful, I can't say for certain. But since you made the first claim, I'd like a CITE please! It seems to me that the default position a person should normally take, is that group x or y of people are generally peaceful easy-going types, in common with the human species as a whole. Positing a difference places the burden of proof.

[neutron star]

:dubious: I mean, other than the fact that they were selling illegal shit that would eventually kill you.

Which differs from you friendly neighborhood bartender how, exactly?


Tell that to the law-abiding citizens of Camden, NJ, Compton, CA, and Flint, MI who live in fear from a stray bullet.

Yes, you can go ahead and name the few most dangerous places in the country and hold them up as representative of the entire United States, but that doesn't prove a thing, and it doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of towns and cities in this country that don't work that way.

I would also note that those cities have significant problems with poverty and other social issues besides drugs. Such locales are breeding grounds for violent crime, so it's hardly surprising that your average drug dealer in Camden is more violent than one in Podunk, Iowa.

Tell that to the parents of some midwestern town who just lost their kid to a meth addiction. I'm sure they'd just love to hear about how the majority of drug dealers are misunderstood and slandered by the media.

And out comes the "Won't somebody please think of the children?" argument. Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:

Change "convinced" to "suckered" and I'm with you.

My opinions were formed not only of his words, but also of the actions of the majority of dealers that I've known.

I've never maid the claim that all drug dealers are angels. I'm saying that the public perception of these people (as illustrated disgustingly accurately by Clothahump) is negatively exaggerated far beyond any semblance of reality.

[Dunderman]

I'm not Weirddave, but I'll pop in here anyway. Hope that's OK.
To distinguish between drug dealers and jews on the basis of the perceived morality of their defining characteristic is valid, even if we stongly disagree on that morality. But to distinguish between them on the basis of their freedom of choice, is asinine.
This makes no sense. How can anything have morality if it isn't a choice? Drug dealers (or runners, in this case) make the choice to do something that I consider to be morally wrong. Jews don't even make a choice, therefore being Jewish is morally neutral, no matter what other characteristics it may have.

[kanicbird]

Was Singapore just a stopover point, and he got the drugs from another country and just waiting for his connecting flight? If so I would think if he stayed in the airport and didn't go through customs (if possiable) then they should be a bit more willing to deport the person.


If he got the drugs in Singapore, well he should have known the risks, and assumes such risks when engages in the activity, the risk is counterballenced by the reward of profit. I am pretty certain that he would like to get as much profit from this trip as possiable, I woudn't expect him to sell his drugs below the going rate, why shouldn't the risk (now triggered) be imposed in full also?

[Nancarrow]

I'm not Weirddave, but I'll pop in here anyway. Hope that's OK.

This makes no sense. How can anything have morality if it isn't a choice? Drug dealers (or runners, in this case) make the choice to do something that I consider to be morally wrong. Jews don't even make a choice, therefore being Jewish is morally neutral, no matter what other characteristics it may have.

OK. Fair enough, I maybe didn't make my point clearly enough. Here goes:

Argument: Drug dealers should be executed if that's what the law says, because, duh, it's the law. (note: NO requirement here to mention personal beliefs of right or wrongness of drug-dealing)

Counter-argument: you could say the same about jews in Nazi Germany. Being a jew in Nazi Germany was a death sentence. Yet surely we can't brazenly say to such a jew, 'oh well, you don't like it, stop being a jew or get out... after all, it's the government's decision, don't come crying to me'

Counter-counter-argument (and this is where Weirddave came in): but you can't compare the two, because being jewish isn't a choice, and being a drug-dealer is.

c-c-c-argument (my point): the point about choice is true but is irrelevant to the counter-argument. The jews indeed didn't have a choice to be non-Jewish, but that isn't why the Nazis were despicable for exterminating them. The Nazis were d.f.e.t because it is wrong to execute someone for a characteristic that is not harmful to others. It is the point about actions being harmful to others that is germane to this discussion, not whether somebody has a choice about what they do. Now if you want to claim that drug-dealers should be executed because they do indeed cause harm (or at least, that we shouldn't particularly be upset if some country does execute them), by all means do so, and we can disagree about that premise. (obviously in generality... I can't deny the existence of many drug dealers who ARE scumbags). Basically, in short, Weirddave's observation is correct but its attachment to the prior discussion is invalid.

Weirddave's point boils down to the commonly heard idea that it is not good to punish somebody for what they ARE, only for what they DO. This is fair enough, stated in that form alone. The trouble is, it can then lead people to the incorrect deduction that is therefore unequivocally ok to punish people for what they do. No it isn't. Sometimes what they do ISN'T WRONG.

If you still think the comparison between oppressed jews and oppressed drug dealers (and btw won't somebody please think of the USERS! :dubious: ) is spurious, level the playing field in precisely the area Wierddave addressed: replace 'Jews in Nazi Germany' with 'dissenters in Stalinist Russia'. After all, they had a choice, right?


Perhaps my use of the word 'morality' in my last post was unwise. Replace that concept with 'perceived harm to others'. And, er... probably rephrase a lot to make grammatical sense! ;)

[Nancarrow]

Christ I'm sorry for all those unsightly brackets in my last post (it's just the kinda guy I am [so you shouldn't oppress me for it :p ])

Oh maybe at this point I'd better vaguely address the OP. I agree muchly: fucko off Singapore. Don't give me that crap about a country's sovereignty or the sacrosanct nature of law.

No of course we shouldn't invade it, but those of us who find the death penalty and/or drug prohibition barbarisms more suited to medieval times, should feel no hesitation whatsoever in condemning this news, and exhorting elected representatives over all the world to bitch strongly to Singapore about it. Of course they are unlikely to do any such thing, because even though few other countries execute drug-dealers, most of them don't lose sleep over it either, as Clothahump so sweetly demonstrated (asshat! :mad: )

[Linty Fresh]

Which differs from you friendly neighborhood bartender how, exactly?

Alcohol is legal. The bartender doesn't have to shoot another bartender in the head if he wants to open up a new bar down the street. If the bartender serves you wood alcohol, and you go blind, he'll probably go to jail.

Yes, you can go ahead and name the few most dangerous places in the country and hold them up as representative of the entire United States, but that doesn't prove a thing, and it doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of towns and cities in this country that don't work that way.

Get real. I could go through pretty much all the major cities and pick out the drug blocks. And guess what, neutron? You tend to get a lot of addicts in those blocks, and again, the addicts do bad things to feed their addiction. Whether the addict caused the poverty or the poverty caused the addict is a moot point. The point is that the people in those drug blocks live in fear.

Oh, and by the way, speaking of generalizing:

My opinions were formed not only of his words, but also of the actions of the majority of dealers that I've known.

I've never maid the claim that all drug dealers are angels. I'm saying that the public perception of these people (as illustrated disgustingly accurately by Clothahump) is negatively exaggerated far beyond any semblance of reality.

Very profound. You meet a few drug dealers in suburbia, fall for their "I'm just providing a service" routine, and suddenly you're the resident drug trade expert? Give me a fucking break! :rolleyes:

Once again, neutron. "It's all prohibition's fault" might work for your little suburban neighborhood in Harrisburg, but that gets old real quick in the actual drug blocks. These guys are dealing death, and unlike those in the alcohol industry, they're not accountable by any legal means. If you're going to compare the drug trade to the alcohol trade, you pretty much have to look to Al Capone, not your friendly neighborhood bartender.

[Broomstick]

I should probably clarify the "in Singapore" part.

I kind of had the impression that airports are a sort of neutral territory, or at least the connecting flight portion is.
I'd like to clear this up, as several posters seem to be laboring under false impressions.

Airports are not in any way "neutral territory" or somehow privileged spaces. If you are standing in a Singaporean airport you are standing on Singapore territory, you are in Singapore and you are most certainly subject to their laws.

So, unless Van actually cleared Singapore customs, was he "in" Singapore, legally?
Yes, he was.

As soon as you cross an international border - whether by land, sea, or air - you are IN that country. It doesn't matter if you're "in transit" or not, whether you've been processed through customs or not.

[Broomstick]

Since this is page three already I thought I'd quote some of the OP:Here in Aus at the moment there is a bit, OK, a LOT of a controversy regarding a young Melbourne fellow, Van Nguyen, who was caught in transit in Singapore transporting heroin from Cambodia to Australia....snip....
The brief synopsis though, is that Van was caught at Changi Airport with nearly 400gm of heroin in his possession. That's more than enough to attract the death penalty in Singapore.
Then Mr. Nguyen was really fucking stupid, wasn't he?

I'm sitting here literally on the other side of the planet and I've know for about 30 years now that transporting drugs to Singapore can result in death.

Mind you, I am morally opposed to the death penalty. I don't feel it can be justified as a state penalty in this day and age (although obviously my Federal and State governments have a different opinion). However, I am also aware that other countries do have the death penalty, and may impose it for actions that in other places are minor crimes or even perfectly legal. I am also aware that when I travel to a different country I am subject to THEIR laws, not my own, and it is my responsibility to behave properly. Should I get into legal trouble abroad it would be very nice if my home country could bail me out, however, I also know that I should not except such a rescue as a matter of course.

He pleaded guilty at the court hearing, and also offered to assist the police by naming his 'sources' and the syndicate who had paid him to import the drugs. Van Nguyen claimed that he was doing it to help pay back his twin brother's gambling debts.
He sounds like a selfless young man - offering to help his brother out, offering to help prosecutors... even so, he committed a capital crime in Singapore. Singapore is not shy about stating the government position on illegal drugs. What part of "IF YOU DO THIS AND GET CAUGHT YOU WILL DIE" did this young man have trouble comprehending?

regardless that he has NO prior convictions or any other misdemeanours under his name,
If it really was his first time - I'm sorry, what part of "IF YOU DO THIS AND GET CAUGHT YOU WILL DIE" did this young man have trouble comprehending?

No convinctions? That in no way proves he is innocent of criminal action in the past - he may have been running drugs for some time without getting caught.

regardless that Van was only in transit when he was arrested (and thus no 'threat' to the Singaporean community)
He was in transit - so fucking what? Again, Singapore is very clear - so clear that they have a world wide reputation on the matter - that There Will Be No Drug Trafficking In Singapore, On Pain of Death.

If someone is kidnapping young women and selling them into sexual slavery is it OK to run them through an international airport as long as they don't stop and sell any in your neighborhood? Is it OK for folks to carry explosives for use in terrorist attacks through an airport as long as they're just "in transit" and not intending to stop and use them in the country of transfer? What if they're just driving through the country? Would it be OK for a gang of terrorists from Mexico to drive through the US on their way to blow up something in Canada, as long as they're just 'in transit" and no threat to the US as they pass through? Would it be OK to drive a semi full of whiskey and pornography through Mecca as long as you didn't stop to unload any for the locals and pilgrims?

Illegal in Singapore is illegal in Singapore. YOU may not view drugs as such a henious thing (or maybe you do) but the Singapore government does and they set the rules in Singapore. Don't carry drugs in Singapore, it's that simple.

His mum got a letter last week from the Singapore Penal Service telling her the date her son was going to be executed. They offered to provide extra visiting times for family members, but also asked her what she wanted done with 'The Body' after the event.
That's fairly standard in executions. Here in the States the condemned's family is notified of execution date, visitation is arranged, and since custody of the body reverts to the family, well, the authorities want to know if there will be a pick up or if cremation or something else is desired. Would it be kinder not to notify the family and just dump the body in the garbage? I think not. Truth is, there is no 'nice" way to handle such circumstances.

I feel sickened by the whole thing,
I am repulsed by the notion of executing a human being, too. I do not, however, feel much sympahty for someone so fucking stupid as to carry nearly a half kilo of heroin into a Singpore airport. I feel worse for his family, to be honest.

And a stupid young man must die for an act of utmost stupidity.
Yep, that about sums it up.

[Mangetout]

I do feel sympathy for him Being sentenced to death can't be nice, but I agree, it was a totally fucking stupid thing to do and he must have gone into it with his eyes open. Sounds like both brothers actually have a gambling problem.

[Broomstick]

But the difference is that this kid was NOT involved in any sort of crim activity before his arrest.
Yes, he was. He was illegally transporting heroin through Singaporean territory, which in Singapore is a capital crime. How much more illegal can an activity be?

He was arrested because he was caught performing an illegal act. Therefore, he was acting illegally prior to his arrest.

All the indications are that he was a good kid who tried hard and just got himself involved into the wrong things at the wrong time.
You can say that about a lot of criminals.

My ask is that should he be executed for being a stupid fuckwit?
No, I don't think so. However, in the real world stupidity can be fatal and this is a case in point.

I am objecting to the imposition of the death penalty by the Singaporaen Authorities upon a person who had not purchased nor was going to be dealing drugs in Singapore in the first place.
Was he convincted of purchasing drugs in Singapore? No? Was he convincted of selling drugs in Singapore? No? OK - was he convincted of transporting illegal drugs through Singapore territory? Yes? Is that a death penalty offense in Singapore? Yes? Then it seems he was convincted and will be punished in accordance with Singporean law.

Their mandate for applying the death penalty is to ensure that drugs are kept out of their country. The drugs were never going to BE in their country.
If he was holding the drugs while standing in a Singaporean airport then the drugs were INDEED in Singapore! He broke the law. He confessed. He will punished in accordance with the laws he broke.

It would be nice if his home country's government could interfere and ask for leniency, an exception, etc. -- but if you want other governments to respect the laws of Australian then Australian must respect the laws of other sovereign nations. Even when they clash with Australian laws.

[Nancarrow]

Once again, neutron. "It's all prohibition's fault" might work for your little suburban neighborhood in Harrisburg, but that gets old real quick in the actual drug blocks. These guys are dealing death, and unlike those in the alcohol industry, they're not accountable by any legal means. If you're going to compare the drug trade to the alcohol trade, you pretty much have to look to Al Capone, not your friendly neighborhood bartender.

Er... doesn't the comparison between Al Capone, your friendly neighborhood bartender, and 'these guys who are dealing death' in fact support the contention that "It's all prohibition's fault"? These guys are dealing death BECAUSE the substance they deal in is prohibited (hint: compare the safety of a bottle of Bud vs a bottle of bathtub-produced moonshine... hmm in fact you already have!) ("but heroin's far worse". Nope! google some stats on opiate overdoses prior to prohibition).

Oh and they ARE accountable by legal means... their drugs are illegal! But of course the current laws on drugs are a ridiculously blunt tool, so it's hardly surprising neighbourhoods are so smashed up. Now OTOH if we drew a careful distinction between selling a safe product to non-minors whilst in possession of an appropriate licence, and selling any old shit to anyone who'll buy it (like we do with alcohol!) then it's pretty likely those neighbourhoods would clean up.

(And where is my evidence that civilisation doesn't collapse when drugs are legal and licensed? It's the near-entirety of human existence, except buried under the rubble of the past century)

[Linty Fresh]

(And where is my evidence that civilisation doesn't collapse when drugs are legal and licensed? It's the near-entirety of human existence, except buried under the rubble of the past century)

No shit, really?? Gosh, you mean that legalizing drugs and regulating them instead of slapping ineffectual prohibition laws might be a good idea? Damn, I sure wish I thought of that!!

Oh, wait, I did think of that. Right here in the fucking thread!!


And I actually agree with this statement. I would have no problem legalizing most drugs and regulating them the way we do alcohol.

Drug prohibition is wrong. Alcohol prohibition is wrong. So why don't we go around calling Al Capone a good man? Because Al Capone was a criminal who killed other people with bombs and bullets in order to make a profit, much like drug dealers do today. Newsflash, Nancarrow: The law isn't always fair, and sometimes it fucks up. That does not give citizens the right to fuck up. Now maybe you're lucky enough to live in one of those utopias like Harrisburg where all the drug dealers are just "providing a service" and would never ever hurt a fly, even if it meant more drug profits or protecting their turf, but I'm willing to be that this is the exception rather than the rule.

Oh and they ARE accountable by legal means... their drugs are illegal!

Does your neighborhood smack dealer have a system of quality control set up so that nothing gets cut with strychnine? Is the FDA involved in the crack trade so that addicts don't wind up buying pieces of soap? These are the legal means I'm thinking of.

In short, nancarrow, we agree on quite a bit. We disagree on the fact that just because the law is wrong, it's OK to break it. We also disagree on who to blame when that schoolyard playground gets shot up. I'm blaming the ones behind the trigger. The government might have screwed the pooch on the drug question, but that doesn't mean you can lay every death at its door.

[Shagnasty]

[QUOTE=Nancarrow]Oh and they ARE accountable by legal means... their drugs are illegal! But of course the current laws on drugs are a ridiculously blunt tool, so it's hardly surprising neighbourhoods are so smashed up. Now OTOH if we drew a careful distinction between selling a safe product to non-minors whilst in possession of an appropriate licence, and selling any old shit to anyone who'll buy it (like we do with alcohol!) then it's pretty likely those neighbourhoods would clean up.[QUOTE]

I am speaking as a recovering alcoholic that gets to hear first-hand accounts of what opiate addiction can and will do to people quite frequently. Opiates aren't like alcohol in many ways. Alcohol can by used be the majority of the population on a regular basis. Opiates are dangerous and expensive even legally and it tends to escalate until some people overodose. Granted, alcohol can do that but it tends to happen much more slowly and doesn't happen to most people.

