Nguyen Tuong Van case heats up.
- Thread starter SherT
- Start date
yes i think it would go through if the politicians announce it. it has no reason not to.
Rome wasn't won in one night.
if the politicians do pass this bill into legislation, its a good first step towards the right direction. the bill of rights and the constituition wasn't written in one day. the founding fathers of the united states wrote the original documents, and over the years different people added on, reworded etc to formulate a fair and impartial system. its like playing keyboards.
a simple legislation protecting SOME of the rights is better than no legislation at all, or waiting for that perfect piece to be installed at one go.
don't buy an expensive keyboard and expect to play like a pro in no time. give it time, take baby steps. and slowly build upon it.
a country is like that. wouldn't you agree?
Rome wasn't won in one night.
if the politicians do pass this bill into legislation, its a good first step towards the right direction. the bill of rights and the constituition wasn't written in one day. the founding fathers of the united states wrote the original documents, and over the years different people added on, reworded etc to formulate a fair and impartial system. its like playing keyboards.
a simple legislation protecting SOME of the rights is better than no legislation at all, or waiting for that perfect piece to be installed at one go.
don't buy an expensive keyboard and expect to play like a pro in no time. give it time, take baby steps. and slowly build upon it.
a country is like that. wouldn't you agree?
i guess everyone has their say on the matter. most of us think its logical that NO ONE should be spared the death sentence if they bring drugs into singapore. But what if the person in question was your brother? or your cousin? and he was only carrying one teaspoon of heroin? I think the problem now is that people are getting emotional and personal with the person who has committed the crime. When emotions come in and we start to sympathise with the him, then we start to question the law, and start to ponder if it really is too harsh. Yes i agree his plight is terrible and really unfortunate, but i think we have no choice but to be hard hearted and deliver what the law says, which in this case is a death sentence.
emotions do play a part. but the presence of emotions do not negate the fact that capital punishment is an unusual, undeserving and immoral punishment for offenders.
its good to be hard hearted in certain situations. but discretion needs to be applied. the law is not a glove that fits all sizes. that's why we have judges/panel of judges. because the purpose of law is to see that justice is done. and to uphold the several tenants of justice (as outlined by my article).
if it were as simple as prescribing sentences for crime, we would simply have a computer met out the required time to serve as determined by the legislation.
its good to be hard hearted in certain situations. but discretion needs to be applied. the law is not a glove that fits all sizes. that's why we have judges/panel of judges. because the purpose of law is to see that justice is done. and to uphold the several tenants of justice (as outlined by my article).
if it were as simple as prescribing sentences for crime, we would simply have a computer met out the required time to serve as determined by the legislation.
SherT
New member
Capitol punishment is set in stone in our legislation for dealing with drug offenders, and has been so for many years.
How is it unusual and undeserving when Nguyen knew for a fact the risk he was taking by carrying drugs through singapore, he knew for a fact how severe the punishment should he be caught was, and he knew for a fact that he would run the risk of getting caught with the goods? He had many perfectly legal ways of making money before him, yet he chose the easy way out.
The laws have been there all this while, that didn't neccesarily mean that he had to break them. Now that he has, he is obliged to be bound by them, and hang. That is my final opinion in this matter.
How is it unusual and undeserving when Nguyen knew for a fact the risk he was taking by carrying drugs through singapore, he knew for a fact how severe the punishment should he be caught was, and he knew for a fact that he would run the risk of getting caught with the goods? He had many perfectly legal ways of making money before him, yet he chose the easy way out.
The laws have been there all this while, that didn't neccesarily mean that he had to break them. Now that he has, he is obliged to be bound by them, and hang. That is my final opinion in this matter.
SherT
New member
Silencer said:
I'm not attempting to answer your question. All I'm saying is that you've been basing everything off the fact that capitol punishment itself is cruel and unusual. Sure, it IS cruel and unusual, and I agree with that, BUT, the laws have been there all this while. That didn't mean that he had to go and break them. Now that he did, and he was caught, too bad for him.
