Van Nguyen - someone had to start this.....

[Diabolical]

.....This standpoint is also my view on people being jailed as well... i honestly dont think there is a difference. Why cant we try to ensure that all people jailed are also guilty?

BUT ITS DIFFERENT ExecutoR... no it isn't. A person spending the remaining 60years of their life in prison AND a person being killed BOTH INNOCENT is just as much of an injustice, OH BUT THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO BECOME FREE AGAIN... they also have a chance to spend 60 years becoming someones bitch and getting ass raped the whole time. Which do you honestly think happens more often?

A person spending 60 years in gaol has the opportunity to continue fighting for his defence in the hopes he might one day see justice and be released. There's no taking back death.


When the argument comes to corporal punishment not being effective. WTF? With that argument YOU CANNOT then disagree that any punishment is effective... including jail time...

I think the argument is that it is no more effective as a deterrent than a lengthy gaol term.

[Lizard Drinkin]

See i think that is gong off topic then lol...The topic was a response to the killing of an Australian citizen under the laws of another nation. Naturally this will involve a discussion on capital punishment.


if this debate is going the "Is Corporal punishment a good idea?" Then i might as well lend my two cents hehe...Capital punishment. Corporal punishment means damaging a person's body in some fashion ie. a beating or disfigurement.


Personally im not 100% sure where i stand. I dont mind "Death" as a penalty for certain crimes... HOWEVER i feel as though something should be considered to ensure people are defineately 100% guilty before its been done.

This standpoint is also my view on people being jailed as well... i honestly dont think there is a difference. Why cant we try to ensure that all people jailed are also guilty?

BUT ITS DIFFERENT ExecutoR... no it isn't. A person spending the remaining 60years of their life in prison AND a person being killed BOTH INNOCENT is just as much of an injustice, OH BUT THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO BECOME FREE AGAIN... they also have a chance to spend 60 years becoming someones bitch and getting ass raped the whole time. Which do you honestly think happens more often? I don't know whose argument you were trying to anticipate there. We're not talking about ascertaining guilt (which the legal system does a very thorough job of IMO). We're talking about the punishment fitting the crime. In Van Nguyen's case, many people don't believe he should have been put to death for trafficking 400 grams of heroin (which is about 8 hits by the way).


When the argument comes to corporalCAPITAL
punishment not being effective. WTF? With that argument YOU CANNOT then disagree that any punishment is effective... including jail time... maybe all criminals need to have a stern talking to by Johnny Howard and get them to promise not to do it again. Would that be fairer? It certainly would mean it keeps ALL the innocent people on the street!Whether or not it succeeds, the founding principles of the modern prison system is reform. It's not just a deterrent, it's intended to address the criminal mentality and attempt to redeem it. I don't have stats at my fingertips, but if I did I would certainly name the sources and/or provide a link, unlike the random text you just inserted into your post.


Maybe if the punishment REALLY fit the crime this would help to create "Effective" punishments...

Rapists = Penis removed with small guillotine
Murderers = Get killed the same way they were killed
Drug Dealers = Get forced to ingest the entire quantity that was found on them.I'm sure a better world would come from this :rolling:


"OH BUT THE INNOCENT PEOPLE ExecutoR"... well at the moment a never fail law system does not seem to exist... maybe we need to accept the fact that collateral damage may need to exist... not saying its 100% right but it could be cause for a "greater good" scenario.Again, whose argument are you anticipating? Of course no system is perfect.

[headrippa]

What a cop out. If you don't agree with the law then why the hell are you watching video's of it? It's apathetic people like you that let the atrocities of the world carry on.

Firstly it wasn't a video, it was photos. Secondly, you oppose the death penalty which allows murderers to live, is that not letting attrocities of the world carry on as well, if so, than you too are an apathetic fool.


If you don't know the answer to that one then I'm hardly going to be able to provide any shining light in your dark little word. The total lack of respect for the sanctity of life is but one issue. Your lack of compassion and empathy, others. I see people die all the time and the day I start enjoying it is the day I commit myself.