I want hear your potential legalization plan for opiates including heroin and oxycontin. Please include where you would buy it, how it would be supplied, how minors would be prevented fom getting it, and how we would deal with the increased rate of addition. The expense would never be low enough to supply people with a huge adddiction especially when those very drug problems cause lose of jobs, ambition, and family and friends. If you say that doctors could prescribe it after addiction, then that presents other problems ethical problems on the doctor's.

Put up or shut up now. How would legalization of a deadly, highly addictive, substance work.?Outline a workable plan. You didn't think this through now did you? You really have no good idea now do you?

This guy engaged in an act analogous to treason. Singapore thinks they can win a drug war tha endangers the lives of all citizens. The cat is out of the bag it the U.S. but I would applaud any country that can win some victories.

He knew the risk going in. People die every day from unncessary risk that doesn't work out. That isn't a problem. The real essence of life is to take risks while balancing the rewards against those risks. Singapore shifted the risk-reward balance and he decided to take it. Maximum security inmates can be shot for trying to escape because it establishes order and an escaped inmate must be recaptured so it creates a danger to others. It is the responsibilty of the prison to make the risks and downside very high to protect everyone. If an inmate senses an opportunity, he can try to escape however, no one should feel bad if he gets shot dead. Singapore did the same thing.

This guy decided his risk tolerance and lost. Like a black-jack player that loses all his money, we should never fell bad about that. He was perfectly willing to walk to walk away with the benefits of his risk.

[Weirddave]

Weirddave's point boils down to the commonly heard idea that it is not good to punish somebody for what they ARE, only for what they DO. This is fair enough, stated in that form alone. The trouble is, it can then lead people to the incorrect deduction that is therefore unequivocally ok to punish people for what they do. No it isn't. Sometimes what they do ISN'T WRONG.

"It is not good to punish somebody for what they ARE, only for what they DO" is the entire fucking point! The whole fallacy of your argument here is that it's based upon the premise that drug dealing isn't wrong. Well, most people in the world disagree with you. The people of Singapore have determined, through their elected representatives, That drug dealing should be outlawed and when someone is, after due process of law, found guilty of this CRIME, they shall be hanged by the neck until dead. You may think this penalty too harsh. I think it's too harsh. That doesn't meant that Singapore is wrong for enacting it. Singapore has the right to punish crime any way they see fit. And to answer a previous question, yes I would extend this principle to an American woman sentenced to be stoned in a Mideastern country for breaking their laws. Your argument here makes no logical sense, and that's because it's not based on a logical premise but an emotional one:You think drug dealers are just fine and dandy people, and are horrified that one is going to be killed for his crime.

If you still think the comparison between oppressed jews and oppressed drug dealers (and btw won't somebody please think of the USERS! :dubious: ) is spurious, level the playing field in precisely the area Wierddave addressed: replace 'Jews in Nazi Germany' with 'dissenters in Stalinist Russia'. After all, they had a choice, right?



And dissidents in Soviet Russia protested knowing full well that the penalties for their actions could be prison, torture, exile or death. That doesn't mean that such punishments are "right", but the Soviet Union did have the right to enact them, because-drum roll please-THEY WERE ENACTED AS THE RESPONSE OF THE STATE TO THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. In other words, dissidents made a choice. It's still a totally different situation from genocide.

[Linty Fresh]

Whoa, Dave, let's back up a little. I want to address what you said just now, because this works into my original point that executing this kid is wrong no matter how you slice it.

And dissidents in Soviet Russia protested knowing full well that the penalties for their actions could be prison, torture, exile or death. That doesn't mean that such punishments are "right", but the Soviet Union did have the right to enact them, because-drum roll please-THEY WERE ENACTED AS THE RESPONSE OF THE STATE TO THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. In other words, dissidents made a choice. It's still a totally different situation from genocide.

It all depends on what you mean by "the right to enact a law." See, this goes right back into what a nation can rightfully do to its citizens without becoming an outlaw state. Your example, unfortunately, reveals a few misconceptions, not only about philosophy but history.

Let's deal with the history first. Quite a few of those dissidents were wiped out in the GULAG, especially under Stalin. Once Stalin died, things calmed down a little, but those camps were still worse than any maximum security prison you'd find in the free world, and your chances of walking out in one piece were pretty low. The truth is, dave, that those camps were in fact a means of genocide.

Now the philosophy. Did the USSR have the right to do that. Were we right to protest it? I say no to the first and absolutely to the second. I believe that a free nation is honor bound to protest atrocities in other parts of the world. Even situations that are less than atrocities can and should be taken up by these nations. I'm thinking here of apartheid and the Ayatollah Khomeni's issuing a fatwah against Salman Rushdie. Today, it's all about North Korea and what is happening in those camps. Sure, from NK's standpoint, it's perfectly legal, but is it right?

I'll finish this up by saying that even though it tastes like a shit popsicle in my mouth, I have to defend one thing about nancarrow's argument. It actually is an argument based on logic, not emotion. It's just that the logic is totally screwed up.

To sum up, my problem with the hanging of this kid is the same problem with the drug laws. Just because it is law, does not make it right.

--Linty, who's starting to feel just a tad like Sybil in this thread arguing two totally different, seemingly opposite things.

[Nancarrow]

Oh, wait, I did think of that. Right here in the fucking thread!!


Yes. I know you did. I know you favour drug legalisation. That's why I was perplexed as to what point I thought you were making. My apologies, I think I have misunderstood your perspective on this. I think we agree on more than we disagree. With a couple of bones still left to pick though:


In short, nancarrow, we agree on quite a bit. We disagree on the fact that just because the law is wrong, it's OK to break it. We also disagree on who to blame when that schoolyard playground gets shot up. I'm blaming the ones behind the trigger. The government might have screwed the pooch on the drug question, but that doesn't mean you can lay every death at its door.

OK first bone: I do not as a rule believe blame must always be apportioned to one party and ONLY one party. You and I do NOT disagree that the ones behind the trigger are to blame for suffering in urban areas. It's just that I apportion blame to the world's governments IN ADDITION to this. And I'm sure you do too. Get over the idea that one must blame either party A or party B and cannot blame both, and I reckon we'll agree completely on that. If a party behaves in a manner that demonstrably causes suffering, and it could choose to behave differently, it bears blame for that suffering. Nasty drug dealers fit that description. So too do the enablers and enforcers of prohibition laws.

Second bone: this thread is about a guy who is going to be executed for drug dealing. Whilst I certainly agree that one cannot lay EVERY death related to drugs (however indirectly) at a government's door, I'd like to know who exactly is responsible for this guy's impending death, if not the Singaporean government?
(of course, he also bears responsibility himself for being dumbass to go into Singapore, but again, responsibility need not be assigned uniquely) Are nasty drug dealers the world over, also to blame for this guy's execution?

Third bone: "Just because the law is wrong, it's OK to break it".
Yep, you absolutely have me pegged right there. I do indeed disagree with you, although "Just" is a bit inaccurate.

If a law is wrong, and if it is cruel and vindictive, and if it causes more harm than it was supposed to prevent, and if it is more a product of superstitious fear than calm reason, and if it has been in place for nearly a century and has been demonstrably ineffective, and if it is cruel and vindictive (and let's not forget vindictive) (and cruel)...

then YES. I think it's FINE to break it. I think, that under certain circumstances, IT'S OK TO BREAK THE LAW. I'd even suggest that someone who breaks such a law is a fine, morally upstanding person.

So, what do I think about drug dealers? Drug dealer A sells shit, cut with ground glass and strychnine, for massively inflated prices. If anyone gets in his way he beats them up or kills them. Drug dealer A is a piece of shit.

Drug dealer B sells quality product at a price hardly above cost value, to over 21s only, gives his clients friendly advice on correct use of such product, and doesn't kill anyone to continue his trade.

To me, drug dealer B is ok. No scratch that, drug dealer B is NOT 'ok', drug dealer B is 'fantastic', drug dealer B is 'a fine, morally upstanding person'. The MORE SO because of the personal risk he is taking in breaking the law, to show the government of his country that he will not tolerate this law.

And so we come to the final bone of contention between you and me, and what my entire posting has really been about:

Now maybe you're lucky enough to live in one of those utopias like Harrisburg where all the drug dealers are just "providing a service" and would never ever hurt a fly, even if it meant more drug profits or protecting their turf, but I'm willing to be that this is the exception rather than the rule.

And I am willing to bet the exact opposite. I am willing to bet that the ratio of drug dealer As to drug dealer Bs in this world, is the reciprocal of what you think it is. I cannot offer direct evidence (as I suspect you can't either), instead I propose that the burden of proof lies with you, for reasons I outlined earlier.

My utopia is London FWIW.

[Nancarrow]

I'll finish this up by saying that even though it tastes like a shit popsicle in my mouth,

So, Linty, when shall we get married? :p

I have to defend one thing about nancarrow's argument. It actually is an argument based on logic, not emotion. It's just that the logic is totally screwed up.

OK, let's try and be crystal about this. When I made my first response to Weirddave, the only argument I was making, was to pick apart the logic of Weirddave's post. I didn't have any other point to make. I believe I have done so adequately. My argument WAS based on logic, but I don't see that the logic is screwed up at all.

Now just excuse me for a moment while I get back to Weirddave...

[Ice Wolf]

He pleaded guilty at the court hearing, and also offered to assist the police by naming his 'sources' and the syndicate who had paid him to import the drugs. Not according to the Speaker of Singapore's Parliament. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10356898) Tarmugi said Nguyen repeatedly lied to Singaporean police during the investigation. He denied that the condemned man had informed on the drug cartel he was working for.

[Linty Fresh]

Second bone: this thread is about a guy who is going to be executed for drug dealing. Whilst I certainly agree that one cannot lay EVERY death related to drugs (however indirectly) at a government's door, I'd like to know who exactly is responsible for this guy's impending death, if not the Singaporean government?
(of course, he also bears responsibility himself for being dumbass to go into Singapore, but again, responsibility need not be assigned uniquely) Are nasty drug dealers the world over, also to blame for this guy's execution?


Sigh . . . It's like arguing with the talking heads on the TV set. OK, let's try again:


I have to admit that my first thought to go through my head was "Fuck him. He got what he deserved." I happen to think that drug dealers (including couriers) join child molestors and paid assassins at the bottom of the food chain.

Then I read some of the responses and thought about it some more, and I realized that the death penalty is going too far. I'm very suspicious of countries that trumpet law and order above all other values, and yeah, Singapore is a police state, albeit one of the milder ones. It bans books critical of the culture and breaks up festivals not in accordance with the "moral values of most Singaporeans" as a police member said once about banning a gay Christmas party.

While I don't believe that the American constitution should be slapped on every nation in the world, I do believe that certain things are just wrong. My belief in the sacredness of free speech leads me to oppose the hate crime laws in Canada, and my belief that the death penalty should be applied sparingly (if at all) leads me to oppose this.

Throw this little shit into prison for 20 years and watch me not care. But death? No.


and

I think the rule on respecting other cultures is that you use respect for human rights as the benchmark. I can use this philosophy to respect Islam and condemn Islamic countries for abuses simultaneously without being hypocritical. Of course, that brings up the whole question of what these rights are. Of course there are gray areas, but I think drug dealing falls well short of that

Do you see where maybe I'm getting just a little bit bored with you reiterating what I just posted and making it sound like it never occured to me before?

OK first bone: I do not as a rule believe blame must always be apportioned to one party and ONLY one party. You and I do NOT disagree that the ones behind the trigger are to blame for suffering in urban areas. It's just that I apportion blame to the world's governments IN ADDITION to this. And I'm sure you do too. Get over the idea that one must blame either party A or party B and cannot blame both, and I reckon we'll agree completely on that. If a party behaves in a manner that demonstrably causes suffering, and it could choose to behave differently, it bears blame for that suffering. Nasty drug dealers fit that description. So too do the enablers and enforcers of prohibition laws.


The government might be wrong, nancarrow, but it is not to blame for the actual deaths. At all. Using this logic, you can blame the government for pretty much anything, from the OKC bombings ("If only the government had acted differently during Waco and Ruby Ridge, McVeigh never would have snapped.") to high speed chases ("If only the government would be more tolerant in its drunk driving laws, Billy Ray never would have felt the need to flee the cops and crash into the children's hospital"). No one forces drug dealers to deal drugs, and they're not dealing drugs in protest of the system. They deal drugs to make money.

Which brings me to bone 3 (Well, bone 2, since we happened to agree on your second argument.)

Drug dealer B sells quality product at a price hardly above cost value, to over 21s only, gives his clients friendly advice on correct use of such product, and doesn't kill anyone to continue his trade.

To me, drug dealer B is ok. No scratch that, drug dealer B is NOT 'ok', drug dealer B is 'fantastic', drug dealer B is 'a fine, morally upstanding person'. The MORE SO because of the personal risk he is taking in breaking the law, to show the government of his country that he will not tolerate this law.

Uh-huh. Sure. Drug Dealer B is one swell guy, all right! Everybody likes Drug Dealer B. That's why he never carries a piece, because no one tries to break in on Drug Dealer B's turf and shoot him. That's why Drug Dealer B never has to worry about taking care of possible narcs or nosy neighbors.

What's more, because Drug Dealer B obviously lives on a plantation, he is his own supplier, which is a good thing, because otherwise he'd have to import the product from Drug Supplier C. And Drug Supplier C isn't quite as nice as Drug Dealer B. See, Drug Supplier C as likely as not comes from someplace like Pakistan or Colombia. Drug Supplier C's neighbors don't try to home in on his turf either, not because they think he's a swell guy, but because they're kind of afraid of ticking Drug Supplier C off. Neighbors who get Drug Supplier C upset tend to get really accident prone. They drive off cliffs after shooting themselves five or six times in the head. Their children start getting misplaced. But that's OK, 'cause Drug Dealer B doesn't have to deal with stuff like that. He would never do business with that kind of ill-tempered miscreant. You know, he kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton in Johnny Dangerously, because although Johnny's a criminal, he's really happy go lucky and an all around nice guy. He also reminds me of Santa Claus, because Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Do I have to say it? Drug Dealer B either doesn't exist, or he exists in a very well-placed vacuum. If he represents the majority, than the tiny minority of Drug Dealer A's are awfully busy, both here and abroad.

Come on, nan. Who should really come up with the proof here.

[Nancarrow]

"It is not good to punish somebody for what they ARE, only for what they DO" is the entire fucking point! The whole fallacy of your argument here is that it's based upon the premise that drug dealing isn't wrong.

:smack: :smack: :smack:
The argument I made TO YOU, when I replied TO YOUR POST, was that your post was logically faulty. This point still stands, whether or not drug dealing is wrong.

Now maybe in your second sentence, you've moved on from my original reply to you, to deal with my subsequent posts defending drug dealing (the act per se, not the other illegal acts that can come with it AS AN ENTIRELY OPTIONAL EXTRA). If so, that's great. By all means, let's move on to that. My argument is indeed based on the premise that drug dealing isn't wrong. That does not mean that my argument is fallacious. It is simply built upon a proposition you disagree with. Since you disagree with the premise, why don't we debate the premise? (probably in another thread!)

Well, most people in the world disagree with you.

True, and irrelevant.

The people of Singapore have determined, through their elected representatives, That drug dealing should be outlawed and when someone is, after due process of law, found guilty of this CRIME, they shall be hanged by the neck until dead.

OK here's where I stick my neck out again and say something I believe to be true but might find it difficult to produce cites for. Read me out though:

BULLSHIT!

Please find me a single instance in human history, where the citizens of a democracy were presented with two or more MAINSTREAM candidates, during a time when drugs were legal, and one or more made it a major part of their platform to criminalise drugs, and others made it a major part of their platform not to do so. And said citizens voted overwhelmingly for the former candidate(s).

Go on, I'll hang around.

Just because a law exists in a democratic country, it cannot be assumed that it was passed because citizens overwhelmingly demanded it. In fact the global prohibition laws are perhaps the best example of 'snow-jobs', laws passed quietly in the secure knowledge that the people who would be destroyed by them, were a politically unimportant minority. And of course, once you've (= 'one has' ) passed those laws, you've then got decades to demonise those targetted by the laws (thus falsely justifying said laws) before anyone dares to think that you're full of shit.

Singapore has the right to punish crime any way they see fit.

Nope. If that were the case, 'human rights' would be a meaningless phrase, suitable only for waving in front of people to justify jingoistic military escapades... er, wait... ;)

What I mean is, when we talk of human rights, we implicitly affirm that there are certain 'rights' that governments MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE. Being able to 'punish crime any way they see fit' is one of those 'anti-rights'.

