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

[siliegrrl]

I think even if made executions public, it still wouldn't act as a deterrent for several reasons.
1. Some drug couriers are desperate, they feel they have no other option to repay their debt.
2. Some will have the mentality that it "won't happen to them" or don't consider how frightening the consequences are if they get caught.
3. Some will be told by the kingpins that they have people on the inside or customs to ensure their safe passage.

I honestly think drug couriers fall into 2 categories. Desperate and stupid. No said person with options would surely choose this as a career path, regardless of how lucrative the money is.

[Diabolical]

If anyone managed to hear the "Spoonman" on Triple M last week, he had something along these lines to say.

The main reason why the death penalty isn't as much of a deterrent as it should be, is because it's all done behind closed doors. People don't actually see how gruesome ending someone's life by hanging, or by certain other means for that matter, actually is. He said that if they really wanted to make it a deterrent, they should make the executions public.

He then went on to say if the executions were made public, and the people in the wider community actually saw what happens to a victim, there would most likely be an outcry as to whether or not they should be allowed to continue.

In saying this, I still think he knew what he was doing, and knew the consequences if he got caught, so I have no problems with him being executed.

If they made executions public I'd be willing to put money on the majority of people finding them barbaric and the general opinion moving against capitol punishment. There is nothing fun or glamorous about death (despite the morbid assertions of headrippa). Watching the actual process has made many a pro-capitol punishment supporter change teams.

[ExecutoR]

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 :)
correct.... BUT AT THE SAME TIME SOOOO WRONG!!!

You enter a country you a bound by their laws immediately. Upon entering the country you a binded into a "contract" that means you will follow their laws.

Look at this quote... couldn't find the same on an Australian website but that doesnt matter because the same thing is applied.


While in a foreign country, a U.S. citizen is subject to that country's laws and regulations, which sometimes differ significantly from those in the United States and may not afford the protections available to the individual under U.S. law. Penalties for breaking the law can be more severe in Singapore than for similar offenses in the United States, and persons violating Singapore laws, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned.

There are strict penalties for possession and use of drugs as well as for trafficking in illegal drugs. Singapore has a mandatory death penalty for many narcotics offenses. Convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines.

Visitors should be aware of Singapore's strict laws and penalties for a variety of actions that might not be illegal or might be considered minor offenses in the United States. These include jaywalking, littering, and spitting. Singapore has a mandatory caning sentence for vandalism offenses and caning may also be imposed for immigration violations and other offenses. Commercial disputes that may be handled as civil suits in the United States can escalate to criminal cases in Singapore, and result in heavy fines and prison sentences. There are no jury trials in Singapore, judges hear cases and decide sentencing. The Government of Singapore does not provide legal assistance except in capital cases; legal assistance may be available in some other cases through the Law Society.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1017.html

Thats why when you travel you should check this stuff out and actually find out their laws.

[HoundsOfLove]

I honestly think drug couriers fall into 2 categories. Desperate and stupid. No said person with options would surely choose this as a career path, regardless of how lucrative the money is.

Sorry I think there is a third category and that is plain greed.

[siliegrrl]

Sorry I think there is a third category and that is plain greed.

I'd argue that those that are so consumed by greed that they will obtain what they desire at ANY cost is stupid ;) :)

[custos]

You enter a country you a bound by their laws immediately. Upon entering the country you a binded into a "contract" that means you will follow their laws.
It's still not a contract, but I was being picky. Yeah, look we're probably going around in circles now because a newcomer has entered the discussion and taken it back to square one. I know, and accept, that when travelling abroad you have to respect the laws of the country you're visiting. That is not in dispute. But accepting what is legal and illegal, on the one hand, is quite different from accepting the reasonableness of the punishment for a given transaction on the other.

I hate drug dealers and have no problems with the illegality of their activities (let's not open that one up here Diabolical :) ). What really saddens me is that so many Australians make the next leap and say we should also blindly accept the punishment for the transgression regardless of how brutal and disproportionate it may be -- especially when the sentence is mandatory as in Van Nguyen's case.