Nguyen walked into it with his eyes wide open. He chose the easy route towards cash, and he was caught red-handed. Does it become any less of a crime if he ferried the drugs all the way to sydney? No. It just so happens that he was caught in singapore, thus he has to play by our set of rules.
It's like if I took a shotgun and ran into somebody's house screaming "ROSHAMBO ROSHAMBO", and proceeded to shoot everyone's heads off. The homeowner would probably blast MY head off in self-defence, because well, that would be the way he does things. But if I walked out of his house and got picked up by the police, they'd deal with me THEIR way, and hang me. Am I right?
hifi_killer
New member
haha i like your analogy
joel68
Member
In my opinion, What Singapore has done in Nguyen's case is correct. If the same guy is caught in Middle East (Saudi), there is no question of clemency as the country's law clearly states that punishment is death. People need to look into their immigration white cards before they fill and sign. It clearly states that drug traffiking leads to death.
I remember a case when I was in Middle East 10 years ago, There came an Indian couple for Employment to Saudi, They were caught at Dammam Airport with 50g of Ganja in their Luggage. There was no question and they were immedietly imprisoned. After investigations, it was found that an Old lady at Bombay Airport, requested them to give this pack (saying that it contains medicines) to her son who will collect at Airport. By mercy, these couple took the pack and keep it in Luggage which during their landing at Saudi, they were caught. After the intervention of the Indian Prime Minister and President few times literally begging for mercy, the Saudi King agreed to deport the couple after 3 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Where on the other case, There have been a lot of workers who go to work in Middle East from India, pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka who carry drugs for syndicates have been BE HEADED for drug traffiking.
Personally I dont care any comments fron Aussie media, as "ang moh's" think that they must be treated as first class wherever they go. For them this is a lesson !!
A common Aussie Citizen has no business in the internal affairs and policies of a country's government and it's laws.
This will prolong for some time till the fellow is hung. after that the subject will fade off..
I remember a case when I was in Middle East 10 years ago, There came an Indian couple for Employment to Saudi, They were caught at Dammam Airport with 50g of Ganja in their Luggage. There was no question and they were immedietly imprisoned. After investigations, it was found that an Old lady at Bombay Airport, requested them to give this pack (saying that it contains medicines) to her son who will collect at Airport. By mercy, these couple took the pack and keep it in Luggage which during their landing at Saudi, they were caught. After the intervention of the Indian Prime Minister and President few times literally begging for mercy, the Saudi King agreed to deport the couple after 3 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Where on the other case, There have been a lot of workers who go to work in Middle East from India, pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka who carry drugs for syndicates have been BE HEADED for drug traffiking.
Personally I dont care any comments fron Aussie media, as "ang moh's" think that they must be treated as first class wherever they go. For them this is a lesson !!
A common Aussie Citizen has no business in the internal affairs and policies of a country's government and it's laws.
This will prolong for some time till the fellow is hung. after that the subject will fade off..
in the 60s when black slavery was common, its okay to beat ur slave to death because he broke a tea cup. does that make it okay simply because the law turns a blind eye? in america/australia, if you robbed a house and got shot by the owner when you were trying to escape, the criminal can sue you and win.
the point i'm trying to make is this. just because it happens doesn't mean its correct.
the point i'm trying to make is this. just because it happens doesn't mean its correct.
there is 2 main parts in a crime. First, the criminal act, 2nd the intention. He had them both, so he should receive the punishment our law states.
and i agree with sherT, if u dun wanna get caught,hung, etc, even for the sake of money, dun smuggle drugs. unless if threaten, perhaps there is room for negotiation.
But in this case it is clear that he did it for the money.
and i agree with sherT, if u dun wanna get caught,hung, etc, even for the sake of money, dun smuggle drugs. unless if threaten, perhaps there is room for negotiation.