My "dark" little world is shared by thousands of people who congregate on boards similar to this one and post stuff they have found. Many of them are doctors, law enforcement, soldiers, photographers and people who work in other matters concerning death like morticians and autopsy people.

Some of these people are only in the jobs they are in because they have an interest in death, I wouldnt call them dark or un-empathic, as it's this interest that often leads into discovering cures for diseases, the culprit in a crime.

What is it you do that you see people die all the time ?



Don't pretend that watching what you do is OK because it's compassionate (which it isn't) I know you'd find the viewing all the more enjoyable if the execution went wrong. The only absolute way to ensure a clean and painless death is by lethal injection yet most countries that support the death penalty choose not to implement it...why is that do you think? Economics have nothing to do with it.

If you reckon lethal injection is clean and painless, than you watch CNN or read CNN: The Paperback way too much. Here is a few links without pictures to disturb your morally righteous world on how UNclean and painFULL lethal injection is

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm#bot

http://www.tcadp.org/lethal.html

I'm not sure on where your Economics stance came from

It's widely believed that Ronald Ryan, the last man executed in Australia, was innocent. Anyone who wants to live in a country where the penalty for a fallible system is irreversible and barbaric is a fool.

This is why I said under special circumstances, what I should have said was the nature of the crime, as their is a difference between murder and manslaughter, and the inconclusive proof that the person is guilty. Van Nguyen was 100% guilty of the crime he commited, was found guilty of the crime he commited and swung for the crime he commited.


All in all you can argue about it till the cows come home, hopefully these cows are not drug runners, and you can choose to live at www.rosecolouredglasses.com , but your arguement wont stop me from doing what I want to do and believing what I want to belive.

P.S. They used to execute people along time ago who believed stuff that others didn't. They even crucified their leader too. I belive his birthday is in a few weeks.

[Lizard Drinkin]

They used to execute people along time ago who believed stuff that others didn't. They even crucified their leader too. I belive his birthday is in a few weeks.Yes and it was all perfectly legal, so why complain :rolling:

[headrippa]

A person spending 60 years in gaol has the opportunity to continue fighting for his defence in the hopes he might one day see justice and be released. There's no taking back death.



I think the argument is that it is no more effective as a deterrent than a lengthy gaol term.



The arguement is actually void, as Van Hung was guilty, not innocent.

[Lizard Drinkin]

The arguement is actually void, as Van Hung was guilty, not innocent.Nicely taken out of context there. She was responding to ExecutoR's argument, not defending Van Nguyen.

[Diabolical]

P.S. They used to execute people along time ago who believed stuff that others didn't. They even crucified their leader too. I belive his birthday is in a few weeks.[/COLOR]

*chokes* are you actually trying to equate yourself to Jesus Christ? perlease :rolleyes:

No, I don't expect to change your practices but I'll continue to call you for what you are, a morbid ghoul.


The arguement is actually void, as Van Hung was guilty, not innocent.

That is at least the second time you've shown blatant disrespect and if you do it again I'll not hesitate in negative repping you for your trouble as well. His name was Van Nguyen. He was a human being who had parents and friends and family that loved him. Regardless of your opinion on his crime and the punishment he received it makes me ill that you find humour in it.

[HoundsOfLove]

I'm not entirerly sure where I stand on capital punisment, I used to be always for it, now i'm sort of in between. I don't believe Nyugen should have got capital punishment but that would be in our country which is our laws. I do believe as stated before that he knew what the law was, he took the risk therefore he has to pay by the rules of that country. I tell you one person though I believe should have got capital punishment because you can't convice me at all that he would "rehabilitate" in prison and that's is Martin Bryant! Obviously he is 100% guilty in this case and anyone that can murder people including those poor children like he did.....well.....
But I do believe they have to be very carefully in making sure that the person is 100% guilty and I would only have it for mass murderers.

