Ngyuen's Execution (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

No one has right to break the law. If he does, government can have the right to take his life...

In a real democracy only the judiciary has the power to take someone's life.

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

well the condition to have such power is when the citizen breaks the laws severely. This means if you are a good person then no one has power to kill you.

In reality a government could subscribe the punishment of death for anything... This particular crime isn't harsh enough to warrant the death penalty.

 

[erawamai]

well the condition to have such power is when the citizen breaks the laws severely. This means if you are a good person then no one has power to kill you.

I love commerce students. If only life was so simple.

 

[chochibi]

the guy was trying to get his bro out of debt. the twin's the one that should be ther. n ye.. no gvmt should be able to kill anyone. neither directly nor indirectly. even tho it happens even in the big countries

 

[Xayma]

the guy was trying to get his bro out of debt. the twin's the one that should be ther. n ye.. no gvmt should be able to kill anyone. neither directly nor indirectly. even tho it happens even in the big countries

Well glad that is settled. I mean wars should never happen.

What is the big deal of taking their life (I don't agree with it, but not on moral grounds, but that there is no way to reverse some of it, whereas you can let them go if they are in gaol)? He was taking drugs into the country which would ruin others lives. His crime affects more then just one person.

 

[lawforever]

I do believe in the death penalty for serious crimes. I don't consider possessing a few hundred grams of heroin to be a serious enough crime to be given death.. I consider a serious crime to be a crime that impairs another’s life as a direct result of committing the act which has been deemed an offence. "Possessing" heroin never killed anyone.

Singaporean law clearly states that any heroin trafficker caught with amount greater than 15 gram is gotta get death penalty. This law was set ages ago and was applied to all the drug criminals caught in singapore. Why should this guy get exempted from it?
(There are no laws for humanity so don't make argument based on that because you can't force a government to change its legal decisions just because it is too ruthless)

 

[lawforever]

In a real democracy only the judiciary has the power to take someone's life.

Yes, It was refered as part of government

 

[lawforever]

I love commerce students. If only life was so simple.

I do feel sorry for him. But I think just using the reason of "humanity" to challenge laws of a sovereign nation is stupid and naive. Death penalty is still generally accepted in the majority of the world. You can't force others to accept your own idea.

1 important point to do with objectivity: If he is not Australian I will still feel sorry for him and still think he should be punished under singaporean law. My opinion will remain exactly the same, but i m pretty sure his supporters on BOS will become much less.

 

[erawamai]

I do feel sorry for him. But I think just using the reason of "humanity" to challenge laws of a sovereign nation is stupid and naive. Death penalty is still generally accepted in the majority of the world. You can't force others to accept your own idea.

Norms are there to be questioned. It is well known that the death penality isn't much of a deterrent to those who commit these types of crimes. It's only a deterrent to people like you and me.

Also the people challenging are not using 'humanity' to challenge the laws of a sovereign nation. Regardless of whether he committed a crime or not he is an Australian citizen and Australia has a duty to do its best in order to protect that citizen.

The execution will most probably serve no purpose. People will still traffic drugs, at least while the Singapore government alledgely continues to support the regime in Burma.

As for the death penality being generally accepted. Usually the death penality is not levied for the importation of drugs. In most nations the death penality is only considered for the most serious of murders.

1 important point to do with objectivity: If he is not Australian I will still feel sorry for him and still think he should be punished under singaporean law. My opinion will remain exactly the same, but i m pretty sure his supporters on BOS will become much less.

um...what?

 

[lawforever]

Norms are there to be questioned. It is well known that the death penality isn't much of a deterrent to those who commit these types of crimes. It's only a deterrent to people like you and me.

Also the people challenging are not using 'humanity' to challenge the laws of a sovereign nation. Regardless of whether he committed a crime or not he is an Australian citizen and Australia has a duty to do its best in order to protect that citizen.

The execution will most probably serve no purpose. People will still traffic drugs, at least while the Singapore government alledgely continues to support the regime in Burma.

As for the death penality being generally accepted. Usually the death penality is not levied for the importation of drugs. In most nations the death penality is only considered for the most serious of murders.

Again, people are using either "the death penalty doesn't serve much purpose" or "death penalty is too harsh or too inhumane".

1. purpose. There z gtta be less australian trafficking drugs to singapore because everyone who watches tv now know how harsh their laws are. That is a good purpose they want.

summary: Fear of death is the nature everyone has.