And to answer a previous question, yes I would extend this principle to an American woman sentenced to be stoned in a Mideastern country for breaking their laws.

Well you win today's SDMB prize for warm-hearted feeling to one's fellow man! (or woman)

Your argument here makes no logical sense

It makes perfect logical sense.

and that's because it's not based on a logical premise but an emotional one

This is just bananas. The logic of an argument is determined by the logical correctness of the steps in it, not the provenance of its premises. Indeed no premises are logical, only deductions are. "Murder is wrong". Is that logical? "I ate tomato soup for lunch today". Is that logical?

You think drug dealers are just fine and dandy people

Well statistically rather than totally. But yeah, more or less. Not logical. But not illogical either. Just a premise.

and are horrified that one is going to be killed for his crime.


Finally an unqualified YES!!!

And dissidents in Soviet Russia protested knowing full well that the penalties for their actions could be prison, torture, exile or death.

And rather than nodding my head approvingly at Soviet Russia's "right" to its response, I admire the courage of such dissidents, and wish that I had the balls to stand up for my human rights like they did. Which I freely admit, I don't.

[Nancarrow]

Linty, re post #113...

gosh, aren't we both carrying on? :p

I've gotta head home now, will follow you up in a couple of hours. (yes I was at work all this time. yes I'm baaad)

Just one quick thing: Linty, there is NO need to be so confrontational about this. Yes, I have posted many things which agree with and expand upon things you yourself mentioned. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU DIDN'T SAY THESE THINGS.

I'm not arguing 'against you'. I'm arguing 'for me', which is only occasionally 'against you'. I understand this. Will you?

[Linty Fresh]

Linty, re post #113...

gosh, aren't we both carrying on? :p

I've gotta head home now, will follow you up in a couple of hours. (yes I was at work all this time. yes I'm baaad)

Just one quick thing: Linty, there is NO need to be so confrontational about this. Yes, I have posted many things which agree with and expand upon things you yourself mentioned. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU DIDN'T SAY THESE THINGS.

I'm not arguing 'against you'. I'm arguing 'for me', which is only occasionally 'against you'. I understand this. Will you?

LOL, yes, I was being confrontational. I really do want to apologize for the "shit popsicle" remark. I kind of got carried away and took the low road when I shouldn't have. Nothing you have posted deserved that response and I was out of line for posting that.

It does seem that we agree more than we disagree. I guess that having lived in a few less than nice locations, I have developed very strong very conflicting views of drugs and legality. On one hand I believe in legalization and I think that Singapore should spare Nguyen's life. On the other, I've run into too many Drug Dealer A's over the years to really believe in Drug Dealer B, and I've seen first hand what they can do to a good town.

Also, just for my own interest: I was going to say something like "Post away, you're working on Thanksgiving, but I'm looking at your location. Are you in the states or the UK? Aw, hell, who cares! Post away, but don't get caught! :D

[Musicat]

A lot of of you are pissing and moaning for this poor, poor drug dealer, and yet....Singapore has a vastly lower crime rate WRT drugs and a vastly lower rate of drug abuse than the U.S., doesn't it? Seems to me that while their drug laws may be harsh and one could argue inhumane.....they work.If we cut off both arms for every robbery conviction, I'll bet we would have fewer robberies, too.

How about the loss of both legs for running a stop sign? Fewer traffic accidents would happen.

Or the death penalty for littering? Streets sure would be cleaner.

It's all about fitting the punishment to the crime. Of course, if you feel that drug couriers are lower than baby molesters and sit at the right hand of the Devil, I suppose the death penalty is too lenient. Myself, I think they should be left alone. It's all in how you feel about the crime, and it looks like Singapore is to the left of paranoid.

[Atticus Finch]

Howard has spoken to Lee face to face several times recently.Well, all the more opportunity to make a plea for the kid's life.

Prisoner exchange programmes require the prisoner to serve the same sentence in their home country i.e the death penalty.Perhaps you should share your legal expertise on exactly how such programs MUST operate with Victoria's Attorney-General (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1514626.htm)? He appears to be grossly mistaken.

An appeal to th ICJ requires Indonesia to grant that the court has jurisdiction. In the US last year an ICJ ruling for a stay of execution was ignored by the state court and the prisoner immediately executed.Singapore's not part of Indonesia. It was part of a confederacy with Malaysia at one time.

And an ICJ appeal certainly would face certain problems, but there are a bunch of people (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1515934.htm), including the Federal Opposition and lawyers' groups, who think it might be a worthwhile option.

Howard quite rightly believes that the use of economic sanctions is inappropriate - it serves only to force government interference in the judiciary.We wouldn't be meddling with the judiciary. It's a prerogative of the executive in many countries to grant clemency.

And to answer a previous question, yes I would extend this principle to an American woman sentenced to be stoned in a Mideastern country for breaking their laws.Seriously? The US government says it'll exert pressure for clemency on the government of Sudan, or wherever, to not brutally kill an American woman for fornication outside of marriage, and you'd be against that? If you were the POTUS, and your State Department came to you saying "hey, if we protest enough, they might grant clemency", you'd answer, "Nah, do nothing"?

You wouldn't be in favour of any diplomatic protest against the apartheid-era government of South Africa because it's their right to set laws that say black people are dirty and inferior? You wouldn't be in favour of any kind of diplomatic or military action against Iraq, no matter how many of their people they imprison and slaughter?

...I'm sorry, what part of "IF YOU DO THIS AND GET CAUGHT YOU WILL DIE" did this young man have trouble comprehending?What the fuck does it matter how loudly they advertise their brutal policies? In what way does that mean we should roll over and let it happen? When terrorists slaughter an American they catch in Iraq, what the fuck does it matter that they say "Hey, he should have known that Americans caught by us get their heads cut off"? If the punishment's wrong, it's wrong, that's the end of it.

No convinctions? That in no way proves he is innocent of criminal action in the past - he may have been running drugs for some time without getting caught.If he has no convictions, yes, that does mean he's innocent of criminal action in the past. That's what a conviction is.

[Ice Wolf]

The guy is a drug trafficking sleazebag. He doesn't deserve to die -- but nor should he be painted as an innocent martyr, either.

[Nancarrow]

Linty Fresh:

OK no worries! I'm in the UK (London), and I'm home now, so no getting caught. Happy Thanksgiving! (Why do you have turkey, and why so close to Christmas?)

I must say I have probably run into too many 'Drug Dealer Bs' to have a completely balanced perspective on this myself. Since the only sticking point for us seems to be the A:B ratio, and since I can't honestly justify any figure for that at this stage, I shall refrain from harping on that issue, at least 'til I can come back with some statistics (88% of which are made up on the spot).

Now before anyone accuses us of needing to 'get a room', a couple of points from your last post. You mentioned how DDB must be such a 'swell guy' when he has to deal with narcs and turf wars. I'd suggest that defending oneself against people who seek to destroy you, and perhaps even causing injury to such people in the process, does not necessarily detract from your 'niceness'. I'm a nice guy. If someone attacks me in the street and I couldn't flee, I'd have to defend myself, possibly breaking their arm. But I'd still be a nice guy. Now what complicates the issue is, even if I'm harming no-one just munching mushrooms in a park, the 'moral majority' might strongly disapprove, and my attacker might be a cop. I suggest that this doesn't affect the legitimacy of my right to defend myself. (I think we're on the same wavelength there) (whether it would be smart to beat up the cop is another matter entirely! I must stop playing GTA vice city)

Regarding your remarks about DDB living in a vacuum, unless being part of an ecology including nasty supplier C, I'll have to concede that for heroin and cocaine the bad guys are probably the majority. It does seem the cultivation of the plants and processing of the compounds requires more infrastructure than Joe Bong in Illinois can reasonably muster. But there's plenty of opportunity for, er, 'fair-trade' cannabis, shrooms, and most synthetics.

And you're right to call bs on my appeal to DDB's idealism. I brought it up because I do indeed know a couple of such DDBs, however I concede most must be in it for the money. Not that there's anything wrong with earning a living!

[Atticus Finch]

The guy is a drug trafficking sleazebag. He doesn't deserve to die -- but nor should he be painted as an innocent martyr, either.Who's doing that?

[Ice Wolf]

No one in particular here, thankfully - apart from the assertion that he's helped the Singapore police when there are statements coming out to the contrary, fo example. But reading the media flood over the past few days -- I suspect there will be an opinion of martyrdom in some quarters. Poor young fool killed by the big bad government.

I hope I'm wrong, but I get cynical with age.

[Broomstick]

...I'm sorry, what part of "IF YOU DO THIS AND GET CAUGHT YOU WILL DIE" did this young man have trouble comprehending?
What the fuck does it matter how loudly they advertise their brutal policies? In what way does that mean we should roll over and let it happen? When terrorists slaughter an American they catch in Iraq, what the fuck does it matter that they say "Hey, he should have known that Americans caught by us get their heads cut off"? If the punishment's wrong, it's wrong, that's the end of it.
No, it's not the end of it.

If there is a pit in the middle of a road with warning signs all around it saying "if you cross this line you will die" and some dumb fuck is stupid enough to cross the line and get killed I'm sorry, but he's still a dumb fuck. Maybe that pit shouldn't be there, maybe it was dug illegally by murderous rabid Bad Guys - it doesn't matter. Mr. Dumb Fuck was warned and he chose to ignore that warning. It's not like someone camoflagued the pit to trap the unwary.

Likewise, Singapore loudly announces that they do not tolerate certain actions and will kill those they catch in the act. You then have several choices:

1) Don't go to Singapore.
2) If you go to Singapore, don't break their laws
3) If you go to Singapore and break their laws - boo-fucking-hoo, go ahead and try to get an exception made on your behalf. Good luck with that, you'll need it.

The difference between terrorists in Iraq and the Singapore government is a simple one. The Iraqi Bad Guys are killing people because those people aren't just like them. The Singaporean government isn't killing anyone because of who/what they are, they are executing people for what they do. If you don't want to be executed in Singapore then simply do not commit capital crimes there.

And yes, I DO think the punishment is excessive, however, even a person who is a professional drug courier in other parts of the world can avoid falling afoul of this law by the simple expedient of not transporting illegal drugs through Singapore.

Now, if someone had had a gun on this guy the whole time the heroin was in his possession, or had forcably implanted a half-kilo into his abdomen through illegal surgery I might buy the story Mr. Nguyen had no choice in the matter. That is not what happened. He chose to break the law. He got caught. He has been convicted and sentenced. In all likelihood he will be executived as sentenced.

I certainly support any attempt to bargain with the Singaporean government, or to ask for mercy or clemency, but I do not have any illusions it is likely to work.

No convinctions? That in no way proves he is innocent of criminal action in the past - he may have been running drugs for some time without getting caught.
If he has no convictions, yes, that does mean he's innocent of criminal action in the past. That's what a conviction is.
First of all, not all societies believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. That assumption is your first mistake.

Second - there IS a difference between guilt and conviction. An innocent man may be wrongly convicted of a crime. Likewise, the criminal justice system may, through lack of evidence or other problem, fail to convict someone who did, indeed, commit a crime. That person is no less guilty for not having been convicted.

[neutron star]

Once again, neutron. "It's all prohibition's fault" might work for your little suburban neighborhood in Harrisburg

Actually, while I did grow up here, I lived almost my entire adult life elsewhere, and only moved back a few months ago.

And again, like I said, there are some pretty nasty drug dealers out there. Generally, the harder the drug and the harder the neighborhood, the harder the dealer. I knew one guy who went to prison for a double murder. It sure as hell wasn't from a turf war, though. He thought his victims were undercover narcs. Ironically, they weren't, but the person to whom he bragged about it the next day was, and he's now serving a life sentence.

My point is that it's not right to judge all dealers by the actions of some.

The guilt-by-association argument doesn't work, either:
And Drug Supplier C isn't quite as nice as Drug Dealer B. See, Drug Supplier C as likely as not comes from someplace like Pakistan or Colombia. Drug Supplier C's neighbors don't try to home in on his turf either, not because they think he's a swell guy, but because they're kind of afraid of ticking Drug Supplier C off. Neighbors who get Drug Supplier C upset tend to get really accident prone. They drive off cliffs after shooting themselves five or six times in the head.

If you're going to blame Dealer B for this, then I'm afraid you're also going to have to blame the jewelry store at the mall for every fucked-up thing DeBeers ever did.

[Atticus Finch]

The difference between terrorists in Iraq and the Singapore government is a simple one. The Iraqi Bad Guys are killing people because those people aren't just like them. The Singaporean government isn't killing anyone because of who/what they are, they are executing people for what they do. If you don't want to be executed in Singapore then simply do not commit capital crimes there.I disagree with your characterisation of Iraqi terrorists as killing Americans just because "those people aren't just like them". Here's another example - if you don't want to be stoned to death, don't commit sexually licentious behaviour in a little village in Sudan. But if a countryman of yours does that, and is due to be brutally killed, would your attitude be that the "dumb fuck" deserves what he / she gets?

First of all, not all societies believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. That assumption is your first mistake.The presumption of innocence is a fundamental and universal human right. Without it, a criminal law system is worthless. Singapore's British-inherited common law system encapsulates this in much the same way as does Australia's (my country) and that of the US (I presume you are American). Where are there viable legal systems without the presumption?

Second - there IS a difference between guilt and conviction. An innocent man may be wrongly convicted of a crime. Likewise, the criminal justice system may, through lack of evidence or other problem, fail to convict someone who did, indeed, commit a crime. That person is no less guilty for not having been convicted.If they do not convict, the person is not guilty. It's as simple as that. This is what the presumption of innocence means, and it's what our criminal law system is based on. See, for an example in your jurisdiction, Coffin v. The United States (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/156-432.htm)

[there's a cow in my underpants]

If a female US citizen were found guilty of some kind of crime of extra-marital sex in a court in, say, Sudan, and was sentenced to death by stoning, wouldn't you want the US government to exert diplomatic pressure, if not send in the Marines?

Um.. no. She made her own decision, why the hell should she expect the government to bail her out of the mess she made for herself?

[antechinus]

Antechinus, as horrid as your cite is, I don't see the connection between the actions of Iraqi civilians taking out their vicious angst upon American civilians and the imposition of the death penalty upon Truong Van Nguyen by the Singaporean judicial system.

Care to elucidate? Is it just the 'stupidity' factor?



Good morning.
The connection is - person goes into foreign country to perform something that they well know presents a high risk of death. Yes, it is the stupidity factor. He was very stupid to gamble his life in this way.

Mangetout said what I was thinking - both brothers have a gambling broblem.

Of course, this does not diminish the barbarism of a death sentence.

[Nancarrow]

Um.. no. She made her own decision, why the hell should she expect the government to bail her out of the mess she made for herself?

er... because, the Sudanese are going to... like... kill her? So she's like, dead, dude? Not only that, but the American government is, the American government, and she's an American citizen, and, you know, governments are sorta supposed to protect their citizens, otherwise why the holy bleeding FUCK do we have them?

And she's a human being?

Gaah! :smack: :rolleyes: :eek: :mad:

Am I imagining it or have a significant number of people in the world popped arsehole pills?

:( :( :(

[Nancarrow]

Such a promising username too.

[clairobscur]

Um.. no. She made her own decision, why the hell should she expect the government to bail her out of the mess she made for herself?

Err...I don't know, really... Because she did nothing wrong and she's going to be killed nevertheless?

[Monty]

How, exactly, do some of y'all expect the Australian government to bail the man out? Last I checked, Singapore is an independent country.

Another thing to those who say the Australian government isn't doing anything: what do you call their requests for leniency?

[Linty Fresh]

And again, like I said, there are some pretty nasty drug dealers out there. Generally, the harder the drug and the harder the neighborhood, the harder the dealer.

Thank you for pointing out what most of us learn in grade school. That kind of ties into my whole "Your experiences with the random suburban dealer doesn't give you special insight" theme.

I knew one guy who went to prison for a double murder. It sure as hell wasn't from a turf war, though. He thought his victims were undercover narcs. Ironically, they weren't, but the person to whom he bragged about it the next day was, and he's now serving a life sentence.

My point is that it's not right to judge all dealers by the actions of some.

What exactly do you think most dealers in a position of power would do with a narc? Invite them for tea and work the whole thing out over a nice game of whist? Do you really believe your lifer is the exception to the rule? If you do, then I would advise against hanging out with the dealers outside of Harrisburg. If you do, don't wear your best shoes and make sure that all the credit cards in your wallet are already expired.

If you're going to blame Dealer B for this, then I'm afraid you're also going to have to blame the jewelry store at the mall for every fucked-up thing DeBeers ever did.

:confused: What makes you think I like it when jewelry stores buy from corrupt corporations? Drug dealers don't get a pass just 'cause other people do it too. Once again, jewelry is legal here. If jewelry dealers were buying from DeBeers and shooting up my neighborhood, and killing people they thought were narcing on them right on my corner, I'd probably speak up against them too. As it is, the topic of this thread is drug dealers. And not the cool ones from Neverland, who seem to make up your social demographic either.

