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