2. Seriousness of the crime. Everyone /nation has different standard regarding crime. Once again as i said, you can't force other people/ nation to accept your view of that trafficking 396 gram heroin is less serious than murdering 396 people.
Under singaporean laws, death penalty is inevitable for heroin trafficker with more than 15 grams. This shows everyone singapore's standard of the seriousness of drug crime. However Van Ngyuen still carried 396 grams over which are far more than the death penalty limit (15g). It was this gamble he decided to bet and now he lost so he has to pay for it with his life. That is very fair.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

2. Seriousness of the crime. Everyone /nation has different standard regarding crime. Once again as i said, you can't force other people/ nation to accept your view of that trafficking 396 gram heroin is less serious than murdering 396 people.

No, Actually the rights of the nation state are constantly being disolved by international law.

1. purpose. There z gtta be less australian trafficking drugs to singapore because everyone who watches tv now know how harsh their laws are. That is a good purpose they want.

summary: Fear of death is the nature everyone has.

At the beginning of this thread I'm fairly sure we covered this. It is highly unlikely given the statistics we have about other countries that there is a strong deterant effect.

Also, these people are often very desperate, and willing to risk their lives for the money.

 

[2 Dea]

No, Actually the rights of the nation state are constantly being disolved by international law.

Actually, international law has no jurisdiction, the only way a nation will change what its doing is through internal upheaval or through the influence of other nations through diplomacy, trade sanctions or war. The actual courts and councils of the UN dont have any precedent on a nations decisions unless that nation believes that those decisions and recommendations were fair and just.

 

[hipsta_jess]

Can't be bothered to read the thread, but here is my opinion.

If you go into another country, you abide by their laws. For him to go to Singapore, a country that for a long time had a ban on chewing gum, and smuggle heroin of all drugs, he has to abide by their rules. If Singaporean laws state that capital punishment is the go for such crimes, then so be it.
If a foreigner were to come onto Australian soil and commit a crime, we'd be up in arms if they weren't prosecuted to the full extent of our laws. Why should Ngyuen be any different?
I'm glad we're not having the minutes silence on Friday, to honour a criminal, especially a drug trafficker (and think how many of our people he could have killed with a bad batch) is disgusting. We pay respect to our fallen Diggers and the like with silence, not an insanely stupid criminal.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Actually, international law has no jurisdiction, the only way a nation will change what its doing is through internal upheaval or through the influence of other nations through diplomacy, trade sanctions or war. The actual courts and councils of the UN dont have any precedent on a nations decisions unless that nation believes that those decisions and recommendations were fair and just.

Not entirely true.
If the UN votes on a matter, and a member-nation that is in the minority disagree's with the decision they are still subject to the decision untill they break off from the UN.

The sovereign's power is disolved to that of the wider international community.

If a foreigner were to come onto Australian soil and commit a crime, we'd be up in arms if they weren't prosecuted to the full extent of our laws. Why should Ngyuen be any different?

What most people are upset about is the death penalty as a punishment, not the punishment its self. If a foreigner was prosecuted in Australia and given a sentence which is considered internationally, extremely rough, then Australia would be under the same justified pressure that singapore is under.

 

[lawforever]

minute silence ??

Please, please, leave ourselves some reputation. Don't let foreigners think no Australian is rational.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I agree that a minute's silence is wrong.

 

[hipsta_jess]

Just because we view a punishment as unacceptable, doesn't mean it truly is. A punishment can be morally questionable but the fact remains it is viewed as acceptable in Singapore and therefore we have to accept it.

(If you don't follow my logic, compare this to clitoridectomies. Yes, I view female circumcision as a barbaric act, and I think morally it is rather wrong, but the fact remains it is culturally acceptable in some societies and it is not upto me to try and change that)

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Just because we view a punishment as unacceptable, doesn't mean it truly is. A punishment can be morally questionable but the fact remains it is viewed as acceptable in Singapore and therefore we have to accept it.

So you think aparteheid was ok?

(If you don't follow my logic, compare this to clitoridectomies. Yes, I view female circumcision as a barbaric act, and I think morally it is rather wrong, but the fact remains it is culturally acceptable in some societies and it is not upto me to try and change that)

The problem with that logic is that it stops any critical attacks on the laws of other nations. If you don't feel it is your place to start an argument over the issue of female circumcision, then you don't feel the nazi's did anything wrong when they gassed the jews (in their own country) ?

 

[lawforever]

What most people are upset about is the death penalty as a punishment, not the punishment its self. If a foreigner was prosecuted in Australia and given a sentence which is considered internationally, extremely rough, then Australia would be under the same justified pressure that singapore is under.

Keep in mind there is no international standard on harshness of the sentence.

Light crime in Australia's legal system might be punished 100 times more severely in other country because they think these crimes are 100 times more serious than what is in Australian's view. '

This explains why singapore is going to hang him.

Obviously there is no right or wrong about 1 particular legal system.

 

[hipsta_jess]

As I argue, whether or not we view something as 'ok' is irrelevant, because we're not a part of that society.