Imagine if Australia passed a law that chewing gum was illegal with a mandatory life sentence. An extreme example to make the point, granted, but it would be "the law". So what would you do? I'd be careful to not chew gum (first of all), but I would also speak out against how unjust such a law was. Perhaps a better example would be if it were illegal to criticise the government with torture and long prison sentences the usual punishment *cough* North Korea *cough*. In the face of such injustice against humanity it's immoral for people of the world to merely shrug and say that's their law.

[Diabolical]

.....I hate drug dealers and have no problems with the illegality of their activities (let's not open that one up here Diabolical :) ).....

No contest here. What they're doing is definitely illegal under current laws :p

[popeye]

It's still not a contract, but I was being picky. Yeah, look we're probably going around in circles now because a newcomer has entered the discussion and taken it back to square one. I know, and accept, that when travelling abroad you have to respect the laws of the country you're visiting. That is not in dispute. But accepting what is legal and illegal, on the one hand, is quite different from accepting the reasonableness of the punishment for a given transaction on the other.

I hate drug dealers and have no problems with the illegality of their activities (let's not open that one up here Diabolical :) ). What really saddens me is that so many Australians make the next leap and say we should also blindly accept the punishment for the transgression regardless of how brutal and disproportionate it may be -- especially when the sentence is mandatory as in Van Nguyen's case.

Imagine if Australia passed a law that chewing gum was illegal with a mandatory life sentence. An extreme example to make the point, granted, but it would be "the law". So what would you do? I'd be careful to not chew gum (first of all), but I would also speak out against how unjust such a law was. Perhaps a better example would be if it were illegal to criticise the government with torture and long prison sentences the usual punishment *cough* North Korea *cough*. In the face of such injustice against humanity it's immoral for people of the world to merely shrug and say that's their law.
Obviously then, it's up to the citizens of Singapore to make a stance against their government. Just out of interest then, does anyone have any idea what sort of percentage of Singaporians (if that's even a word) support the death penalty?

[Diabolical]

Obviously then, it's up to the citizens of Singapore to make a stance against their government. Just out of interest then, does anyone have any idea what sort of percentage of Singaporians (if that's even a word) support the death penalty?

But in the case of countries with oppressive and corrupt Governments it is the collective world's responsibility to put outside pressure on them to change as their citizens are gagged. I'm not saying that Singapore government is oppressive or corrupt *cough* and I don't believe we should be petitioning them to change the death penalty simply because it was one of our citizens on the end of the rope when we've let countries like America go unchecked for years.

I recall seeing somewhere that the majority of Singapore's citizens support the death penalty for drug trafficking.

[ExecutoR]

What really saddens me is that so many Australians make the next leap and say we should also blindly accept the punishment for the transgression regardless of how brutal and disproportionate it may be -- especially when the sentence is mandatory as in Van Nguyen's case.


See for me this has never been the point. Whether i agree OR disagree with the sentence does not change my view that the person broke the law in that country and should be punished under their laws, even if i disagree with the sentence.

[Lizard Drinkin]

See for me this has never been the point. Whether i agree OR disagree with the sentence does not change my view that the person broke the law in that country and should be punished under their laws, even if i disagree with the sentence.But it has been the point of most of the discussion on this thread; in fact, some have quite vehemently opposed the idea that changes to unjust laws or punitive measures should be lobbied for at all, which to my mind is inexcusable apathy (or resigned fatalism if you prefer a positive spin).

[headrippa]

If they made executions public I'd be willing to put money on the majority of people finding them barbaric and the general opinion moving against capitol punishment. There is nothing fun or glamorous about death (despite the morbid assertions of headrippa). Watching the actual process has made many a pro-capitol punishment supporter change teams.


Most middle eastern countries do have public hangings and they attract a large population of onlookers. Just the other day I found pics of two Iranian teenagers that were publically hung for being homosexual ( I dont agree with the law, but it's their law and must be respected )

What is the big problem with the facsination of myself looking at pics/video's of death/murder/suicide ? I dont see a major problem with looking at how "real" the world is out there, as to a lot of people but they usually keep it to themselves.