[Broomstick]

Here's another example - if you don't want to be stoned to death, don't commit sexually licentious behaviour in a little village in Sudan. But if a countryman of yours does that, and is due to be brutally killed, would your attitude be that the "dumb fuck" deserves what he / she gets?
On a certain level, yes.

As I've said numerous times, I don't agree with the death penalty. However, if you go to a remote little village in the Sudan and willfully and by your own choice commit an act that you have been repeatedly warned is a capital felony in that area... yes, you ARE a fucking idiot. That doesn't matter if the felony is drug trafficking, sex outside of marriage, or wearing blue shoes on Tuesday - you fucked up. You broke the rules. You got caught.

It's not up to YOU to decree the laws of a foreign land right or wrong - it IS your responsibility to keep out of trouble while traveling abroad.

Again, I would still think the penalty out of proportion to the crime, I would definitely support diplomatic intervention, official protests, pleas for mercy... but I would not advocate overthrowing a foreign government, invasion, or other strong-arm tactics to save one fucking idiot.

If this foreign territory repeatedly executes people for crimes most other nations do not consider crimes, or consider minor offenses, then perhaps sanctions are called for... but perhaps visitors should be strongly cautioned so no one can enter such areas in ignorance. Oh, wait - Singapore makes its stance very clear: Don't Bring Drugs In Here.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental and universal human right. Without it, a criminal law system is worthless.
There are no "universal" human rights outside of a particular society, all that poetic stuff written down in the late 1700's aside. Throughout most of history your rights were what the authorities over you decided they were - if any.

If they do not convict, the person is not guilty. It's as simple as that. This is what the presumption of innocence means, and it's what our criminal law system is based on.
Oh, I'm sorry - I see you are totally disregarding morality here and looking strictly at the law and legal convinction. Well, yes, under your definition there Jeffrey Dahmer was a completely innocent man - regardless of munching on former lovers he had performed amateur brain surgery on - until convicted of murder and canabalism. Point taken. Perhaps we should taken his prior clean record into account when sentencing him, gone easy on him, etc.

Do you know why Dahmer didn't get the death penalty? Because he didn't commit his crimes in a state with capital punishment. In fact, he went to some effort to make sure his conduct was completely legal in Illinois - because he didn't want to die. So when necessary he duped his victims into coming to Wisconsin under their own free will, THEN he committed terrible acts upon them.

If Mr. Nguyen had exercised at least equal judgement he might be serving a long prison term rather than facing a hangman's noose.

As far as his country defending him - is he worth starting a war over? No? Then he's going to die. IS he worth starting a war over? Is his life worth invading another country and forcing its authorities to violate its laws? Because that's what it sounds like some of you are asking.

So... if Mr. Nguyen was in prison in Australia for breaking Australian law, and Singapore came to your government and said "We don't meet out that punishment for that crime - hand him over" what would your reaction be?

If someone kills their daugher because she "disgraced" the family by being with an unrelated man unchaperoned, and that person was convicted of murder in Australia, how would YOU feel about the argument the man's relatives from the old country might make along the lines of "that's how we do things, it's not that big a deal, maybe a year or two and probation but we don't view that on the same level as pre-meditated murder. You barbaric Australians, how dare you lock him up for life for defending the family honor!"

[neutron star]

What exactly do you think most dealers in a position of power would do with a narc?

The ones with any sense at all simply ignore them and refuse to do any business with them rather than risk a life sentence or even the death penalty by murdering them.

Do you really believe your lifer is the exception to the rule?

Yes, I do. Considering how many millions of people in this country use illegal drugs and how many dealers supply them, murder rates would be obscenely high if that wasn't the case.

The U.S. government reports 554 drug-related homicides in 2004. Sure, it would be a lot nicer if that number was zero, but it hardly fits with your hysterical portrait of evil, dope-pushing thugs gunning down rivals, narcs, and little old ladies on every street corner.

What makes you think I like it when jewelry stores buy from corrupt corporations? Drug dealers don't get a pass just 'cause other people do it too.

I'm merely pointing out an instance of the same type of behavior in which drug dealers engage that seems to be far more socially acceptable. I didn't say that it had to be acceptable to you, personally.

[neutron star]

Really, my point is (and has been) that it's unfair to call all drug dealers scum because a certain percentage of them (whatever that percentage may be) are violent assholes. You can make all the annoyingly snide and pointless comments you want about my location, Linty Fresh, but that doesn't change the fact that you are painfully off-base in lumping every single dealer in with child molesters and contract killers, groups in which, by definition, every single member has committed a violent crime.

[Nancarrow]

Really, my point is (and has been) that it's unfair to call all drug dealers scum because a certain percentage of them (whatever that percentage may be) are violent assholes. You can make all the annoyingly snide and pointless comments you want about my location, Linty Fresh, but that doesn't change the fact that you are painfully off-base in lumping every single dealer in with child molesters and contract killers, groups in which, by definition, every single member has committed a violent crime.

Just wanted to chime in here, to say that that's really been my basic point all along too, and that of all the posters in this bit of sub-thread we've generated, neutron star is the one I've consistently agreed with (and shown it by not responding to him at all! Well what would be the point, this is the pit!)

[Shagnasty]

Really, my point is (and has been) that it's unfair to call all drug dealers scum because a certain percentage of them (whatever that percentage may be) are violent assholes. You can make all the annoyingly snide and pointless comments you want about my location, Linty Fresh, but that doesn't change the fact that you are painfully off-base in lumping every single dealer in with child molesters and contract killers, groups in which, by definition, every single member has committed a violent crime.

I know many drug dealers and ex-drug dealers. I am pretty sure that my father was one for a while too. Dealers of hard drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, and meth are all scum. They may not have been born that way but it is necessary to be a scumbag to be in that business. The first problem is what they do is highly illegal. That part is obvious but such illegal activities require certain traits once you get deeply involved in them. These include lying, willingness to commit related crimes, willingness to sacrafice other people over oneself, and a distortion of normal reality. Many are addicts themselves and that is an even more volatile mix. That can devolve into high-speed car chases and murders on any given day. One of my high school classmates was busted for making and selling meth. Pretty common right. The big problem was that his kids slept right next to the room with the meth lab? Any idiot knows that meth labs go boom all the time.

The second problem is their product is guaranteed to ruin the lives and maybe even kill a certain percentage of their customers. Some users are regular dabblers but many are going to get caught in an addiction cycle that leads to death, jail, or loss of friends and family. Drug dealers don't generally care about there customers except as a function of cash and not ratting them out. One dead customer simply means that they need to find a new customer.

My best friend from ages 4 - 7 (http://www.shreveport.net/news/kayla/) get caught in a vicious cycle of drug dealing and gambling after high school. He followed a man home that won a casino jackpot, made him get down on his knees, and executed him. The linked article is one of his other presumed victims and he may qualify as a serial killer if the whole truth was known. I never thought of him as a scumbag when we slept in his living room on Friday nights and watched the Dukes of Hazzard.

However, he is a scumbag by definition just like all of them are. Just because someone seems decent and stable enough to have a casual conversation with doesn't mean that they aren't an overall unstable, dangerous, scumbag. I don't know why anyone wastes energy trying to defend these people. They know the stakes and the game. The reason they make so much money is because it is a high stakes game and they still want in. They are automatically human garbage and the only attention we should give them is to decide which pile to put them in.

[Shagnasty]

No, it's not the end of it.

If there is a pit in the middle of a road with warning signs all around it saying "if you cross this line you will die" and some dumb fuck is stupid enough to cross the line and get killed I'm sorry, but he's still a dumb fuck. Maybe that pit shouldn't be there, maybe it was dug illegally by murderous rabid Bad Guys - it doesn't matter. Mr. Dumb Fuck was warned and he chose to ignore that warning. It's not like someone camoflagued the pit to trap the unwary.

Likewise, Singapore loudly announces that they do not tolerate certain actions and will kill those they catch in the act. You then have several choices:

1) Don't go to Singapore.
2) If you go to Singapore, don't break their laws
3) If you go to Singapore and break their laws - boo-fucking-hoo, go ahead and try to get an exception made on your behalf. Good luck with that, you'll need it.

The difference between terrorists in Iraq and the Singapore government is a simple one. The Iraqi Bad Guys are killing people because those people aren't just like them. The Singaporean government isn't killing anyone because of who/what they are, they are executing people for what they do. If you don't want to be executed in Singapore then simply do not commit capital crimes there.

And yes, I DO think the punishment is excessive, however, even a person who is a professional drug courier in other parts of the world can avoid falling afoul of this law by the simple expedient of not transporting illegal drugs through Singapore.

Now, if someone had had a gun on this guy the whole time the heroin was in his possession, or had forcably implanted a half-kilo into his abdomen through illegal surgery I might buy the story Mr. Nguyen had no choice in the matter. That is not what happened. He chose to break the law. He got caught. He has been convicted and sentenced. In all likelihood he will be executived as sentenced.

I certainly support any attempt to bargain with the Singaporean government, or to ask for mercy or clemency, but I do not have any illusions it is likely to work.


First of all, not all societies believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. That assumption is your first mistake.

Second - there IS a difference between guilt and conviction. An innocent man may be wrongly convicted of a crime. Likewise, the criminal justice system may, through lack of evidence or other problem, fail to convict someone who did, indeed, commit a crime. That person is no less guilty for not having been convicted.

I agree with everything you said Broomstick. I am having a really hard time trying to understand the opposing viewpoint on this one. Singapore doesn't want to kill anyone. They don't want people to courier drugs through or into their country. If someone does, they have to follow through with the promise. This guy was willing to assume the rewards (cash) for a job with a very specific set of risks. The job paid a lot because those risk were there.

People die everyday. This guy is very lucky because he gets to die under circumstances that he conscientiously chose. Most people don't have that luxury.

I am having problems with some of the questions thrown around. "Wouldn't you have a problem with an American woman getting executed in the Sudan for consciously engaging in this or that illegal thing?"

Hell, fuck, no. No unless she was wrongfully prosecuted, framed, or illegally coerced. One of the greatest human freedoms is to assume risk for conscience actions up to and including death. Anyone can opt out of that arrangement at any time.

Where is the call for tolerance of other cultures here? Singapore has a very thriving and well established culture. They don't randomly pick people to execute or torture I fail to see the problem. Does the tolerance of other cultures only extend to somewhat Americanized people that like to smoke pot?

[there's a cow in my underpants]

er... because, the Sudanese are going to... like... kill her? So she's like, dead, dude? Not only that, but the American government is, the American government, and she's an American citizen, and, you know, governments are sorta supposed to protect their citizens, otherwise why the holy bleeding FUCK do we have them?

Protect them from what, their own idiocy? Our own country promotes the idea that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," so even if she didn't know, what the hell should we be doing?

And she's a human being?

Who made quite a mess of things, eh?

Err...I don't know, really... Because she did nothing wrong and she's going to be killed nevertheless?

But she did do something wrong. She violated a Sudanese law, which has published consequences.

[Nancarrow]

But she did do something wrong. She violated a Sudanese law, which has published consequences.

And if a gummint decides that the penalty for 'doing something wrong' (which, let's not forget the premise of our hypothetical example, was ADULTERY, you know, having sex with someone you aren't married to.) is execution (which, let's not forget, is the TERMINATION OF LIFE), that's a-ok with you? Let's not bitch about it? Let's not censure the government concerned?

And she's a human being?

Who made quite a mess of things, eh?

Holy living fuck.

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

[clairobscur]

But she did do something wrong. She violated a Sudanese law, which has published consequences.


Violating a law isn't in itself wrong. It might even be a moral duty, depending on the circumstances.

[Broomstick]

And if a gummint decides that the penalty for 'doing something wrong' (which, let's not forget the premise of our hypothetical example, was ADULTERY, you know, having sex with someone you aren't married to.) is execution (which, let's not forget, is the TERMINATION OF LIFE), that's a-ok with you? Let's not bitch about it? Let's not censure the government concerned?
I wouldn't say it was OK to execute people for sex outside of marriage. However, I am also intelligent/educated enough to know that in a LOT of societies other than ours sex outside of marriage IS a crime that carries severe punishment, in some cases all the way up to death.

Sure, protest to the Sudanese government... it's worth a try. It will likely have about the same effect as, say, European governments trying to pressure the US government to abolish the death penalty. In other words, not much.

There seems to be an amazing lack of comprehension that when you cross an international border the rules change. You do not carry the laws of your home country with you when you travel. You are subject to the laws of the country you are currently in.

[Broomstick]

Violating a law isn't in itself wrong. It might even be a moral duty, depending on the circumstances.
Moral duty or not, though, breaking the law has consequences

[Nancarrow]

I wouldn't say it was OK to execute people for sex outside of marriage. However, I am also intelligent/educated enough to know that in a LOT of societies other than ours sex outside of marriage IS a crime that carries severe punishment, in some cases all the way up to death.

Sure, protest to the Sudanese government... it's worth a try. It will likely have about the same effect as, say, European governments trying to pressure the US government to abolish the death penalty. In other words, not much.

There seems to be an amazing lack of comprehension that when you cross an international border the rules change. You do not carry the laws of your home country with you when you travel. You are subject to the laws of the country you are currently in.

I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing cow-underpants. Don't tell me I don't comprehend that different countries have different laws, I know bloody well they do. It's just that cow-underpants very firmly stated his/her belief that the correct response of the government to that situation is to do jack shit, and I was calling shame on his/her lack of basic humanity.

You're correct to say it's worth a try to protest. I'd go further and say that the government of the country of the woman concerned has an ethical obligation to protest and put diplomatic pressure on the country that will execute her. This ethical obligation arises because of a) their being a government and b) their being a collection of human beings, like you and me and the woman who will be stoned.

You're also right to say protesting is probably futile. Governments do indeed routinely reserve themselves the right to kill whomever they please, for any reasons or none. Funnily enough I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling at this exercise of the sacrosanct concept of national sovereignty.

This thread's been quite an eye-opener for me. I really do despair that in a country that gave the world the Bill of Rights, and nearly tore itself apart to end slavery, there is so much attention given to the sovereignty and rights of states, and so little attention given to the sovereignty and rights of individual humans, who are, after all, the reasons for states to exist, and not the other way round.

[Broomstick]

I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing cow-underpants. Don't tell me I don't comprehend that different countries have different laws, I know bloody well they do.
I'm sorry - I didn't mean to direct that statement directly at you, more in a general way. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

You're correct to say it's worth a try to protest. I'd go further and say that the government of the country of the woman concerned has an ethical obligation to protest and put diplomatic pressure on the country that will execute her. This ethical obligation arises because of a) their being a government and b) their being a collection of human beings, like you and me and the woman who will be stoned.
You know, I can agree with that - the woman's home country does have an ethical obligation to do something, even if it is unlikely to get a positive result.

Governments do indeed routinely reserve themselves the right to kill whomever they please, for any reasons or none. Funnily enough I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling at this exercise of the sacrosanct concept of national sovereignty.
Neither do I.

This thread's been quite an eye-opener for me. I really do despair that in a country that gave the world the Bill of Rights, and nearly tore itself apart to end slavery, there is so much attention given to the sovereignty and rights of states, and so little attention given to the sovereignty and rights of individual humans, who are, after all, the reasons for states to exist, and not the other way round.
Maybe I've just gotten old and cynical.

I can't get my own government to stop executing people here - what chance do I have to influence what happens in Singapore or Sudan?

[Weirddave]

I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing cow-underpants. Don't tell me I don't comprehend that different countries have different laws, I know bloody well they do. It's just that cow-underpants very firmly stated his/her belief that the correct response of the government to that situation is to do jack shit, and I was calling shame on his/her lack of basic humanity.

You're very young aren't you? You seem to have no concept of the fact that your personal morality, or the general morality of the society you live in, are NOT universal concepts, and you have no right to impose them on other societies.*


You're correct to say it's worth a try to protest. I'd go further and say that the government of the country of the woman concerned has an ethical obligation to protest and put diplomatic pressure on the country that will execute her.
I agree with you. However, beyond protesting, sending a personal letter from one PM to another, etc..., how far should a government go? Economic sanctions? Yea, there's a great idea, ruin the lives of who knows how many workers and businesspeople to save the life of one piece of shit drug runner. War? Sure, we'll cause thousands to die so that Betty Sue isn't stoned for fucking around on her husband. Sarcasm aside, those are the choices you're left with. Which one of those do you think is appropriate in the Singapore case? In the Sudanese case? What price are you willing to pay simply to save the life of someone who knowingly violated the laws of their host country, knowing the penalties they would face if they did so.




This thread's been quite an eye-opener for me. I really do despair that in a country that gave the world the Bill of Rights, and nearly tore itself apart to end slavery, there is so much attention given to the sovereignty and rights of states, and so little attention given to the sovereignty and rights of individual humans, who are, after all, the reasons for states to exist, and not the other way round.


Yes, it's terrible here. Please have your government put diplomatic pressure on the U.S. government to free us all from the tyranny we face every day.



