Nguyen Tuong Van case heats up.
- Thread starter SherT
- Start date
The death penalty is effective, but I agree that it's too harsh... I am not saying
that S'pore should abolish it though...
Rules were not established to beat us down, but to give us boundaries and perimeters for our conduct, behaviour, activities etc. For our own growth. Shouldn't be too legalistic and draconian.
As for the guy, I am not for his execution. Perhaps something more lenient such as life imprisonment would be more suitable... Mercy should be shown...
But who am I to judge?
Foreign nations should not meddle in domestic affairs. Not like the guy's totally innocent.
Cultural differences play a role as well... the white civilisation in Australia started off as a colony of British convicts, remember?
that S'pore should abolish it though...
Rules were not established to beat us down, but to give us boundaries and perimeters for our conduct, behaviour, activities etc. For our own growth. Shouldn't be too legalistic and draconian.
As for the guy, I am not for his execution. Perhaps something more lenient such as life imprisonment would be more suitable... Mercy should be shown...
But who am I to judge?
Foreign nations should not meddle in domestic affairs. Not like the guy's totally innocent.
Cultural differences play a role as well... the white civilisation in Australia started off as a colony of British convicts, remember?
this is a briefly written 15min article so pardon any logical lapses. i'll be happy to answer any queries. just PM me.
-------
Introduction:
Capital Punishment has existed for almost as long as civilisation itself. a group of people band together in a small village, and democratically elects a 'caretaker' of sorts based on his ability to govern, apply wisdom and protect the village. several villages form a community, and several communities form a township. this process evolves over the years, and consequentially, leaders to administer and protect the interests of the cities, townships and counties that they govern. over time, a notion of justice was formed, mainly derived from religious influences. each member of this society was granted certain rights, and these rights were unassailable, but the infringement of other member's rights was sometimes punishable by the forced infringement imposed by the state (i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of mobility)
sometimes, we learn, that to protect the interests of the MAJORITY of the citizens, delinquents or threats to the peace and society at large must be eradicated through a plethora of means. Education, social deterrents through advertising, societal programming or jail. Or even punishment by capital punishment, since life is thought to be the most compelling and effective demonstration of the Government's resolve towards certain crime, deserving of the 'merit'.
Thus, captial punishment grew to be associated with crimes so hedious and unforgivable, that no reform would be possible, and the man's life must be taken from him as societal deterrance. a warning, if you will.
Stand:
it is the stand of this article that no man, collection of or any mortal being to decide the life of another. no matter how unspeakable the crime, or devastating the repercussions, the tenents of justice consequentially apply, but the decision to remove another man's life from him is unjust, unqualified and immoral.
Purpose of Capital Punishment:
Justice and its tenents demand of its outcome, several basic qualities.
1. Retribution
2. Rehabilitation
3. Societal Deterrant
4. Reinbursment
- Retribution-
this is a basic concept that has been retained through the generations. 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth'. while this has served early homo sapiens, it is impossible to recreate the exact pain, suffering or consequence for every crime for every individual. therefore in a civilized society, the elected government will withdraw the societal contract it extends to each and every lawful citizen. the right for freedom, the right for free speech etc. it does so by confining the individuals in prisons, fining the individuals for a sum of a measured sum of money to inflict significant financial impact on the individual. this article however, condemns the removal of a person's right to life, whether forced or engineered (e.g. withholding medical facilities, poor sanitary conditions). this article belives EVEN IF the crime was beyond measure, it does not a reason make for another person to take that life away. every life is precious.
-Rehabilitation-
it is often believed that there is no recourse for hedious crimes. government facilities are often over taxed with a high occupancy rate at its reform centers for inmates it 'believes' have more hope for reform since the crimes committed lack severity or intent. while this article agrees with this line of reasoning, we recognize each and every person has a different motivation, a different set of morals and a different approach to the views. every person SHOULD be given a chance to experience rehabilitation, for it is often those who have committed the MOST serious of crimes who needs it badly. Also, to reject individuals for rehabilitation programmes due to lack of available resources is a flimsy excuse that this article wishes to condemn. funds are readily available for almost any democratic country in the world, and a simple rediversion of funds will suffice. other means such as tax raise, public campaign or similar activities will achieve the same.