[amber.2]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17343943%255E2862,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
drinking lizard
don't know whose argument you were trying to anticipate there. We're not talking about ascertaining guilt (which the legal system does a very thorough job of IMO). We're talking about the punishment fitting the crime. In Van Nguyen's case, many people don't believe he should have been put to death for trafficking 400 grams of heroin (which is about 8 hits by the way).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when is 400grams 8 hits of heroin he was carring enough to make up to 26,000 hits on the street which might of resulted in the deaths of many.
In singapore if your caught with 15 grams its the death penalty end of story ,he took the chance and lost.

[Diabolical]

Since when is 400grams 8 hits of heroin he was carring enough to make up to 26,000 hits on the street which might of resulted in the deaths of many.
In singapore if your caught with 15 grams its the death penalty end of story ,he took the chance and lost.


Press from around the world quotes Abdullah Tarmugi, the Speaker of Singapore Parliament, in writing about the potential consequences of Van's actions, "almost 400 grams of pure heroin, enough for more than 26,000 doses."

But how was 26,000 doses (or "hits") derived?

It turns out that what constitutes a hit of heroin is not an easy thing to count. There are dozens of factors to consider; contact your local Needle Exchange for a comprehensive list. However, after collecting statistics from over a dozen sources (including police reports, narcotics web sites, health information, and workers from needle exchanges), the number of hits from a gram of pure heroin averages out to little more than 14.

Van Tuong Nguyen trafficked 396.2 grams of heroin into Singapore. This is approximately 5,600 doses.

The numbers 5,600 and 26,000 are obviously incongruous, as are reports that 400 grams of heroin would "ruin 26,000 lives". In fact, 400 grams of heroin would not come close to ruining even 5,600 lives. Rather, the heroin would most likely supply people already abusing it. With a little more research, we can estimate how many lives would be adversely affected by 400 grams of heroin during one year:

As many as 67, and as few as 6.

Van Tuong Nguyen would not have sent 26,000 people to their deaths from 400 grams of heroin. Nor would the lives of 26,000 people have been ruined. Far more likely is that six people would get a year's worth of hits. And for this he must hang?

Regardless, yes 15 grams and up carry the death sentence but it's interesting to see how the media and Government twist facts to support their actions.

[Lizard Drinkin]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17343943%255E2862,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
drinking lizard
don't know whose argument you were trying to anticipate there. We're not talking about ascertaining guilt (which the legal system does a very thorough job of IMO). We're talking about the punishment fitting the crime. In Van Nguyen's case, many people don't believe he should have been put to death for trafficking 400 grams of heroin (which is about 8 hits by the way).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when is 400grams 8 hits of heroin he was carring enough to make up to 26,000 hits on the street which might of resulted in the deaths of many.
In singapore if your caught with 15 grams its the death penalty end of story ,he took the chance and lost.Sorry you're quite right. I was thinking in micrograms :rolleyes:

[HoundsOfLove]

What does it matter if it's only this certain amount of hits ect.
It is all a contributing factor to drug abuse, if all the drug dealers could be stopped (never happen) then what a difference would the world be in for these people and their families. I understand they put a limit because some people have it for personal use and not selling it on the streets, but how can you say that that last hit didn't push someone over the limit? You can't so yes that amount he was carrying could in fact be the factor in someone's death, in someone's drug induced state where they hurt somebody else.

[Lizard Drinkin]

Moving into the drug realm - I find it hard to equate a drug dealer with a murderer, even though I find them contemptible. Our kids are all raised with an awareness of the risks of drug taking and addiction - it attracts a great deal of stigma. So those who grow up to be either:

a) enticed by the perceived "danger and excitement" of people who have heroin in their lives and/or;
b) discontent or addled enough to seek release from heroin ie. self-medication

are generally making an informed choice, even if by "informed" I mean a simple South Park "drugs are bad" ethos.

Many people start using in their twenties. They're adults. They take risks and frequently make a mess of their lives. That's their choice. The consequences of their actions are theirs alone to take responsibility for.

