Some drug abusers are first forced upon by coercion through
pain, abuse, threats and may be even have drugs forced upon them
against their will. Such attempts cannot be policed and can
sometimes be impromptu.
These people are only of ages where their brain is still growing.
These people were then misled, and then had their control and
growth restricted by these drugs.
We cannot eliminated these problems, but we can limit their
occurrence by lowering the opportunities for such incidents to
surface. Forcefully by law, and then reinforced by deterrent and
education. When the country matures, it's understandable that we
should remove these shackles slowly.
Yes these events can be in smaller scale, but in countries like
Australia, England and many European countries, we see that these
events take place almost all the times. No doubt the measure taken
locally was extremely harsh, and practising mandatory terms leave
no grounds for clemency, laws must be reviewed before changes can
be made. There must be an attempt to reconcile the justice system
and the overall opinion from the public. So there must be a review
and these changes cannot take place overnight. These changes cannot
be implemented immediately. Yet those barbaric Australians who felt
they were superior in being 'humane' in these situations had not
understood that the law must represent the people of the country,
NOT their country. If they feel it's wrong, it's their right to
inform us, and not demand that we should follow.
Their reaction was understandable, but their harsh criticism,
racial abuse and insult stinging when the incident was blown up by
the press was unnecessary. They do not perceive our ways as an
alternative but insisted we were barbaric, they made insults to the
nation and the people as a whole and naturally, majority of the
people rooted for the Government. Alienated thoughts were usually
greeted in strong offence, as were theirs on our laws.
The hangman is looked upon as a permanent devasting destruction to
one person but I would like to reiterate that a punishment must be
meted out such that an equally strong message is being conveyed
that we do not condone acts that is offending in public opinion.
The punishment level at least be satisfying to the masses until
they can feel at ease should such offending act be taken.
Thus, the lawmakers must appease the general opinion that the
current law is effectively minimising offending acts and the
punishment acts as an solace to the public welfare. And public
opinion, changes from time to time.
There is no justification to any punishment making it universally
right regardless of the events occurred as there are too many
different perspectives to one event. And the lawmakers are equally
adequate to govern the nation if the majority approves of any law.
The Government would be barbaric, if the majority disapproves of
the law and refuses to amend it. However, everyone should be given
the opportunity to address the issue as a citizen and advocate
their beliefs.
My view is that the death penalty is a very strong deterrent due to
how nature creates the survival will in our mentality. I disapprove
of mandatory punishments, but approves of death penalty should
there be a need to deter others from committing a similar offending
act.
(I refused initially to really write my strong arguments on this
but then enough is enough, we had enough idiots diluting this
topic)