-Social Deterrant-
the opposition will have you believe after rehabilitation fails and there are no qualms for applying retribution, an example should be made of the perpertrator, in an effort to deter certain crimes. this article points out to many examples where social deterrant has naught a conclusive effect on crimes. drug smuggling and consumption still exists in places where the death penality is applied. china and america are examples of places where capital punishment is applied, and yet they've also garned tens of thousands of death row inmates. this article maintains that the appropriate way to effectively reduce the lure of anti societal activities is through inclusion, education and democracy. and for the chemically imbalanced, rehabilitation, professional healthcare and psychiatric services. in any even should this group of individuals commit crimes, the current system of laws recognize that those of 'unsound mind' should be pardoned.
the aim of social deterrant is to encourage people not to commit such acts. we believe that alternate sources are available, and just as effective, if not more. the keywords are Inclusion, Education and Healthcare.
-Reinbursement-
often to alleviate the anger and feelings of lost and suffering to the family and friends of the victims. in most cases, we see that after the initial shock and anger has dissipated, the families and friends often seek pardon for the offender. in some ways, the continued living in confinment and curtail of civil liberties please the families more than an 'easy out'. Other families believe that enough loss of life has taken place, and they will not have a life on their conscience simply for the apeacement of their own emotions and feelings. this article believes that reinbursement can continue in various other means (e.g. financial, confinment of offender etc). in some cases, the pain is so great that no measure undertaken can satiate the suffering. having another life on their conscience, is definitely undesirable.
Alternatives to Capital Punishment:
as mentioned above. Rehabilitations, permanant confinement, removal of civil liberties and rights.
Conclusion:
first and foremost, capital punishment is immoral.
the desired outcome of capital punishment can be adequately substituted with other means. this article believes in the focus of rehabilitation. the reinbursement to families of victims should be secondary, but should it be desired, other more beneficial methods exist.
therefore, i endorse this motion.
-----
-------
Introduction:
Capital Punishment has existed for almost as long as civilisation itself. a group of people band together in a small village, and democratically elects a 'caretaker' of sorts based on his ability to govern, apply wisdom and protect the village. several villages form a community, and several communities form a township. this process evolves over the years, and consequentially, leaders to administer and protect the interests of the cities, townships and counties that they govern. over time, a notion of justice was formed, mainly derived from religious influences. each member of this society was granted certain rights, and these rights were unassailable, but the infringement of other member's rights was sometimes punishable by the forced infringement imposed by the state (i.e. freedom of speech, freedom of mobility)
sometimes, we learn, that to protect the interests of the MAJORITY of the citizens, delinquents or threats to the peace and society at large must be eradicated through a plethora of means. Education, social deterrents through advertising, societal programming or jail. Or even punishment by capital punishment, since life is thought to be the most compelling and effective demonstration of the Government's resolve towards certain crime, deserving of the 'merit'.
Thus, captial punishment grew to be associated with crimes so hedious and unforgivable, that no reform would be possible, and the man's life must be taken from him as societal deterrance. a warning, if you will.
Stand:
it is the stand of this article that no man, collection of or any mortal being to decide the life of another. no matter how unspeakable the crime, or devastating the repercussions, the tenents of justice consequentially apply, but the decision to remove another man's life from him is unjust, unqualified and immoral.
Purpose of Capital Punishment:
Justice and its tenents demand of its outcome, several basic qualities.
1. Retribution
2. Rehabilitation
3. Societal Deterrant
4. Reinbursment
- Retribution-
this is a basic concept that has been retained through the generations. 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth'. while this has served early homo sapiens, it is impossible to recreate the exact pain, suffering or consequence for every crime for every individual. therefore in a civilized society, the elected government will withdraw the societal contract it extends to each and every lawful citizen. the right for freedom, the right for free speech etc. it does so by confining the individuals in prisons, fining the individuals for a sum of a measured sum of money to inflict significant financial impact on the individual. this article however, condemns the removal of a person's right to life, whether forced or engineered (e.g. withholding medical facilities, poor sanitary conditions). this article belives EVEN IF the crime was beyond measure, it does not a reason make for another person to take that life away. every life is precious.
-Rehabilitation-
it is often believed that there is no recourse for hedious crimes. government facilities are often over taxed with a high occupancy rate at its reform centers for inmates it 'believes' have more hope for reform since the crimes committed lack severity or intent. while this article agrees with this line of reasoning, we recognize each and every person has a different motivation, a different set of morals and a different approach to the views. every person SHOULD be given a chance to experience rehabilitation, for it is often those who have committed the MOST serious of crimes who needs it badly. Also, to reject individuals for rehabilitation programmes due to lack of available resources is a flimsy excuse that this article wishes to condemn. funds are readily available for almost any democratic country in the world, and a simple rediversion of funds will suffice. other means such as tax raise, public campaign or similar activities will achieve the same.