[ExecutoR]

Moving into the drug realm - I find it hard to equate a drug dealer with a murderer, even though I find them contemptible. Our kids are all raised with an awareness of the risks of drug taking and addiction...

Im not a murderer because I gave poisoned lollies(drugs) to people and they die... they have been taught not to accept lollies(drugs) from strangers???

What's the difference?

[princessnay]

Im not a murderer because I gave poisoned lollies(drugs) to people and they die... they have been taught not to accept lollies(drugs) from strangers???

What's the difference?

i think there is a huge difference! people that take drugs know that there is risk of dying where as someone that gets shot or killed, because some sicko gets their jollies out of it or whatever, has no choice! they do not get to decide if they get shot! druggies decide if they want to pop that pill or whatever else!!!

[Lizard Drinkin]

Im not a murderer because I gave poisoned lollies(drugs) to people and they die... they have been taught not to accept lollies(drugs) from strangers???

What's the difference?
Drugs are not poisoned lollies. Unless they're laced with something particularly nasty, they're just that - drugs. And, like many prescribed drugs, will kill you if you take more than your body can handle.

My argument is that you'd have to be locked in a box under your parents bed all your life not to know that drug taking is synonymous with risk taking.Your poisoned lollies scenario involves the recipient being unaware of the risk ie. that they are poisoned, so yes, it's murder. Criminal intent. A dealer dispenses drugs with reasonable confidence that people know what they're taking.

[ExecutoR]

Drugs are not poisoned lollies. Unless they're laced with something particularly nasty, they're just that - drugs. And, like many prescribed drugs, will kill you if you take more than your body can handle.

My argument is that you'd have to be locked in a box under your parents bed all your life not to know that drug taking is synonymous with risk taking.Your poisoned lollies scenario involves the recipient being unaware of the risk ie. that they are poisoned, so yes, it's murder. Criminal intent. A dealer dispenses drugs with reasonable confidence that people know what they're taking.
ok see i was coming more from the actual dealer... NOT the consumer...

my point being is that the dealer KNOWS what he is doing. AND KNOWS what he is supplying and that it may kill someone... thats why i used the example...

sure the consumer knows the risk.. and hence possession of drugs is arrestable... BUT they are only going to harm themselves. A drug dealer knows what he is "selling" and has the potential to harm many more than one person.

[Tris]

Don't talk nonsense. A legally binding contract requires at minimum three elements:

an actual agreement (ie. an "offer" and "acceptance")
an intention of both parties to be legally bound by the contract
consideration (something of value must must be exchanged in return for the promise)

There are additional elements such as mental capacity to enter into the agreement, certainty as to the obligations of the contract, and a requirement that the purpose of the contract be legal (eg. a contract assassination cannot be legally binding). I'm a bit spoilt for choice as to which of these elements makes your assertions regarding the death for drug dealing "contract" the most ludicrous... so let's leave that as an exercise for the readership :)

I have the same thing in my law texts too.

1)He agreed to making an attempt of defying the death penalty by not getting caught.
2)He fully intended to carry on with his freedom if he was not caught.
3)This is pretty self explanatory.

Anyone can take a simplistic example and prove minor/techincal flaws, but it takes someone else entirely to accept the simplistic model as a relevant analogy. So let's leave that out of it hey.

[Lizard Drinkin]

ok see i was coming more from the actual dealer... NOT the consumer...

my point being is that the dealer KNOWS what he is doing. AND KNOWS what he is supplying and that it may kill someone... thats why i used the example...

sure the consumer knows the risk.. and hence possession of drugs is arrestable... BUT they are only going to harm themselves. A drug dealer knows what he is "selling" and has the potential to harm many more than one person.A knife seller is in the same position. I know it's not the same level of risk, but the equation's similar.

[ExecutoR]

A knife seller is in the same position. I know it's not the same level of risk, but the equation's similar.
yeh i was knew this was coming as a retort... and the same with a gun seller...

the difference is that these people do not assume the person is going to do damage with them... a drug dealer KNOWS they will do damage...