Oh, and one further thing, about your wonderful type B drug dealer, you're forgetting one thing: While he may be spending his leisure time mowing your lawn, washing your car and discovering a cure for cancer, the majority of his customers are not, and his presence in your neighborhood means their presence. This is the exact thing that is going on in my neighborhood, trust me, it's not a happy situation (even though the guy who owns and lives in the drug house is a very nice, friendly person)


*Yes, I realize there are situations where one country may decide to intervene in another's business through sanctions or war, and would be right to do so, or may even feel morally compelled to do so, but we are clearly not talking about issues of that magnitude in this thread.

[elbows]

I can't speak for Australia but my passport application clearly explains that my government cannot help me if I choose to break the law in a foreign country.

But I think what is really being overlooked in all of this is the cultural divide. I am also opposed to the death penalty. But I am not so arogant as to foist my views on another country. Singapore doesn't execute nearly the number of people that the state of Texas does.

Which crimes are greater or lesser is such a subjective/cultural thing really. I believe they have every right to feel radically different from us on issues such as the wanton distruction of valuable personal property as the ultimate sin : waste,(in America this was viewed as childish prank /misdemeanor). I'm certain they feel allowing the populace to all arm themselves is sheer idiocy. But they respect that it's your country if you feel it works for you have at it.

And in this issue there is also a cultural divide, I feel. The Australian government would have been wiser to keep it's mouth shut in the press and operate quietly. Allow this government to make the show of power it feels is required. A government concerned with not looking as though it is giving in to outside pressure or, treating foreigners differently from locals. Surely you can understand this.

No, every time this sort of conflict occurs the western reaction is the same. Lots of loud and threatening rhetoric, reams of verbage, hordes of press, comparisons as wild as we've seen here in this very thread. If the Auzzie government really wanted to save this soul, they should shut up and take it like a man, while the S'pore government tries and convicts.

Sure they can fill the papers with sympathetic words and regrets to placate the home crowd. But they could then, I believe, through tactful diplomatic channels, have a chance to quietly (so as to save the S'porean government any embarassment), have this person's sentence commuted so it could be served in Australia where there is no DP and this person could just do their time.

But all chance for this solution evaporates when westerners go straight to the press, focusing lots of attention on the matter, making wild and misplaced accusations and comparisons and effectively tying the hands of the government and, sadly, sealing this fellows fate.

[there's a cow in my underpants]

And if a gummint decides that the penalty for 'doing something wrong' (which, let's not forget the premise of our hypothetical example, was ADULTERY, you know, having sex with someone you aren't married to.) is execution (which, let's not forget, is the TERMINATION OF LIFE), that's a-ok with you? Let's not bitch about it? Let's not censure the government concerned?

That's fine with me. As an independent nation, they have every right to declare whatever the hell they want to legal or illegal, and to punish such violations however they choose. No one made this woman go into Sudan, and no one made this woman commit adultery. Both were conscious choices she made - to violate the law. And violating the law has consequences. Sad, but true.

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Indeed I do. It goes hand in hand with my sense of personal responsibility.

[Martin Hyde]

Really, my point is (and has been) that it's unfair to call all drug dealers scum because a certain percentage of them (whatever that percentage may be) are violent assholes. You can make all the annoyingly snide and pointless comments you want about my location, Linty Fresh, but that doesn't change the fact that you are painfully off-base in lumping every single dealer in with child molesters and contract killers, groups in which, by definition, every single member has committed a violent crime.

They're scum because they're criminals, simple as that. Your average drug dealer is a lot like your average member of the mafia c. 1930s. While there was a lot of publicity about mafia murders, believe it or not most members of these criminal organizations weren't rampant murderers. They were simply businessmen who's business was criminal in nature. And yeah, a lot of these guys were people you could probably sit down with and have a decent conversation, "regular people" you know.

Anyways, suburban drug dealers typically aren't independent and have higher ups who do pretty nasty things, any drug dealer who has a supplier is just contributing to criminality, murder, and exploitation. No matter how much fun you had getting high with them or whatever.

[TheLoadedDog]

*Yes, I realize there are situations where one country may decide to intervene in another's business through sanctions or war, and would be right to do so, or may even feel morally compelled to do so, but we are clearly not talking about issues of that magnitude in this thread.
Maybe not issues of the magnitude of war or economic sanctions, but I would argue that there is a case for good ol' pressure to be applied in this case. As a country which staunchly opposes the death penalty, Australia has a right to exert whatever pressure it can on Singapore, just as Singapore has the sovereign right to tell us to sod off. Political and diplomatic pressure is applied between nations all the time - even between allies. Take Australia and the US for instance - pretty buddy-buddy most of the time - staunch alies in fact, but when it comes to things like farming subsidies or trade agreements, the gloves invariably come off.

There's nothing wrong with sticking it to Singapore in this case.

[Weirddave]

Maybe not issues of the magnitude of war or economic sanctions, but I would argue that there is a case for good ol' pressure to be applied in this case. As a country which staunchly opposes the death penalty, Australia has a right to exert whatever pressure it can on Singapore, just as Singapore has the sovereign right to tell us to sod off. Political and diplomatic pressure is applied between nations all the time - even between allies. Take Australia and the US for instance - pretty buddy-buddy most of the time - staunch alies in fact, but when it comes to things like farming subsidies or trade agreements, the gloves invariably come off.

There's nothing wrong with sticking it to Singapore in this case.
Yes, which is why I said I agreed with these measures in the post you are replying to.

[TheLoadedDog]

Yes, which is why I said I agreed with these measures in the post you are replying to.
Yes, apologies. I must have missed that para in amongst the quotes. Saw it almost as soon as I posted. :smack:

[kambuckta]

As the day for the execution of Van Nguyen draws closer, I wanted to bump this thread for no other reason than to clear my mind.

I am under no allusions that this man is innocent of hs crimes. He has committed a reprehensible act in my opinion, by attempting to traffic in drugs. He deserves a severe penalty not only to deter him, but to deter others from attempting the same.

He was hoping to profit monetarily from his crime, so he was no smacked-out user trying to finance his habit.

He was caught in the act, with no defence available.

He is guilty as charged, yes?

I'm still unable to comprehend a MANDATORY death sentence in this case. Van Nguyen confessed his crimes at the airport (despite what contrary claimsIcewolf
makes) and he is a young man without prior convictions and with an excellent chance of being rehabilitated.

I'll be damned if I see him die without a fucking fight.

Fuck YOU SINGAPORE, you rotten arseholes.

Execute Truong Van Nguyen? Just try it. See what happens then fuckers.

[mks57]

I'll be damned if I see him die without a fucking fight.

Fuck YOU SINGAPORE, you rotten arseholes.

Execute Truong Van Nguyen? Just try it. See what happens then fuckers.

Why should he get special treatment? I'm tired of this attitude that foreigners, often stupid young adults, should get more lenient treatment than locals convicted of the same crime. It reeks of colonialism.

[Ice Wolf]

I'm still unable to comprehend a MANDATORY death sentence in this case. Van Nguyen confessed his crimes at the airport (despite what contrary claimsIcewolf makes).Here's what you said, kambuckta:He pleaded guilty at the court hearing, and also offered to assist the police by naming his 'sources' and the syndicate who had paid him to import the drugs.And the "claims" of Nguyen's lack of cooperation with police and his lies weren't mine, they were those of a Singaporean official. As I stated.

Hope you've felt the same about the hundreds more who've died before your fellow Australian, and about those who will die after him. You should, you know, as you're saying "Fuck you, Singapore" so vociferously. Join up with Amnesty Internaternational. I'm sure they'll give you all the info you need to continue this very worthy fight for human rights.

[Broomstick]

Kambuckta, you will find this an interesting read (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1894002,00.html)

[Richard Pearse]

Why should he get special treatment? I'm tired of this attitude that foreigners, often stupid young adults, should get more lenient treatment than locals convicted of the same crime. It reeks of colonialism.

Well, IMO the locals should get the same leniency. Mandatory death sentencing sucks dog's balls regardless of the nationality of the criminal. Of course, it only comes to our attention when one of our nationals is sentenced.

[Rune]

Supposedly they have death sentence as a way to scare off drug traffickers from using Singapore as a drug hub – and with all the extra crime and corruption that always follow the drug trade, I don’t see why they should feel obliged to show leniency to those whom insist on endangering their lives. Nobody forced the drug trafficker from entering Singapore.

And perhaps making it mandatory might overall actually be the most human thing. If everybody knows that trafficking will get you killed no matter what. Fewer people will do it, and in the end fewer people will get executed or given long term prison terms.

Kinda like the apparent suicidal behaviour in chick-run, which is often put forward as an example of a on the surface absurd strategy in game theory, wherein one of the drivers ties himself to the car and extravagantly rips out the steering wheel. The other driver now knows that if he wants to live, he’ll have to swear away. And in the end fewer people gets killed through collision. Singapore by tying their hands signal that if you want to live you don’t take drugs to Singapore. And fewer people may get harmed.

[clairobscur]

Execute Truong Van Nguyen? Just try it. See what happens then fuckers.


Not that I disagree with your opinion, but what do you think will happen?

[Clothahump]

Fuck you. This kind of attitude - reducing others to being less than people - is the attitude that leads to slavery, terrorism, war, race hate and a host of other evils. I'm not saying that drug dealers are good. Drug dealing is bad. That doesn't mean that they are less than human. Jesus, are you even following along? The kid is not a drug dealer, he is a transporter. They are NOT the same thing.

...snip...
This kid did something really fucking stupid. It's his own goddamned fault, and he put himself in that situation. What he was doing, in addition to being stupid, was wrong. But then, I do the wrong thing too, sometimes.

This kid does not deserve to die.

Like hell he doesn't. He chose, freely and voluntarily, to deal drugs in a country that very, very clearly says you will get the death penalty for doing so. He deserves it based on his actions. That's not dehumanizing anyone, that is recognizing that actions have consequences. That appears to be a concept you have difficulty comprehending.

BTW, that moronic nitpicking about him being a transporter is about as stupid as you can get; that's like saying the guy who drives the getaway car isn't really responsible for the bank robbery itself. :wally

[Clothahump]

You're an idiot and beneath my contempt. So this is the last time I'll respond to you.

Oh, ghods, Atticus - how will I ever survive without your responses?


Someday - maybe - you will learn that when you resort to ad hominem attacks like that, you are really admitting openly that you have no way to refute what was said originally. Your response, therefore, is quite similar to a 4 year old sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming, "LALALALALAI'MNOTLISTENINGTOYOU!!".
:wally

[Clothahump]

Actually, let me make this abundantly clear: "fuck you" does not even begin to describe my feelings about your attitude, Clothahump. To say "I am not rejoicing in the death of another human being," is simply so unmitigatedly evil and despicable that I am a loss for words strong enough to condemn you for it. Suffice it for me to say that you are a horrifyingly frightening and sick person, and that I am grateful beyond words that the majority of people do not seem to share your disgusting opinions.

Yes, I am that disturbed.

Well, let me make this abundantly clear: I don't care.

Amigo, I have cleaned up the results of drugs for way too many years of my life. I don't think you would have any problem with the death penalty for someone who kidnapped, repeatedly raped and tortured and then killed a young child, would you? I sure don't, and I think people who traffic in drugs are lower than that. Their victims and the families of the victims continue to suffer; in fact, the dealer's entire existance is predicated on that suffering.

And yet you claim that I am "a horrifyingly frightening and sick person", while showing sympathy to a drug dealer. What a twisted, perverted world you live in.

[Clothahump]

Indeed, the vast majority of dealers have never hurt a fly. If they did, the murder rate would be a hundred times what it is now.


You know, I would laugh at that if it weren't so fucking pathetic.

Stop and think about what you posted. Let's look at it up close: the vast majority of dealers have never hurt a fly. Your ignorance is astounding, amigo. Look at it again: the vast majority of dealers have never hurt a fly.

They are drug dealers, dammit! Their entire existance is built around hurting others!

I repeat: your ignorance is astounding.

From posts like yours and Grelby's and Atticus Finch's, I can see clearly why Cecil says that it's taking longer than we thought. You clowns sit around all self-righteous and smug and bitch at me because I live in the real world, and you haven't got fucking clue one about it. And you all claim you're disgusted by me because of that.

I'd give you a wally, but frankly a wally doesn't convey the contempt that I feel.

Feel free to flame away, but understand that by doing so, you're simply arguing my case for me.

[robertliguori]

A question for those of you who are pointing out that Singapore publishes their policy widely:

Assume that this young man's family states publically that they will retaliate with terrorist attacks on Singapore's law enforcement and governemnt if he is executed. Assuming that they do so, are the deaths of their victims their own fault, on the grounds that they were warned about the possible consequences of supporting Singapore?

'Of course not', I would expect to hear. 'Van Nguyen's family has no moral authority to kill government workers and law enforcement officers, especially as the vast majority of them are not directly responsible for their son's death.'

I claim that these exact same arguments can be made against Singapore's actions. Drug dealing does not necessarily produce the horrible consequences that those of us in the U.S.A. have seen, as various European nations have shown. Singapore cannot claim that drug dealing leads inexorably to violence and corruption. As for the second question: if drug dealing is not intrinisically evil, then it's damn stupid to kill people for it.

[pace]

I don't have any pity for this fellow's fate. Singapore is a wonderful country state, and its general population APPRECIATES the zero-tolerance criminal politicies which exist there because they ALL know it's to protect their social well being... they love and in fact, worship their country and all that it represents. If someone is going to take such ridiculous risks with their life (transporting drugs/drug dealing) through a country such as Singapore and get caught, then he/she must pay the piper.

[PunditLisa]

Execute Truong Van Nguyen? Just try it. See what happens then fuckers.

I realize you're upset but this kind of statement just makes you look irrational and ridiculous.

Whether we like it or not, other countries are autonomous and free to make their own laws, complete with punishments which we deem to be barbaric and unfair. It's for that very reason that I wouldn't ever consider marrying an Iraqi or Iranian man, let alone have children with him. Yet from time to time I'll read about some poor distraught woman who is desperately appealing to the United States government to rescue her children from these countries. Either she entered her husband's home country voluntarily or he kidnapped the kids and brought them there without her consent. Once in that country, his rights completely trump hers and she is powerless.

Does it suck? Absolutely. Is it fair? NO. Does her government have any authority to change it? NO.

IMO, one combats these unjustices by avoiding these countries like the plague. Before you marry a man who hails from a country where you will have zero legal rights, think long and hard about what you are doing. Before you deal drugs in a country where the punishment is to hang until dead, think long and hard about it.

No matter what you decide, at the very least acknowledge that your government, family, and church have no power to change things.

[TheLoadedDog]

The difference between Singapore and Iraq is that at least Iraq has never tried to pretend it is anything it's not. Singapore's the theme park happy happy joy joy city where nothing bad ever happens. It's also the place where Australian reporters have found that members of the public they've interviewed for their opinions on this have, if they're opposed to the hanging, invariably wanted to give a false name. I can't see that happening in your average man-in-the-street interview in Sydney or Los Angeles. The "interviewee asked to simply be known as Wendy" is usually reserved for people scared of The Mob or such, but not for an average citizen wanting to disagree with the government - unless you're in Singapore, it seems. Doesn't seem like a particularly healthy society to me.

[pace]

The difference between Singapore and Iraq ...

Your latest post gave me a good ROFLMAO!!! The best 200 calories burned yet!!!! :D Too bad the absurdity of it just shoots your rant down to pitiful blathering.

Singapore is beautiful, clean, disease free, about-as-crime-free as you can imagine, everyone strives for excellence, AND people do have legal rights... it truly is a Paradise :)

[neutron star]

You know, I would laugh at that if it weren't so fucking pathetic.

Stop and think about what you posted. Let's look at it up close: the vast majority of dealers have never hurt a fly. Your ignorance is astounding, amigo. Look at it again: the vast majority of dealers have never hurt a fly.

They are drug dealers, dammit! Their entire existance is built around hurting others!

Actually, their entire existence is built around the sale of potentially harmful products for which there is a lot of demand.

Feel free to flame away, but understand that by doing so, you're simply arguing my case for me.

Eh, I might flame you, but really, it's not worth it. You seem to have been getting dumber and dumber (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=346902) with each post you've made on the SDMB recently, but you have yet to reach the so-stupid-that-I-can't-stop-laughing point, so the whole thing really seems pointless.

I do wonder, though, how me flaming you would serve as an argument for your case. As I said quite truthfully earlier in the thread, I am not, and have never been, a dealer.

[kidchameleon]

Well, IMO the locals should get the same leniency. Mandatory death sentencing sucks dog's balls regardless of the nationality of the criminal. Of course, it only comes to our attention when one of our nationals is sentenced.

That's not the sort of set of beliefs I would have expected out of a 1920's Style Death Ray. :p

[antechinus]

They are drug dealers, dammit! Their entire existance is built around hurting others!