-Social Deterrant-
the opposition will have you believe after rehabilitation fails and there are no qualms for applying retribution, an example should be made of the perpertrator, in an effort to deter certain crimes. this article points out to many examples where social deterrant has naught a conclusive effect on crimes. drug smuggling and consumption still exists in places where the death penality is applied. china and america are examples of places where capital punishment is applied, and yet they've also garned tens of thousands of death row inmates. this article maintains that the appropriate way to effectively reduce the lure of anti societal activities is through inclusion, education and democracy. and for the chemically imbalanced, rehabilitation, professional healthcare and psychiatric services. in any even should this group of individuals commit crimes, the current system of laws recognize that those of 'unsound mind' should be pardoned.
the aim of social deterrant is to encourage people not to commit such acts. we believe that alternate sources are available, and just as effective, if not more. the keywords are Inclusion, Education and Healthcare.
-Reinbursement-
often to alleviate the anger and feelings of lost and suffering to the family and friends of the victims. in most cases, we see that after the initial shock and anger has dissipated, the families and friends often seek pardon for the offender. in some ways, the continued living in confinment and curtail of civil liberties please the families more than an 'easy out'. Other families believe that enough loss of life has taken place, and they will not have a life on their conscience simply for the apeacement of their own emotions and feelings. this article believes that reinbursement can continue in various other means (e.g. financial, confinment of offender etc). in some cases, the pain is so great that no measure undertaken can satiate the suffering. having another life on their conscience, is definitely undesirable.
Alternatives to Capital Punishment:
as mentioned above. Rehabilitations, permanant confinement, removal of civil liberties and rights.
Conclusion:
first and foremost, capital punishment is immoral.
the desired outcome of capital punishment can be adequately substituted with other means. this article believes in the focus of rehabilitation. the reinbursement to families of victims should be secondary, but should it be desired, other more beneficial methods exist.
therefore, i endorse this motion.
-----
I too believe the s'pore govt won't budge. People may say that it's harsh, but when 1 man brings in drugs that are enough to impair many lives here...i think it's a pretty fair exchange for a death sentence for that 1 man. Though Nguyen was just bypassing here, the bottom line is drugs destroy lives no matter in s'pore or not.
Whatever his reasons may be, there are many ways to solve it rather than choosing the easy way out. He knows what he's in for when he agreed to smuggling, so face the music. Whatever it is, i'm glad that there is such a punishment for drug smugglers, to deter them from stepping foot on singapore.
Whatever his reasons may be, there are many ways to solve it rather than choosing the easy way out. He knows what he's in for when he agreed to smuggling, so face the music. Whatever it is, i'm glad that there is such a punishment for drug smugglers, to deter them from stepping foot on singapore.
hifi_killer
New member
lawyer in the making...
also, while i agree that aus should have no business in telling our country how to behave, i don't think it has anything to do with whether of not capital punishment is justified.
australia should respect our laws, but that doesn't make the law correct. capital punishment is cruel, immoral and outdated. no one should have the power to legally take another's life away.
the people shouldn't rally behind capital punishment and criticize the 'ignorant rest of the world' simiply because other countries start threathening to boycott and whatnot. instead, we should sit back and ask ourselves, do they have a point? if they do, is it worth listening and exploring alternatives?
singaporeans are too hasty to get into an argument.
australia should respect our laws, but that doesn't make the law correct. capital punishment is cruel, immoral and outdated. no one should have the power to legally take another's life away.
the people shouldn't rally behind capital punishment and criticize the 'ignorant rest of the world' simiply because other countries start threathening to boycott and whatnot. instead, we should sit back and ask ourselves, do they have a point? if they do, is it worth listening and exploring alternatives?
singaporeans are too hasty to get into an argument.
i'm a ex debater.
i don't believe its a fair exchange for a death sentence vs. all the 'harm' that this one man was bringing into singapore. his final destination was Australia, not sg, so no harm except by virtue of the fact he's transitting here, which isn't alot of harm at all.
read my previous article on how the death sentence has failed as an effective and pervasive detterent
i don't believe its a fair exchange for a death sentence vs. all the 'harm' that this one man was bringing into singapore. his final destination was Australia, not sg, so no harm except by virtue of the fact he's transitting here, which isn't alot of harm at all.
read my previous article on how the death sentence has failed as an effective and pervasive detterent
SherT
New member
I'm going to put this in a simple and crude way.