Most capital punishment these days apart from firing squad mishaps or under cooked electric chairs is almost instaneous anyway, and if you ventured into the websites that show these things you'd learn more about it.

BTW Singapore is one of the most cleanest & safest countries you can visit mainly thanks to their harsh penalties for breaking the law, I'd go there anyday rather than go to yankland. Imagine how much better the world would be if we had capital punishment for murder, drugs, pedopheila and rape ( all under certain circumstances ) I for one would like to live in that world.



If anyone managed to hear the "Spoonman" on Triple M last week, he had something along these lines to say.

The main reason why the death penalty isn't as much of a deterrent as it should be, is because it's all done behind closed doors. People don't actually see how gruesome ending someone's life by hanging, or by certain other means for that matter, actually is. He said that if they really wanted to make it a deterrent, they should make the executions public.



Also on Spoonman last week was a guy who went to school with Van Nguyen and his twin brother and claimed that they were dealing drugs back in high school. Spoony said that was a big claim and did he have "absolute proof" to which the guy said yes he did. Then mysteriously he was cut off....media didnt want to hear the truth I suspect.

Also for the billion'th time, hanging is a quick painless death if done professionaly, the GUILTY party is measured and weighed to ensure a snap of the neck takes place. A metal ringlet is placed under the knot to again ensure the neck is snapped.

BTW Spoonman is a wanker, I listened to him 10 years ago when he was on and he's now against what he was for back then, gone soft to suit a more P.C. world I assume

[Lizard Drinkin]

I agree that public executions wouldn't put people off, you'd just get a huge crowd of bloodthirsty onlookers like headrippa. Much like the "bloody masses" of the French Revolution; each guillotining session drew a huge groundswell of fervent supporters who gloried in the killing. Human nature doesn't have a lot going for it if encouraged.

The death penalty is a worthless deterrent because people only commit severe crimes for two reasons: either they think they're smarter than the criminal justice system and won't get caught, or they're in an altered state (ie. crimes of passion or crimes stemming from a psychiatric condition/disorder). No-one wants to go to prison to be anally raped for 20 years either, but it's still not a deterrent.

Furthermore, when the stakes are life and death each and every charged criminal fights a guilty verdict with everything they've got, which holds up the courts for decades and feeds millions upon millions of dollars into the pockets of legal professionals. A career criminal has contacts and an understanding of prison life and will more willingly relent to prison life than a death sentence. It ends up costing the taxpayer far less in the end.

[Diabolical]

Most middle eastern countries do have public hangings and they attract a large population of onlookers. Just the other day I found pics of two Iranian teenagers that were publically hung for being homosexual ( I dont agree with the law, but it's their law and must be respected )

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.


What is the big problem with the facsination of myself looking at pics/video's of death/murder/suicide ? I dont see a major problem with looking at how "real" the world is out there, as to a lot of people but they usually keep it to themselves.

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.


Most capital punishment these days apart from firing squad mishaps or under cooked electric chairs is almost instaneous anyway, and if you ventured into the websites that show these things you'd learn more about it.

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.


Imagine how much better the world would be if we had capital punishment for murder, drugs, pedopheila and rape ( all under certain circumstances ) I for one would like to live in that world.

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.

[custos]

Just the other day I found pics of two Iranian teenagers that were publically hung for being homosexual ( I dont agree with the law, but it's their law and must be respected)

Aaahhrrrreggggg


Also for the billion'th time, hanging is a quick painless death if done professionaly, the GUILTY party is measured and weighed to ensure a snap of the neck takes place. A metal ringlet is placed under the knot to again ensure the neck is snapped.
Putting aside the barbarism of capital punishment at all, the only currently used, humane way to deliberately end a life is with lethal injection -- it's the same process that people choose for themselves under euthanasia.

Edit: agreed Diabolical -- note, lethal injection is used in some US States.