This is a very simplistic view of the world. Your posts are evidence that you are do not think deeply about issues such as these. It also shows that you are not only ignorant, but continue to ignore information that has been presented to you.

I am sorry to hear that drug abuse has so badly affected your life, but you have to keep in mind it is not the drugs per se, but the societal context that leads to harm.

Also remember that this thread is about the barbarity of a mandatory death penalty, not whether or not drugs are bad.

[Shagnasty]

This is a very simplistic view of the world. Your posts are evidence that you are do not think deeply about issues such as these. It also shows that you are not only ignorant, but continue to ignore information that has been presented to you.

I am sorry to hear that drug abuse has so badly affected your life, but you have to keep in mind it is not the drugs per se, but the societal context that leads to harm.


No, I have been around plenty of drug dealers too. Hard drugs, some even moreso than alcohol, can wreck a life, destroy finances, tear families apart, lead to health problems, and kill through overdose, bodily degeneration, or drug induced suicides and behaviors.

That is the sad fact about man versus substance when it becomes an addition. That is a physiological reality and not something you can wish away.

Hard drug dealers sell addiction and increasing misery to people that never would have believed they would get hooked on it. That is where the money is for them and they know a certain percentage will eventually get hooked and destroy their lives if they keep bringing it in and using their own brand of marketing enticements. That is what they depend on.

Fuck your "societal context" bullshit and get back to a postmodern literary criticism class where you belong.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

Well, IMO the locals should get the same leniency. Mandatory death sentencing sucks dog's balls regardless of the nationality of the criminal. Of course, it only comes to our attention when one of our nationals is sentenced.

Locals don't get any leniency. Regardless of country, creed or race, you got caught for smuggling drugs in, that's it. Manyf Singaporeans have been tried, and found guility of smuggling drugs before, and all have been executed. As there are so many of them, I sure each of will have a sad, tragic story why they have landed up in their straits. Absuive parents, hanging out with the wrong gang, gambling debts, pure stupidiness - I sure there's be one, or two, or even three or more with stories sadder than the one in spotlight.

But that doesn't help them No preferences were given for a local. How about a foreigner?

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

I claim that these exact same arguments can be made against Singapore's actions. Drug dealing does not necessarily produce the horrible consequences that those of us in the U.S.A. have seen, as various European nations have shown. Singapore cannot claim that drug dealing leads inexorably to violence and corruption. As for the second question: if drug dealing is not intrinisically evil, then it's damn stupid to kill people for it.

A country can make laws, a family...?

Just because it isn't a problem in USA or other European countries, doesn't mean that is not a problem for other countries. Why since did USA and other western countries become a yardstick for everything that's right and proper?

[Richard Pearse]

Locals don't get any leniency. Regardless of country, creed or race, you got caught for smuggling drugs in, that's it. Manyf Singaporeans have been tried, and found guility of smuggling drugs before, and all have been executed. As there are so many of them, I sure each of will have a sad, tragic story why they have landed up in their straits. Absuive parents, hanging out with the wrong gang, gambling debts, pure stupidiness - I sure there's be one, or two, or even three or more with stories sadder than the one in spotlight.

But that doesn't help them No preferences were given for a local. How about a foreigner?

Yes, I know. My point, short that it was, is that judges should have the ability to be lenient toboth local and foreign nationals. This point was in response to someone else saying (paraphrased) "why are you getting upset about the Aussie bloke and not the locals?" The reason we get upset about the Aussie bloke is that there is media coverage of him. This highlights the barbaric sentencing of both foreign and local nationals in Singapore.

I don't believe that anyone should be killed, ever, in any country, for any reason, unless they choose to be. Obviously this is an ideal that will never come to be.

kidchameleon, I used to be pro mandatory death sentencing. Up until we lost the "Death Ray" contract. Apparently the results from the "ray" were not terminal enough, even when the settings were increased fully clockwise to REALLY REALLY FATAL (NOT RECOMMENDED).

[Testy]

<SNIP>
It's for that very reason that I wouldn't ever consider marrying an Iraqi or Iranian man, let alone have children with him. Yet from time to time I'll read about some poor distraught woman who is desperately appealing to the United States government to rescue her children from these countries. Either she entered her husband's home country voluntarily or he kidnapped the kids and brought them there without her consent. Once in that country, his rights completely trump hers and she is powerless.

Does it suck? Absolutely. Is it fair? NO. Does her government have any authority to change it? NO.

IMO, one combats these unjustices by avoiding these countries like the plague. Before you marry a man who hails from a country where you will have zero legal rights, think long and hard about what you are doing. Before you deal drugs in a country where the punishment is to hang until dead, think long and hard about it.

No matter what you decide, at the very least acknowledge that your government, family, and church have no power to change things.

I wish there were more women with your attitude. There are a hell of a lot of women in Saudi from the US or the UK wandering around moaning about how "Abdullah or Mohammed was so different when she met him in her country. Now she's being forced to attend classes on her new religion, forced to wear a black sack whenever she gets out and mostly just forced to remain at home. Hubby has her passport and she couldn't leave anyway as she has no money and can't get through the immigration check without her husbands consent.

Regards

Testy

[TheLoadedDog]

Your latest post gave me a good ROFLMAO!!! The best 200 calories burned yet!!!! :D Too bad the absurdity of it just shoots your rant down to pitiful blathering.

Singapore is beautiful, clean, disease free, about-as-crime-free as you can imagine, everyone strives for excellence, AND people do have legal rights... it truly is a Paradise :)
You're dry. I like that.

[TheLoadedDog]

Just hitting the papers here..

Singapore has denied an Australian government request that Nguyen's mother be allowed to embrace him once before he dies.


Okay, so he's going to die. All avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

But this?


Cunts.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

Just hitting the papers here..

Singapore has denied an Australian government request that Nguyen's mother be allowed to embrace him once before he dies.


Okay, so he's going to die. All avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

But this?


Cunts.

Same thing. Locals don't get this boon either. Why shall Nguyen then, besides that his case has the media spotlight on it?

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

Same thing. Locals don't get this boon either. Why shall Nguyen then, besides that his case has the media spotlight on it?

Posted in haste.

Though I really do see nothing wrong with letting the mother see Nugyen for one last time. But I guess the authority really want to stick to the 'no exception' cause.

[Jurhael]

You couldn't convince me to go to Singapore. Especially not now. I'd rather eat pine cones in a forest shack then surrender my individual freedom to blog about how much the government sucks.

I know people love to claim that it's a paradise, but I think the price is way too high to consider even visiting. No thanks.

I wish there were more women with your attitude.

Don't worry. I have that same attitude.

[Johnny L.A.]

You couldn't convince me to go to Singapore.
When I was in L.A. people told me that Singapore was like Irvine, CA. That alone is enough to keep me out of that country.

But at least Irvine doesn't have a mandatory death sentence.

[Clothahump]

No, I have been around plenty of drug dealers too. Hard drugs, some even moreso than alcohol, can wreck a life, destroy finances, tear families apart, lead to health problems, and kill through overdose, bodily degeneration, or drug induced suicides and behaviors.

That is the sad fact about man versus substance when it becomes an addition. That is a physiological reality and not something you can wish away.

Hard drug dealers sell addiction and increasing misery to people that never would have believed they would get hooked on it. That is where the money is for them and they know a certain percentage will eventually get hooked and destroy their lives if they keep bringing it in and using their own brand of marketing enticements. That is what they depend on.

Fuck your "societal context" bullshit and get back to a postmodern literary criticism class where you belong.


Well stated!

[Ice Wolf]

Just hitting the papers here..

Singapore has denied an Australian government request that Nguyen's mother be allowed to embrace him once before he dies.


Okay, so he's going to die. All avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

But this?


Cunts.Sadly, to be expected. The condemned are ultimately dehumanised there, from what I read. Kept physically apart from visitors behind screens, so the idea of a hug was always going to be out, no matter what level of furore. And they usually hang in secret, so the passing of a human life in this way is just another faceless, featureless factory operation, necessary for the progress of the state ...

I have two hopes, actually. One, that this business ultimately ceases, and two, that it doesn't spread to other, more familiar places while we ourselves live in such fearfilled times.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Your latest post gave me a good ROFLMAO!!! The best 200 calories burned yet!!!! :D Too bad the absurdity of it just shoots your rant down to pitiful blathering.

Singapore is beautiful, clean, disease free, about-as-crime-free as you can imagine, everyone strives for excellence, AND people do have legal rights... it truly is a Paradise :)

Sounds like it, too.

[antechinus]

Fuck your "societal context" bullshit and get back to a postmodern literary criticism class where you belong.

Since you cannot understand this, I will help you with a few questions.
Why do addicts commit crimes to obtain money?
Why are communicable diseases readily tranfered between users?
Why is heroin often used to assist suicide?
Why do overdoses occur?
Why are adulterated substances injected, leading to harm of the user?

Now google 'harm minimisation'.

It is people with attitudes like yours that actually leads to this harm. Fortunately western society is slowly but surely progressing away from your simplistic mindset.

[even sven]

I'm against this in the way that I'm against all of the death penalty. But considering that my own country still practices this barbaric practice, this isn't very high on my "concern" list. And the fact that this guy specifically went to a country with the death penalty to commit his crimes takes it off completely.

[Johnny L.A.]

A healthy, loved human being, who made a mistake that didn't hurt anyone, will be dead in a matter of hours.

[Silentgoldfish]

A healthy, loved human being, who made a mistake that didn't hurt anyone, will be dead in a matter of hours.

A completely stupid fuckup was told if he did something he'd be killed. He did it. And now he's going to be killed.

Fuck him. Fuck him right in the ear.

This isn't injustice, it's natural selection.

[Shagnasty]

Since you cannot understand this, I will help you with a few questions.

I understand it just fine. I have known and talked with hundreds of people with drug and alcohol addictions in the last year alone. How many first-hand accounts do you get? You are about to be the one recognized as simplistic.


Why do addicts commit crimes to obtain money?

Because addiction leads to excessive consumption. It doesn't matter always if it is legal or not. Back when I still drank, my monthly alcohol bills were in the $800+ range a month and they were only that low because I didn't usually drink in bars. Many people couldn't afford that. There are popular illegal drugs like Oxycontin that are also prescribed drugs and Oxycontin addiction quickly strips users of cash even at pharmacy prices.

Here is where you answer.

Who is supposed to make the drugs in your world? Where do the profits go? Will they be subsidized so that any addict can afford any desired quantity for personal use? That is what it will take to greatly cut down on drug-related crime. The trad-off is that you will have people drugged out of their mine with a huge incentive to go to rehab removed. It also poses huge health risks up to and including the death of oneself and others.

Why are communicable diseases readily transferred between users?

Two reasons. 1) Users of injectable drugs tend to share needles 2) Drug users tend to engage in other risky behaviors like unsafe sex with other drug users.

I believe you are hinting at legal needles. There you go, being a simpleton again. Sure, needle programs are a good idea but that doesn't address the OP. It also doesn't stop the problem of diseases being transmitted through needle sharing. Drug users may just not have enough needles on hand sometime and decide that the risk is better than withdrawal.

Why is heroin often used to assist suicide?

I see, you are cunning. You throw random shit out there to see if profound incongruities will throw me off.

Back at ya. What is the sound of one hand clapping if Heller Keller feels it's wind?

Why do overdoses occur?

Because people take too much of the drug. This can be either from getting some drug that has a higher purity than usual or because the drugged state leads them to push their limits more and more until they die. Addiction can weaken bodily system like the heart and respiration so that their body just fails under the stress of drugs that they have tolerated before.

Why are adulterated substances injected, leading to harm of the user?

Because at some point in the supply chain, someone decided to artificially boost the supply of the drug with an adulterant.

I fail to see how that is supposed be an argument in favor on leniency for drug dealers and traffickers.

Now google 'harm minimisation'.

Cool, that Google sure is fast isn't it. All that stuff has to due with end users. We are talking about dealers and traffickers here. Can you please stay on topic? The one drug we really need around here is some Ritalin.


It is people with attitudes like yours that actually leads to this harm. Fortunately western society is slowly but surely progressing away from your simplistic mindset.

OK, your turn. What did any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Saying that parts of the War on Drugs here doesn't mean that it is a total waste nor does it mean that those results will apply to a country with strict control of its citizens.

You seem to advocate some wishy-washy sort of view that some hard drugs should be legal? How would that work? Outline the whole supply chain, how people get the supply to get them hooked in the first place, how desired quantities will be dispensed, and who will by the drugs for users that can't afford it?

Alcohol is our one major drug drug of abuse that is legal. Alcoholics make up about 10% of the adult population while addicts of all the other addictive drugs together (other than tobacco) make up somewhere between 2%- 4% of the population. What do you think will happen if we just legalize these drugs and sell them like alcohol. Alcohol usually takes many months to years to become addicted to even with frequent use. Drugs like Meth and Crack can turn a Wall-Street sensation into a crack whore in just a few months.

I have no idea what all this had to do with a scum bag you weighed his own risk balance and lost. I doubt you do either.

Anyway, what are you proposing and how would it work? The key words here are actionable ideas. Keep it less wishy-washy this time. It makes it sound like you are high right now.

[Johnny L.A.]

will be dead in a matter of hours.
I seem to have screwed up the International Date Line thing. He's scheduled to die in about 23 hours.

Anyway. The issue isn't 'He broke the Law Of The Land. The Law specifies death.' It's that his crime, by the standards of most civilised nations, does not deserve the death penalty. He didn't kill anyone. Since he was caught, the drugs he carried did not kill anyone. This was a first offense. Not even here in the States do we kill couriers. Yes, drugs are bad (M'kay?). I know someone who died of an overdose. I know others whose lives have been ruined by drugs. I still don't think that the courier should be killed. It's all very well to talk about 'drug dealers'. But they are still human beings. People can change. But only if they're alive. But no. People here are praising Singapore for killing this hapless schmuck. No doubt there will be high-fives when he's dead. Oh, yeah. Singapore is completely against drugs. They'll kill stupid kids who have done no harm. But when it comes to Burma, they turn a blind eye. Hypocritical bastards.

[Shagnasty]

I seem to have screwed up the International Date Line thing. He's scheduled to die in about 23 hours.

Anyway. The issue isn't 'He broke the Law Of The Land. The Law specifies death.' It's that his crime, by the standards of most civilised nations, does not deserve the death penalty. He didn't kill anyone. Since he was caught, the drugs he carried did not kill anyone.

How do you feel about the death penalty for treason if there is no direct proof that anyone would be killed by it and the intelligence was intercepted? Treason is often the highest ranking capital crime in western countries and sometimes the only crime where the death penalty is still allowed. I am not saying it is completely comparable but drug trafficking does threaten the core of what Singapore vigilantly tries to maintain. They have the right to send a strong and clear signal to people not to do those things in their country.

Check the newspapers during the next few weeks and you see that these jobs are all open despite great pay.

[Jurhael]

The drug laws, like prohibition in the past, tend to be disgustingly hypocritical.

I'm actually for the death penalty, but not in cases like this. I'm in the "legalize drugs" camp. That's sure to piss people off. I'd argue why, but others have stated it better than I have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-drug, but I sure as hell am pro-choice about it. Most people who do drugs choose to do and so demand it and when something is demanded, it's supplied. Keeping it illegal is actually part of the problem(drug dealers, cartels, etc), not the solution, but people just don't want to believe that.

The Aussie boy was stupid, but no way in hell does he deserve to die. I feel for him and his family and all those who have died because of laws like this. I'm sure people will be happy, but I won't be.

[Silentgoldfish]

Anyway. The issue isn't 'He broke the Law Of The Land. The Law specifies death.' It's that his crime, by the standards of most civilised nations, does not deserve the death penalty. He didn't kill anyone. Since he was caught, the drugs he carried did not kill anyone. This was a first offense. Not even here in the States do we kill couriers. Yes, drugs are bad (M'kay?). I know someone who died of an overdose. I know others whose lives have been ruined by drugs. I still don't think that the courier should be killed. It's all very well to talk about 'drug dealers'. But they are still human beings. People can change. But only if they're alive. But no. People here are praising Singapore for killing this hapless schmuck. No doubt there will be high-fives when he's dead. Oh, yeah. Singapore is completely against drugs. They'll kill stupid kids who have done no harm. But when it comes to Burma, they turn a blind eye. Hypocritical bastards.

That's all completely beside the point, you complete fucking idiot. It is well known that if you're caught with drugs in any way shape or form in Singapore the penalties are severe.

He knew this, and went through Singapore as a drug courier anyway.

If his crime was to wear black face paint and it was well known that wearing black face paint in Singapore carried the death penalty I'd have just as little sympathy for the little moron.

[Johnny L.A.]

That's all completely beside the point, you complete fucking idiot. It is well known that if you're caught with drugs in any way shape or form in Singapore the penalties are severe.

He knew this, and went through Singapore as a drug courier anyway.