But in this case it is clear that he did it for the money.
vegecrackers
New member
lol 2 'intellectual' individuals getting into a heated debate. things like this will happen when too many brainy people try to force feed their opinions to one another. To me, the death penalty in Singapore is not harsh. A few crimes will lead to the death penalty, ie. murder, drug traficking and kidnapping. Now imagine, if you had a son/daughter, and he/she was murdered, or kidnapped, or died due to herion or cocain abuse, how would you want the offender to be dealt with? Many of us would want the person dead. My stand is, if you can't take the punishment, don't do the crime.
That guy sure is an idiot for trying to smuggle drugs, yeah, he could have obtained money from other means.
The reaction from Aussies isn't good at all. It has this "us vs them" tone, if you get what I mean. Even Silencer pointed out some stuff they didn't highlight ie the transit status etc.
Drug syndicates don't bother about the lives of their smugglers. In a few extreme cases, they use people and balloons. They store the drug-filled balloons within the smugglers, and whether he dies of an OD when a balloon bursts or not, they don't care. All that matters is a "goods reached destination" outcome.
The drug syndicate isn't pissed off that its lackey is gonna die, its pissed off that the drugs were confiscated and will never reach the intended destination.
The reaction from Aussies isn't good at all. It has this "us vs them" tone, if you get what I mean. Even Silencer pointed out some stuff they didn't highlight ie the transit status etc.
Drug syndicates don't bother about the lives of their smugglers. In a few extreme cases, they use people and balloons. They store the drug-filled balloons within the smugglers, and whether he dies of an OD when a balloon bursts or not, they don't care. All that matters is a "goods reached destination" outcome.
The drug syndicate isn't pissed off that its lackey is gonna die, its pissed off that the drugs were confiscated and will never reach the intended destination.
you've gotta understand the context behind the problem
this vietnamese-australian guy was living in abject poverty and had a younger brother which needed the income.
its easy to shoot him down for being stupid and smuggling drugs. who dosent know the risks ? anyone who is decently literate can tell you that its a death sentence.
the fact that he was doing it for income to benefit his younger brother , to earn some spending cash for him and his family. thats the heartstrings that are tugging at the australian public, thats why they are not asking for his freedom but for leniency.
this vietnamese-australian guy was living in abject poverty and had a younger brother which needed the income.
its easy to shoot him down for being stupid and smuggling drugs. who dosent know the risks ? anyone who is decently literate can tell you that its a death sentence.
the fact that he was doing it for income to benefit his younger brother , to earn some spending cash for him and his family. thats the heartstrings that are tugging at the australian public, thats why they are not asking for his freedom but for leniency.
thor666
New member
i will try to make a fair comment in view of the debate here...
how many of us here actually have an almost complete picture of the case? 80%?
There have been cases where the amount of heroin smuggled is more than Nguyen's, and the verdict has not been capital punishment.
The difference here is this: "Lasry said Singapore's constitution allowed for leniency if a co-accused gave evidence that led to the conviction of a main offender."
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2564
I am not sure as to whether it was possible for Nguyen to pintpoint anyone to begin with since he is a one-off. I also can't seem to find the results since ThinkCentre.org is -somewhat biased- in the articles it reproduces.
Another point to note is that we have been talking about the justification of the death penalty for Nguyen's case in the comfort of our own homes. Talk is clearly, very very cheap here.
If you replaced Nguyen with your best friend, our close relative, or your loved ones, I really would think you would have considered twice about what you would say.
There are many other points that are there that a few forummers have not touched on, and choosing only to hit on the point that Too Much Drugs = Death, and that it is the unchallengeable and correct law.
If laws were truly powerful no one would have needed to challenge it.
I don't think that to argue "Singapore has to go by the book" would be fair. If such were the case, we should not legalise bar-top dancing and casinos for that matter, since it is a matter of principle.
Let us find out more facts before we come to a conclusion.
how many of us here actually have an almost complete picture of the case? 80%?