[dvd_beetle]

And how do you propose to support that assertion?Just so u know, I did respond to this... it was moderated out. Do your own research. The bottom line is that:
You're 5 times more likely to survive Russian roulette then you are to go one year of "safe sex" without transferring sufficient body fluid for pregnancy!(taken from my original post). I did back that up, but I suppose I won't again, so do you're own research and you'll find what I've just told you is absolutely true. That's enough on the matter.

[Diabolical]

Just so u know, I did respond to this... it was moderated out. Do your own research. The bottom line is that:(taken from my original post). I did back that up, but I suppose I won't again, so do you're own research and you'll find what I've just told you is absolutely true. That's enough on the matter.

beetle, if you feel so passionately about this topic then post a thread about it. It's not appropriate to discuss it within the context of this thread, which is why it was moderated out.

[dvd_beetle]

beetle, if you feel so passionately about this topic then post a thread about it. It's not appropriate to discuss it within the context of this thread, which is why it was moderated out.All I wanted to say is that safe sex does more harm then good. If anyone is confused about it, or would like to know more as to why this is the case they are welcome to PM me.

I was going to say, in relation to Van Nguyen that opponents of the death penalty often manipulate facts. I'm not in favour of the death penalty... but I'm not against it either. It's better we don't have it, in my opinion. Is it a deterrent? I would say so... people who say it isn't cannot substantiate that claim. Most is based on the USA's death penalty, yet they sentence less then 1% of murders to death, so it's not surprising that the deterrent effect isn't huge. In fact, from 1967 to now in the USA there has been one execution in every 1600 murders. Does it save lives? Probably... an inmate is something like 400% more likely to kill in prison then after being released. However, we cannot condemn people for crimes they have not yet committed.

And I will even recognize the fact that some people claim that they can show the death penalty is cheaper then life imprisonment. And though some people sometimes claim otherwise there has never been conclusive, or proven evidence a single innocent person was ever executed in America. However, the last man hanged in Australia probably was innocent.

[ExecutoR]

But it has been the point of most of the discussion on this thread; in fact, some have quite vehemently opposed the idea that changes to unjust laws or punitive measures should be lobbied for at all, which to my mind is inexcusable apathy (or resigned fatalism if you prefer a positive spin).
See i think that is gong off topic then lol...

if this debate is going the "Is Corporal punishment a good idea?" Then i might as well lend my two cents hehe...

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?

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... 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!

Deterrence...


Deterrence is not an all-or-nothing matter. A punishment might have some deterrent effect without being extremely effective. Once this is recognized, the mere continued existence of wrongdoing does not demonstrate the failure of punishment as a deterrent, as many have thought.

Jail as an Ineffective Detterent...


Chronic pain is not as efficient as acute pain. The punishment applied to the subjects of the punishment experiment described at the beginning of this chapter is one that is always defined in terms of acute pain. In real criminal punishment, this is far from the case. The punishment is drawn out into long prison terms which are then-almost as an apology for their being long-turned into periods of "humane" punishment, described as deprivation of liberty, while maintaining many physical comforts.

Time works against prison. The scientists of punishment know what makes punishment most effective: it must be immediate and swift. That is, it must be administered as soon after the offense as possible.

Prison maximizes uncertainty. Any criminal worth his salt knows that he can expect to get caught only for a small number of his crimes. There is no certainty of punishment in real life as far as crime is concerned...

...Certainty means more than simply the chances of getting caught, and in fact one might argue that this is not really what certainty means when it comes to criminal punishment. Certainty also requires that, when a person is found guilty of a crime the punishment will in fact be carried out.

This is the point on which most criminal justice reformers have concentrated their energies over the last few years. As we saw in Chapter 8, they have complained that judges' discretion produced highly unpredictable sentences.

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.

"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.

[Nook]

After trying to read ALL 9 pages my thought is still the same. As much as I hate the fact that he was hung it was the punishment for his crime. It was the law of the country. I don't agree with it but he would have known before entering the country.
I am glad that we do not have death penalty anymore. We do live in a fortunate country where we do have freedom of speach.
Although sometimes our voices are not heard we still have that right unlike other countries.
Maybe one day it will all change.