If his crime was to wear black face paint and it was well known that wearing black face paint in Singapore carried the death penalty I'd have just as little sympathy for the little moron.
No, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that that's the law in Singapore. What matters is that Singapore's law is wrong. Killing a courier is absolutely an unfair punishment. Another poster pointed out that simply being Jewish in Germany 60 -odd years ago was punishable by death. Do you agree that it was okay to kill them? After all, their executions were perfectly acceptable under the law. People are being shot to death in North Korea today for speaking against the government. Why not? It's against the law. Line 'em up!

This is not justice. The law is wrong.

[Boo Boo Foo]

blah blah blah blah...

you complete fucking idiot.

blah blah blah blahQuestion? Is THAT how you speak to people in real life? If it is, I assure you that people are only hearing what I've quoted above in the way I've quoted it. Namely, the message totally disappears and only the personal attack remains. If that's the way you talk to people in real life, that's unbelievably sad - for the people who have to put up with it.

[Shagnasty]

No, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that that's the law in Singapore. What matters is that Singapore's law is wrong.

Why is the death penalty "wrong" in this case? If I say it is "right" two times does that cancel out yours? Drug trafficking is wrong on many levels and directly affects other people up to and including death of users and innocents. It is in no way comparable to simply "being" Jewish or anything else. It is an actively chosen and plotted crime with great risks to individuals and societies.

How is the law wrong in your own words? You must be evaluating it according to some external criteria. Is it direct from the word of God or is just part of a quasi-religious humanistic belief? Where did you get this information and how did you process it?

I just look at it like Singapore really doesn't want drugs in their country. That is understandable and it is hardly a victimless crime. People know the consequences and the reason for engaging in it is almost purely financial. I see no problem in opening it up detention, whipping, the death penalty, or live slow dissection if that is what they think is best.

The opt-out plan on that deal is unusually straightforward.

[Shagnasty]

Question? Is THAT how you speak to people in real life? If it is, I assure you that people are only hearing what I've quoted above in the way I've quoted it. Namely, the message totally disappears and only the personal attack remains. If that's the way you talk to people in real life, that's unbelievably sad - for the people who have to put up with it.

You aren't supposed to misquote people you fucking idiot. Don't lecture until you get your own shit straight.

[Johnny L.A.]

Is it direct from the word of God?
'Thou Shalt Not Kill.' -- God

More to the point:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself,
And earthly power then doth show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.
-- Portia, The Merchant Of venice, Act IV, Scene I, William Shakespeare

[Shagnasty]

The quality of mercy is not strain'd
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath; it is twice bless'd;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself,
And earthly power then doth show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.
-- Portia, The Merchant Of venice, Act IV, Scene I, William Shakespeare

Well, I could post some unknown foreign language poem too but what would that prove?

[Boo Boo Foo]

You aren't supposed to misquote people you fucking idiot. Don't lecture until you get your own shit straight.Oh bullshit... what are you saying? That because I chose to demonstrate my point in a manner which you don't approve of, that the message is now somehow magically invalid?

Sure, I could have quoted all of the original quote... I could have bolded what I needed to. Or, alternatively, I could have used the "<snip>" tags which are so common too. All of which would have met your standards, and then what would you have said about my point? That it was still invalid? The message still stands...

I used the words "blah blah blah blah <insert personal attack here> blah blah blah" to demonstrate how a personal attack on someone drowns out the message. But if you're gonna try and argue that inserting "blah blah blah blah" into a quote instead of "<snip>" somehow invalidates my point, I'm just gonna think of an ostrich with it's head in the sand.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

'Thou Shalt Not Kill.' -- God



Some Bible scholars would argue that this means "Thou shall not murder", but going in that direction will be a hijack.

[fluiddruid]

Oh bullshit... what are you saying? That because I chose to demonstrate my point in a manner which you don't approve of, that the message is now somehow magically invalid?

Sure, I could have quoted all of the original quote... I could have bolded what I needed to. Or, alternatively, I could have used the "<snip>" tags which are so common too. Yes, you could have, but you didn't. You misquoted, and that is a rules violation.

Boo Boo Foo, regardless of your opinions of another poster, you are NOT allowed to misquote them, even obviously. Emphasis or truncating for length are acceptable (when noted in the quotation). This is the Pit, so call them out if you feel that you must, but misquoting is a definite rules violation and is not permitted. Misquoting is in fact a bannable offense and we take it seriously.

This is an official Warning. Do not do this again.

[kambuckta]

This thread has gone off on all sorts of tangents I see, and I'd like to make my personal position clear again, just for the record.

I don't like drugs. I especially don't like heroin, because I have seen many of my friends over the years fuck up badly, both lifestyle-wise and health-wise. I'm really not sure if I would like to see drug-use legalised, although I do believe that a 'register of addicts' who were able to obtain subsistence quantities of heroin for personal use might go some way towards alleviating some of the problems that many communities experience with crime/street dealing and the like.

I am in no way attempting to minimize the culpability of Van Nguyen's actions. There is no excuse for what he did, which was attempting to import drugs into Australia. He is guilty as charged and convicted.

My gripe is with the imposition of the death sentence, and in particular, a MANDATORY death sentence. And this raises the question of what the purpose of the punishment is.

Historically, crime sanctions have been imposed for three reasons: Deterrence, Retribution, and Rehabilitation. In most civilised nations, the judiciary are entrusted with the ability to determine which factor/s will influence the sentence they bring down. That's why we have judges. They are especially educated and experienced to examine the evidence and the circumstances of the crime and then impose a sentence that is appropriate for that particular criminal and that particular crime. It is not an exact science, of course, and sometimes judges and juries get it wrong. Sometimes they impose overly lenient sanctions upon convicted criminals (who then go on to repeat their offenses) or they call for severe penalties (when the criminal has committed a reasonably petty crime).

And, as has been recently shown in the US situation, sometimes the ultimate punishment, the death penalty, has been wrongly applied to a person who is innocent of the crime.

But, anyway, apart from all of that rambling...........

If the Singaporean judiciary thought that Nguyen warranted retribution for trafficking drugs through their country, then a long prison sentence would be adequate.

If the Singaporean judiciary, after hearing all the evidence and stuff in the case considered Nguyen a possible candidate for being rehabilitated, then a long prison sentence would have been adequate as well. By the way, most of the info coming out of Singapore now is that Van would have been rehabilitated wonderfully.

However, there was no role for the judges in this case. They had no input whatsover. Regardless of their opinions about the nature of the crime and the criminal, the Singaporean government has decreed that Nguyen be put to death.

Which means that Van Nguyen is being hanged tomorrow morning solely to deter others from doing what he did.

Which means that the next time someone is caught transporting drugs (which will happen, either next week, or next month.......) that Van's death will have been totally pointless.

Which also means that the judicial system in Singapore is a complete farce. Why have judges if they are allowed no jurisdiction??


For those who laugh and claim there is nothing really much I can do about this, you may be right. However, tomorrow morning, at 6.00 am Singapore Time, I will be ringing my Utilities provider (Gas) to cancel my account (TXU for those Victorians and South Aussie's who are interested) and also cancelling my Mobile Phone subscription (Optus, again for those who are interested) because they are majority owned by Singaporean companies. I will probably be crying as I do so.

It may not be much at all, just my own pathetic little boycott, but there are many others here in Australia (and indeed across the world) who are as outraged by the actions of Singapore as I am.


I still feel sick. I just wish the whole fucken mess would go away. Roll on execution time for Truong Van Nguyen so this can all be over.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Rune]

I wish there were more women with your attitude. There are a hell of a lot of women in Saudi from the US or the UK wandering around moaning about how "Abdullah or Mohammed was so different when she met him in her country. Now she's being forced to attend classes on her new religion, forced to wear a black sack whenever she gets out and mostly just forced to remain at home. Hubby has her passport and she couldn't leave anyway as she has no money and can't get through the immigration check without her husbands consent.Guess the state department shouldn’t have let itself be pressured to remove their circular on US marriages with Saudi nationals. SAUDI ARABIA — MARRIAGE TO SAUDIS (http://www.victimsofsaudikidnapping.org/kidnappings/saudi-marriages.html)

[kambuckta]

Guess the state department shouldn’t have let itself be pressured to remove their circular on US marriages with Saudi nationals. SAUDI ARABIA — MARRIAGE TO SAUDIS (http://www.victimsofsaudikidnapping.org/kidnappings/saudi-marriages.html)

Rune, with all due respects, this has naff-all to do with my OP.

If you feel vehement enough about it, perhaps you should start your own thread.

I'd contribute my own Humble Opinion as well, for good measure!!

:D

[kambuckta]

I'm going to bed now. It's 10.30 here.

It's 7.30pm in Singapore, and Van is probably in bed too.

I can't imagine how he will be sleeping tonight, or if he will sleep at all. I cannot comprehend knowing that in the pre-dawn light of 6.00 am, there will be a rope tied around his neck, and the earth will drop from his feet.

And he will die. Hopefully he will die instantly. There is no guarantee of that of course.

In my local paper the other day, there was a letter from a woman who's husband had committed suicide by hanging. She expressed her distress especially at having to find her husband's body after the event. Death by hanging is not nice, and it would behove the Singaporean government officials who have decreed this to be present when Van Nguyen takes his punishment.

I bet you they don't though.

Again, fuck you Singapore. If you're prepared to dole out the punishment, then at least have the courage to witness the event.

[Monty]

kambucta:

Nguyen attempted to import drugs to Australia through Singapore. As the government of Singapore has jurisdiction over its own territory, Nguyen subjected himself to its jurisdiction in this matter by committing a crime against their law in their territory. It's not just the Prime Minister or the court who's decreed the man will be executed--it's the law in that particular country. And, for your information, Singapore does have a legislature. It appears in your rants...er, post above that you're not aware of that.

[Ice Wolf]

kambuckta said: "Historically, crime sanctions have been imposed for three reasons: Deterrence, Retribution, and Rehabilitation." But there is a fourth reason - disposal. As most instances of the DP are done in Singapore in secret, this fourth reason would seem more important there than the lip-service done to "deterrance".

Mandatory sentences exist elsewhere in the world for offences, but this one attracts ire because it is the for the ultimate punishment, the extinction of life.

I urge again -- don't just have a weepie while you're changing your telephone account from one dodgily-connected multi-national corporate to another who'll likely piss you off for something else in another wee while. Get active, support groups like Amnesty International, lobby your government to move their arse and actually oppose what their friends and allies are doing to people in the name of justice, rather than simply react as part the media-driven wave of public indignation.

[TheLoadedDog]

kambucta:

Nguyen attempted to import drugs to Australia through Singapore. As the government of Singapore has jurisdiction over its own territory, Nguyen subjected himself to its jurisdiction in this matter by committing a crime against their law in their territory. It's not just the Prime Minister or the court who's decreed the man will be executed--it's the law in that particular country. And, for your information, Singapore does have a legislature. It appears in your rants...er, post above that you're not aware of that.
I think you've misread her post. It's the legislature she's upset with - for imposing mandatory sentences when sentencing should be the job of the judiciary.

[Uvula Donor]

Death by hanging is not nice. . .

But muling drugs to pay your drug-dealer brother's legal fees? That's peachy-keen.

[PunditLisa]

Which means that Van Nguyen is being hanged tomorrow morning solely to deter others from doing what he did.

Which means that the next time someone is caught transporting drugs (which will happen, either next week, or next month.......) that Van's death will have been totally pointless.



Ah, but there are undoubtedly other drug runners who HAVE been deterred by Nguyen's execution. And that is precisely the point.

Brutal? Undoubtedly. Effective? Quite.

[Johnny L.A.]

Effective? Quite.
From here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/is-capital-punishment-a-deterrent/2005/12/01/1133311147494.html):
A report that examined the 74 studies into the the death penalty over a 51-year period found no evidence that executing offenders had a deterrent effect on crime...

"Some studies even found the opposite - a 'brutalisation effect' - that when the state sanctions violence, levels of violence increase."

[Ice Wolf]

Ah, but there are undoubtedly other drug runners who HAVE been deterred by Nguyen's execution. And that is precisely the point.

Brutal? Undoubtedly. Effective? Quite.They'll try to limit the risk of being caught in Singapore, yes. But the fact that Singapore has been hanging drug traffickers for some time now makes mockery of the "deterrant" case. Effective? No.

[Shagnasty]

They'll try to limit the risk of being caught in Singapore, yes. But the fact that Singapore has been hanging drug traffickers for some time now makes mockery of the "deterrant" case. Effective? No.

We have been jailing murderers since before this country was founded. People still do it. We will never win. I propose we end this War on Murder now because we know that some people just won't listen and are going to do it anyway.

Effective. No.

[Ice Wolf]

We have been jailing murderers since before this country was founded. People still do it. We will never win. I propose we end this War on Murder now because we know that some people just won't listen and are going to do it anyway.

Effective. No.The effectiveness of the DP was in question here, not jail, Shagnasty. DP supporters talk of the deterrent value. That value is questionable because, as you say, folk will still go out and do the dumbest things. Should we keep on hanging them anyway? No. Lock them up? That's another discussion entirely.

[Shagnasty]

Originally posted by Johnny LA

A report that examined the 74 studies into the the death penalty over a 51-year period found no evidence that executing offenders had a deterrent effect on crime...

"Some studies even found the opposite - a 'brutalisation effect' - that when the state sanctions violence, levels of violence increase."

Can you say lack of proper control groups? Those types of studies have little meaning. You can't really compare the same society over time because of many other changing factors. You also can't directly compare other societies to each other for the same reasons. That type of analysis is extremely difficult to do well and I question the honesty or the agenda of anyone that trots this out on either side.

Common sense will tell you that there must be someone, somewhere that has been deterred by the death penalty especially for the deliberate types of crimes that it is used for. That would put the effect at >0 even if it just deters a few people and saves a handful of lives.

I don't buy this "brutalization" crap. That is a contruct made up for the author's own fanatsies. Executions aren't televised and they aren't done that frequently even if you look at Texas. What type of person would hear about an execution for a serious crime and be more likely to commit that crime himself? I guess it would be the same guy that hears about all these people in jail and figures that kidnapping must be Ok too.

[TheLoadedDog]

Mr Nguyen is dead.



:(

[Captain Amazing]

I still feel sick. I just wish the whole fucken mess would go away. Roll on execution time for Truong Van Nguyen so this can all be over.


If I could ask a serious question, why do you feel sick about it? I mean, I can understand you thinking that the man shouldn't have been executed, but why are you taking this personally? I mean, you don't know him, you're not a family member, he's not an innocent man put to death...he even confessed his guilt, so there's no suspicion he was punished for a crime he didn't commit, and his death likely was quick and painless. The method of hanging used in Singapore breaks the neck and snaps the spinal cord, so that the hanged man dies instantly.

So why are you physically upset by his death, when, I'd imagine, you wouldn't be so upset if he had been hit by a bus, which would undoubtedly be a more painful death, and one less deserved.

[TheLoadedDog]

If I could ask a serious question, why do you feel sick about it? I mean, I can understand you thinking that the man shouldn't have been executed, but why are you taking this personally? I mean, you don't know him, you're not a family member, he's not an innocent man put to death...he even confessed his guilt, so there's no suspicion he was punished for a crime he didn't commit, and his death likely was quick and painless. The method of hanging used in Singapore breaks the neck and snaps the spinal cord, so that the hanged man dies instantly.

So why are you physically upset by his death, when, I'd imagine, you wouldn't be so upset if he had been hit by a bus, which would undoubtedly be a more painful death, and one less deserved.
Getting hit by a bus is one thing. Being told "you're going to be hit by a bus at specific point x in future" is quite another. I wouldn't call this painless.

BTW, are you totally sure it's instant? Hanging is supposed to snap the spinal cord, but doesn't always go to plan.

[Jurhael]

Mr Nguyen is dead.

Already? I thought there'd be a couple more hours left.

Sad. Just sad. Hopefully he died instantly.

[Captain Amazing]

BTW, are you totally sure it's instant? Hanging is supposed to snap the spinal cord, but doesn't always go to plan.

It should be, assuming the hangman is competant, and they do enough hanging over there that he should be. There are two ways to hang someone..."short drop" hanging, which was used in the bad old days, and in things like suicides or lynchings, wherein the person is strangled on the rope, and dies slowly and painfully, sometimes taking up to half an hour to die, and "long drop" hanging, which Mr. Nguyen suffered, which, like I said, causes a broken neck and snapped spinal cord.

And when I said painless, I meant physically painless. I'm sure knowing he was going to be hanged caused Mr. Nguyen mental distress.

[kambuckta]

Thank fuck it's all over.

God Bless Singapore.

[Shagnasty]

Can anyone confirm what I have heard in passing other places? He was snuggling drugs to help pay his brother's debts. I heard that the reason his brother racked up so much debt was because:

His brother had thousands of dollars in legal bills racked up to defend him on drug charges :smack:

[TheLoadedDog]

Can anyone confirm what I have heard in passing other places? He was snuggling drugs to help pay his brother's debts. I heard that the reason his brother racked up so much debt was because:

His brother had thousands of dollars in legal bills racked up to defend him on drug charges :smack:
Yes. His brother was a scumbag by all accounts. That has nothing to do with Van's character who loved him as his twin.