He was caught on our soil. He's subjected to our laws. Unfortunate as it is.
And yes, I AM rallying behind corporal punishment in this instance. Not because I want to see an aussie dead, but because of the very fact that if he's let off, wouldn't they have to do the same for every substance trafficker caught from now on?
He was caught on our soil. He's subjected to our laws. Unfortunate as it is.
And yes, I AM rallying behind corporal punishment in this instance. Not because I want to see an aussie dead, but because of the very fact that if he's let off, wouldn't they have to do the same for every substance trafficker caught from now on?
to SherT:
he was not caught on our soil legally. he was arrested at the airport. all commonwealth (sg is one of them), the States and other democratic nations do not recognize transit as being 'local law applicable'. to simplify the statement, it means that the laws of the land generally do not apply to any citizen transitting in the country as long as he does not leave customs.
the australian was NOT caught out of the customs zone.
in cases like this, countries would be compelled to deport the citizen back to his country of citizenship. a similar case happened in KL a while ago. KL deported the denizen back to his country of origin. singapore should do the same. IF the australian had exited the customs and committed an act of illegal narcotics possession, then it justified in part the legality of action by the Government from which the offense took place. (e.g. Michael Fay)
countries should be allowed to deal with their own criminals.
he was not caught on our soil legally. he was arrested at the airport. all commonwealth (sg is one of them), the States and other democratic nations do not recognize transit as being 'local law applicable'. to simplify the statement, it means that the laws of the land generally do not apply to any citizen transitting in the country as long as he does not leave customs.
the australian was NOT caught out of the customs zone.
in cases like this, countries would be compelled to deport the citizen back to his country of citizenship. a similar case happened in KL a while ago. KL deported the denizen back to his country of origin. singapore should do the same. IF the australian had exited the customs and committed an act of illegal narcotics possession, then it justified in part the legality of action by the Government from which the offense took place. (e.g. Michael Fay)
countries should be allowed to deal with their own criminals.
ixora05 said:
i was a debate trainer for Sec/JCs previously. what school are you in?
SherT:
they do not have to let off every sustance trafficker. what we're seeing here is a special situation. if a singaporean was caught trafficking BUT IN TRANSIT, sg has the legal right to deal with him because he's a citizen. If he's bringing IT into singapore, sg has the legal right to deal with him.
justice should be metted out on a case by case basis. no one rule applies to every situation.
my point is, no matter where the destination of the drugs...it still affects people.
Given your point if in this case, Nguyen is a terrorist and transiting from Singapore to Australia for a bombing act. Do you think the Australian govt would be kicking up a tantrum about capital punishment? I'm not trying to debate with you, i'm more ruffled up by the aust govt's words and actions towards this case.
Given your point if in this case, Nguyen is a terrorist and transiting from Singapore to Australia for a bombing act. Do you think the Australian govt would be kicking up a tantrum about capital punishment? I'm not trying to debate with you, i'm more ruffled up by the aust govt's words and actions towards this case.
thor666
New member
Silencer said:
Actually, I believe the crux of the problem for SG, is how to make the laws of SG more transparent & aligned to the policy-making process. The offical reply to this case comes in the form of a speech from the government stating its stand. Nothing has been said about the decision making process. So, who is really making the decision? The government? A select group from the government? What about the people?
I don't find the comments from this forum wrong. In fact, I do believe we choose to bite the bullet simply because it is, individually difficult for one to question about the government's policies.
We could talk all day about taking up the courage to oppose the policy, having speeches, sending petitions to the government, but a large portion of Singaporeans are resigned/ambivalent to the cause.
thor666
New member
ixora05 - Singapore has followed common law from UK/Commonwealth up to the point of independence. Since then judgements have been based on the Singapore Statutes & case laws. Most older case laws still apply, but we have pretty much cut off from Commonwealth laws (notably the abolishment of the Privy Council).
Edit: I meant Common Law, not case law... apologize for the mistake.
Edit: I meant Common Law, not case law... apologize for the mistake.