There have been cases where the amount of heroin smuggled is more than Nguyen's, and the verdict has not been capital punishment.
The difference here is this: "Lasry said Singapore's constitution allowed for leniency if a co-accused gave evidence that led to the conviction of a main offender."
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2564
I am not sure as to whether it was possible for Nguyen to pintpoint anyone to begin with since he is a one-off. I also can't seem to find the results since ThinkCentre.org is -somewhat biased- in the articles it reproduces.
Another point to note is that we have been talking about the justification of the death penalty for Nguyen's case in the comfort of our own homes. Talk is clearly, very very cheap here.
If you replaced Nguyen with your best friend, our close relative, or your loved ones, I really would think you would have considered twice about what you would say.
There are many other points that are there that a few forummers have not touched on, and choosing only to hit on the point that Too Much Drugs = Death, and that it is the unchallengeable and correct law.
If laws were truly powerful no one would have needed to challenge it.
I don't think that to argue "Singapore has to go by the book" would be fair. If such were the case, we should not legalise bar-top dancing and casinos for that matter, since it is a matter of principle.
Let us find out more facts before we come to a conclusion.
SherT
New member
Everyone's main argument here was "what if nugyen was your brother?" or "you don't know the full story. did you know he was doing it to support his brother?"
I can safely say that am I fully aware of the fact that he needed the money to foot his brother's legal bill. That still, in my opinion, DOES NOT justify the fact that he carried the drugs for money. As I have mentioned and reinterated time and time again, he chose the easy way out, and he was caught. He has to bear the brunt of his actions.
If you want to bring emotions to the table, then why not talk about the people who could have been on the receiving end of the drugs he carried. People who may have lost loved ones to overdose? Dependency? Crimes arising from drug usage?
How would you want the guy to be sentenced if you were in that secnario found out HE was responsible for bringing the drugs into the country?
As for the comparison of the legalisation of bar-top dancing to this case. Is anyone going to be killed? Are lives gonna be wrecked by substance addiction?
And as for the casinos, would you rather see the economy survive, or find another country to live in? :wink: Read some of the facts behind that before you come to a conclusion. 8)
The basis of this is that he has no room for argument, because, as Mr_X has already pointed out,
1. He committed the crime.
2. He had the intention of committing the crime.
p.s. This isn't intended to be offensive, so don't go all ballistic on me now...
I can safely say that am I fully aware of the fact that he needed the money to foot his brother's legal bill. That still, in my opinion, DOES NOT justify the fact that he carried the drugs for money. As I have mentioned and reinterated time and time again, he chose the easy way out, and he was caught. He has to bear the brunt of his actions.
If you want to bring emotions to the table, then why not talk about the people who could have been on the receiving end of the drugs he carried. People who may have lost loved ones to overdose? Dependency? Crimes arising from drug usage?
How would you want the guy to be sentenced if you were in that secnario found out HE was responsible for bringing the drugs into the country?
As for the comparison of the legalisation of bar-top dancing to this case. Is anyone going to be killed? Are lives gonna be wrecked by substance addiction?
And as for the casinos, would you rather see the economy survive, or find another country to live in? :wink: Read some of the facts behind that before you come to a conclusion. 8)
The basis of this is that he has no room for argument, because, as Mr_X has already pointed out,
1. He committed the crime.
2. He had the intention of committing the crime.
p.s. This isn't intended to be offensive, so don't go all ballistic on me now...
stars: Even though I commented that he made a silly and irresponsible decision, I am still for leniency and mercy and am not for death sentence...
Yup, we make mistakes all the time... Executing him isn't really a good idea. It would be great if they could find out more about the drug smuggling ring, rather than dealing with the peon. And expose and punish them, of course.
Thor666: I agree with you...
Yup, we make mistakes all the time... Executing him isn't really a good idea. It would be great if they could find out more about the drug smuggling ring, rather than dealing with the peon. And expose and punish them, of course.
Thor666: I agree with you...