You can read about it in this Sydney Morning Herald article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/when-they-were-two-little-boys/2005/12/01/1133422052414.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)
(if link has gone to registration by the time you click on it, enter 'gdope' as both username and password)

By the early 1990s, he and his brother were at Glen Waverley Secondary College. A teacher, who did not want to be named, remembers them as being almost inseparable. But that was because Van seemed determined to keep the wayward Khoa out of trouble.

One friend said Van had a confidence beyond his years. "He probably grew up before his time," she said. "Maybe he had more responsibility at that age than I did. It just showed in stuff, like how he looked after you."

{snip}


His lawyer, Lex Lasry, QC, recalled his first impression of Van. "The person we first met was a 22-year-old, slightly smart-arsey young Australian … He'd been around … was trying to do the right thing but occasionally did the wrong thing and thought he could talk his way out."

But Van had stayed clear of the law and had no Australian criminal record. Still, he often found himself in court to support his brother. Khoa was implicated last year in a vicious attack on a group of young men, one of whom he seriously wounded. He was given a three-year suspended prison sentence.

Khoa's solicitor, Brett Ryan, remembered Van years ago as a "pleasant, nice young man", but after his brother's arrest he underwent an "enormous personal change".

Late in 2002, Van began preparing for his first, and last, overseas trip since leaving Thailand as a baby. He suddenly told his mother he needed a "holiday", but in reality was desperate to make some cash. As it turns out, a Chinese man in Melbourne named Tan had offered a solution.

[kambuckta]

Can anyone confirm what I have heard in passing other places? He was snuggling drugs to help pay his brother's debts. I heard that the reason his brother racked up so much debt was because:

His brother had thousands of dollars in legal bills racked up to defend him on drug charges :smack:

That is my understanding.

Khoa, (his twin brother) had been in much strife over the years due to a heroin addiction, and had in fact done some time in prison (here) himself.

I read a brief biography of the family a couple of days ago, and it seems that Van had adopted the role of the 'man of the house' as per Vietnamese customs. It was his task to try to keep his younger twin out of trouble, and raising the money to help pay his legal bills was indeed part of that.

[kambuckta]

Ah, seems that TLD has beaten me to it. :smack:

And yeah, that was the article I read too.

[Johnny L.A.]

o man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

- John Donne (1573-1631)

[Johnny L.A.]

Of course, that should read 'No man is an island'.

[kambuckta]

If I could ask a serious question, why do you feel sick about it?

I'm really not sure myself actually. As you pointed out, I didn't know Van and had absolutely no personal involvement in the case whatsoever.

I guess the only thing I can suggest is that whenever I thought about it (which has been constantly over the past days and weeks) I would try to imagine how he would be feeling, knowing that his death was imminent. To know that while you are living and breathing now, in a few days or hours or minutes, you will cease to exist. If it had been me, I would have been living in a state of constant intense fear yet unable to do anything to alleviate the dread of what was to happen. Just thinking about it, imagining myself in his shoes got my adrenaline going too and perhaps that biochemical reaction left me feeling ill.

And now I feel nothing at all.

[Shagnasty]

I'm really not sure myself actually. As you pointed out, I didn't know Van and had absolutely no personal involvement in the case whatsoever.

I guess the only thing I can suggest is that whenever I thought about it (which has been constantly over the past days and weeks) I would try to imagine how he would be feeling, knowing that his death was imminent. To know that while you are living and breathing now, in a few days or hours or minutes, you will cease to exist. If it had been me, I would have been living in a state of constant intense fear yet unable to do anything to alleviate the dread of what was to happen. Just thinking about it, imagining myself in his shoes got my adrenaline going too and perhaps that biochemical reaction left me feeling ill.

I won't criticize you for this because I feel a little the same way even though I have drawn an opposite conclusion. I am just mystified that people put so much energy into this type of thing. It seems to be some kind of bizarre fixation for some that transcends both reason and practicality.

I guess it is like a high stakes reality show that frightens many people and makes them very aware of mortality which is a frightening thing. They become involved in it themselves as they follow the news and the game has a shocking finale.

However, there were thousands of people killed today doing stupid things. Many of them weren't doing anything immoral and they couldn't see the consequences as clearly as this man should have. I don't know their names but you might know one if it struck your area today. It will happen tomorrow too. why does this guy and others like him draw so much emotion when they are one of the few that had direct control over their own death.

[TheLoadedDog]

I won't criticize you for this because I feel a little the same way even though I have drawn an opposite conclusion. I am just mystified that people put so much energy into this type of thing. It seems to be some kind of bizarre fixation for some that transcends both reason and practicality.

I guess it is like a high stakes reality show that frightens many people and makes them very aware of mortality which is a frightening thing. They become involved in it themselves as they follow the news and the game has a shocking finale.

However, there were thousands of people killed today doing stupid things. Many of them weren't doing anything immoral and they couldn't see the consequences as clearly as this man should have. I don't know their names but you might know one if it struck your area today. It will happen tomorrow too. why does this guy and others like him draw so much emotion when they are one of the few that had direct control over their own death.
You're right of course. But, I dunno... this sort of case is different because the kid sniffing glue, or shooting smack, or car surfing or whatever doesn't really think it will happen to them. Indeed Van Nguyen doubtless thought he'd get away with smuggling heroin too. The difference here is that whilst they are all stupid things to do, any death involved is not premeditated. Foolish not to consider it is a strong possibility? Sure. But young men are young men and they think they are invincible. The shocking part of this is where the death doesn't (directly at least) occur as a result of stupidity, but rather as a result of cold, thought-out legislation that was drawn up by law-abiding, mature adults. Especially galling, as mentioned a lot already in this thread, is the mandatory nature of the thing.

Mr Nguyen's life is worth no more than that of Joe Public hit by a car, or any of the kids who'll die today in Africa, or a cancer sufferer.. But there is, especially coming from a non-DP country, something a bit chilling about the quietly planned nature of this particular death: "Our country provides hospitals, doctors, safety regulations etc to preserve life. However, we had decided that we're going to kill you. Here is the date and time. Have a nice day."

[Monty]

Minor point if you don't mind: Vietnamese generally don't go by their middle names, especially in the case of a male whose middle name is likely to be Van, as that means "male." So, if you're going to imply some familiarity with the recently executed criminal, perhaps you should use his personal name, not his gender.

[kambuckta]

Monty, beg to differ, but Mr Nguyen referred to himself as Van. I was not implying a familiarity or otherwise.

[Monty]

BTW, I'm personally opposed to the death penalty. I don't think it's the best idea on the planet. I'm also opposed to drug smuggling.

[Monty]

Monty, beg to differ, but Mr Nguyen referred to himself as Van. I was not implying a familiarity or otherwise.
Thanks, kambuckta. That's interesting because, as I said above, that's not a general thing with the Vietnamese. Perhaps it's because of where he grew up and Van is a lot more "Australian" than Trong?

[Jurhael]

I can't begin to imagine how the brother must be feeling. The guilt must be unbelivable...

[kambuckta]

Some of those Vietnamese names are absolute doozies aren't they? :p

Yeah, I suspect that when Van was in school, the other kids might have had a couple of problems pronouncing Truong. It should have been ok when he was little and living in Richmond (a suburb of Melbourne with a predominantly Vietnamese population) but when he moved to the outer burbs, he probably decided it was easier to adopt the name Van than re-educate the ignorant masses.

[neutron star]

Because addiction leads to excessive consumption. It doesn't matter always if it is legal or not. Back when I still drank, my monthly alcohol bills were in the $800+ range a month and they were only that low because I didn't usually drink in bars. Many people couldn't afford that. There are popular illegal drugs like Oxycontin that are also prescribed drugs and Oxycontin addiction quickly strips users of cash even at pharmacy prices.

Lower prices reduce the harm; they don't eliminate it entirely. Obviously, many people can't afford $800 a month, but almost nobody can afford $10,000 a month. Less money needed by desperate addicts means less money stolen by desperate addicts.

Who is supposed to make the drugs in your world?

What kind of question is that? Who makes the drugs we have now? Who is currently manufacturing a drug (fentanyl) that's at least an order of magnitude stronger than heroin?

If current pharmaceutical companies ignored easy profits by refusing to produce drugs for addicts (HA!), I'm sure other businesses (properly regulated, of course) would step in to fill the void.

Where do the profits go?

To companies with employees that will pay taxes on their wages, rather than the untaxable wallets of those you despise.

Will they be subsidized so that any addict can afford any desired quantity for personal use?

No. We don't do it with alcoholics and heavy tobacco smokers, do we? Again, the point of all of this is not to somehow realize the pie-in-the-sky goal of completely eliminating criminal actions related to addiction, but to actually be realistic about the situation and try to reduce those harms.

I fail to see how that is supposed be an argument in favor on leniency for drug dealers and traffickers.

Obviously, parts of this thread have veered off into semi-related hijacks. He's advocating the benefits of legalization from the perspective of the health of the users. So far you've directly contributed to that hijack, but now that you come up against something that isn't arguable by any stretch of the imagination, you dodge it by basically saying, "Whoah! Hold on guys! We'd better get back to the OP!"

Nice one...

We are talking about dealers and traffickers here. Can you please stay on topic?

Can you wrap your head around the fact that there wouldn't be dealers and traffickers if a well-implemented legalize-and-moderately-tax plan were adopted? Wouldn't it be nice to see the illegal earnings of Colombia's FARC rebel army cut by 75%? The argument cuts to the root of the topic.

Alcohol is our one major drug drug of abuse that is legal. Alcoholics make up about 10% of the adult population while addicts of all the other addictive drugs together (other than tobacco) make up somewhere between 2%- 4% of the population. What do you think will happen if we just legalize these drugs and sell them like alcohol.

If they made every drug legal tomorrow, would you grab for the nearest crack pipe? I'm know I wouldn't, and I doubt that most other casual drinkers would, either. When heroin was available OTC, did we wind up with a nation of junkies? When it was criminalized, did speakeasy opium dens pop up on every corner? Of course not.

Alcohol just happens to be the drug of choice for a far higher percentage of the population than any other. Look at a place like Holland, for example: marijuana is decriminalized and has usage rates comparable to our own, yet alcohol taxes are higher than those of the U.S., and somehow they manage to drink even more than we do!

Alcohol usually takes many months to years to become addicted to even with frequent use. Drugs like Meth and Crack can turn a Wall-Street sensation into a crack whore in just a few months.

Got a cite for the assertion that those drugs snare addicts in faster than alcohol? (Anecdotally, it took me a hell of a lot less than a few months to get addicted to nice-and-legal nicotine.)

[Monty]

Some of those Vietnamese names are absolute doozies aren't they? :p
Yeah, it could be worse, though. He could've been named Phuc.

And I could've spelled his actual first name correctly above.

[Miller]

You're right of course. But, I dunno... this sort of case is different because the kid sniffing glue, or shooting smack, or car surfing or whatever doesn't really think it will happen to them. Indeed Van Nguyen doubtless thought he'd get away with smuggling heroin too. The difference here is that whilst they are all stupid things to do, any death involved is not premeditated. Foolish not to consider it is a strong possibility? Sure. But young men are young men and they think they are invincible. The shocking part of this is where the death doesn't (directly at least) occur as a result of stupidity, but rather as a result of cold, thought-out legislation that was drawn up by law-abiding, mature adults. Especially galling, as mentioned a lot already in this thread, is the mandatory nature of the thing.

Mr Nguyen's life is worth no more than that of Joe Public hit by a car, or any of the kids who'll die today in Africa, or a cancer sufferer.. But there is, especially coming from a non-DP country, something a bit chilling about the quietly planned nature of this particular death: "Our country provides hospitals, doctors, safety regulations etc to preserve life. However, we had decided that we're going to kill you. Here is the date and time. Have a nice day."

What he said. I'd be sad to hear some random stranger got run over by a bus. I'd be horrified to hear the bus driver gunned it and purposeully ran the guy down. It's not the fact that this guy is dead that's so awful, it's that it was as a result of deliberate human action with the intent of killing him that makes me sick.

[Shagnasty]

What he said. I'd be sad to hear some random stranger got run over by a bus. I'd be horrified to hear the bus driver gunned it and purposeully ran the guy down. It's not the fact that this guy is dead that's so awful, it's that it was as a result of deliberate human action with the intent of killing him that makes me sick.

There is a disconnect in our reasoning here. I am not criticizing, merely observing. Your example shows that people see this in a fundamentally different way than others. The bus driver ran down an innocent person who had no knowledge and little control over the situation.

Our hero:
1) Was guilty of a serious crime that put others at risk.
2) Decided consciously that the high pay was a good trade off for the risk
3) Lost the bet on his terms.

It is the conscious choice versus forced situation, guilty versus innocent thing that makes this as clear as night and day in my mind. Others don't see that and I don't understand why all people and situations are lumped into the same category in your minds.

It is almost a quasi-religious belief that is taken as faith by some of you. I am agnostic. I believe that humans are just one more animal albeit one with more understanding to understand the consequences of their actions than other animals. People develop guidelines for when dogs and other animals need to be put down to minimize danger to others. We don't pick them out at random to do it. That would be ridiculous. The aggressive ones and the ones that have shown poor behavior patterns are put down. Humans are the same way. We don't just put people down for every crime and we don't do it without reason. Some we send them to live in a protected environment and others we destroy. The guidelines are movable but at no point should we create a deity in ourselves that we don't recognize the practical benefits of using every choice just as a matter of radical humanistic indoctrination.

The death penalty is repulsive to some people because they don't like to think about our own mortality and the death penalty makes us play that scenario in our minds very vividly even while thousands of innocent others are dropping down around us.

Everyone will die. That includes you, your parents, and your children. For some of them, it will early, painful, and may be because of one of these people that may warrant the death penalty.

Everyone gets the death penalty - this is just the early out program for those who have forfeited the rest of there short time on earth through actions that have damaged that of other people.

[Denis]

I guess I'm anti-progress, anti-rule of law, and anti-prosperity.
What happened to this loyal-to-his-family young man makes me feel nothing but contempt and dread for the government of Singapore. Fuck 'em.

I don't give a shit about drug abuse, drug dealing deaths, crime, all those happy bullshit statistics.

A man died because he wanted to help his brother.

Fuck Singapore.

Goddam fascists.

[TheLoadedDog]

Some of those Vietnamese names are absolute doozies aren't they? :p

Yeah, I suspect that when Van was in school, the other kids might have had a couple of problems pronouncing Truong. It should have been ok when he was little and living in Richmond (a suburb of Melbourne with a predominantly Vietnamese population) but when he moved to the outer burbs, he probably decided it was easier to adopt the name Van than re-educate the ignorant masses.
Yes, that's quite common. My ex-missus was named Kim Phuong (she was Phuong to all the Vietnamese we knew and Kim to all the Aussies). My friend Kim Hoa does likewise (she's also dropped the gender-identifying Thi from the front).

[Silentgoldfish]

I guess I'm anti-progress, anti-rule of law, and anti-prosperity.


You're pro-stupid, that's for sure.

[Sevastopol]

Too sick to read this thread or comment.

[Monty]

I guess I'm anti-progress, anti-rule of law, and anti-prosperity.

Perhaps.

What happened to this loyal-to-his-family young man makes me feel nothing but contempt and dread for the government of Singapore. Fuck 'em.

Did Singapore keep the details of their law secret? As to the man being loyal to his family, perhaps you could explain how entering a life of crime is a boon to the family.

I don't give a shit about drug abuse, drug dealing deaths, crime, all those happy bullshit statistics.

Do tell.

A man died because he wanted to help his brother.

You really should complete the statement: A man died because he wanted to help his brother by illegally transporting illicit drugs through a country with a very real and applied "no tolerance" law about that stuff.
Fuck Singapore.

Goddam fascists.[/QUOTE]

[Monty]

Drat. Left off something and messed up the coding, to boot (neat pun, huh?)!

Goddam fascists.
You wouldn't happen to have any proof that there's anything at all resembling fascism in Singapore, I mean other than that you just don't like them arresting someone, giving him a fair trial, and applying their law to the sentencing?

[TheLoadedDog]

Yes, Monty, the laws regarding trafficking in hard drugs in Singapore are well known, and they are constitutional under the sovereignty of that particular nation state. This doesn't make them right though. After all, you might have argued the same thing about southern slavery. Unjust laws need to be opposed vigorously, regardless of the "when in Rome" principle.

[Mangetout]

Yes, Monty, the laws regarding trafficking in hard drugs in Singapore are well known, and they are constitutional under the sovereignty of that particular nation state. This doesn't make them right though. After all, you might have argued the same thing about southern slavery. Unjust laws need to be opposed vigorously, regardless of the "when in Rome" principle.Except slavery wasn't something that the participants (the slaves, that is) had much choice about; smuggling drugs into Singapore is something you have a choice about. There are probably better examples you could use for comparison.