Human right group. Shut up for our death penalty system !

last SG · 2005-05-11T14:44:58+00:00

Its stupid to KILL someone over 600 gram of drugs..

suntze SG

Yes, drug traffickers are wrong.But when drug are available,a person has a choice not to take it.

Not when you are hooked.

It's good that we do value the right of the individual to live. However, we also need legal, penal and enforcement systems to ensure that citizens live freely without fear of violence and other criminal acts.

The drug traffickers know the the law in the country and harm they cause; they don't deserve sympathy.

snow leopard SG

[We can keep people in detention for indefinite periods for drug trafficking.As long as we make the effort to rehabilitate and cure these people.Doesn't matter how we do it.In the end, why should we kill a person if the avenues for treatment have not been met?Purely pragmatic reasons?Is a human life lower than a dollar?

Cure them, use chemical receptor treatment for their minds whatever]

it defeats the whole purpose of capital punishment. fear of death is a very powerful inhibitor against committing heinous crimes. even with the fear of death, already there are people willing to take the risk. without the fear of death, the crime would be even more prevalent.

the consequences of drug traffiicking is similar to murder because the danger it poses to society is similar as both actions show no regard towards the life of a fellow human being. while the latter involves killing one or two individuals with motive, the former takes away the senses of possibly many more which is equivalent to taking away their lives.

an entire society can be rendered useless by drugs. the man who is addicted by that few grams given by the trafficker will be as good as a dead man. like a terminally ill patient who constantly needs a life supporting system to stay alive, he too will need a life supporting system which is the drug. the sufferings get multiplied to the rest of the family too.

also i must say well done stupidissmart, smart answers.

LazerLordz SG

And you liken them to sick pets that must be put down?Ooh..death IS such an easy way to solve society's ills right?No wonder we have a lack of thinking minds.Yeah, just kill the trafficker, it's all Keynesian anyway. Evil or Very Mad

stupidissmart SG

And you liken them to sick pets that must be put down?Ooh..death IS such an easy way to solve society's ills right?No wonder we have a lack of thinking minds.

People who support the deah penalty r not unthinking or lazy to think people. They have thought it all the pros and cons and conclude tat the death penalty is still relevant in society. Do u support putting down animals tat go around biting and injuring people and had even seriously maul off a child arm ?

iveco SG

Sharks harm people, but yet they are not allowed to become extinct. Please explain.

stupidissmart SG

Sharks harm people, but yet they are not allowed to become extinct. Please explain.

the number of people killed by shark a year is less than the number of people strike by lightning. Shark will only attack people if they thought he was a sea creature such as seal. And if a shark do attack people. Rest assured tat tis shark will by killed. We attack only the single individual tat caused harm, we do not attack the whole species. A certain race of human tat commit more death penalty offences doesn't means the whole race had to be killed.

LazerLordz SG

As I have reiterated..I will only support the death penalty if its applied to individuals who have plotted and caused death at the instance the offence was committed.If you say the trafficker has to hang, what about the consumer?It takes two hands to clap, and if we rehabilitate the addict, why can't we just blardy jail the trafficker instead of killing him?

I might have been overtly personal in my attacks, apologies.But my stand still remains.

stupidissmart SG

Well, the extent of the punishment probably depend on society perception on how serious the crime is. If u ask why don't we just jail the offender, then someone may ask why don't we just jail trafficker for, maybe mere 5 years. Maybe another will ask why do we need to cane the rapists. Just jail them for, maybe, 5 years too. In fact another could ask maybe we shouldn't give death penalty to murderer, kidnapper, people who use firearms etc. We give them jail as well. U feel strongly about drug traffickers but others may sympathise rapers or kidnappers too. They can also argue kidnappers do not deserve death penalty since very few countries give death penalty to kidnappers

Wat will be the end effect ? More people become traffickers, more people become murderer and more people become rapists and more people become victims of their crimes. In tat sense we r punishing the innocent now by letting the guilty off easily. R we really being humane if we indirectly allow more crimes and more victims to appear ? R we being humane to the innocent who had done nothing wrong and get sometimes worse off punishment (such as being murdered) than the guilty ?

If u ask me, most people probably feel comfortable with the death penalty system in here now. Furthermore in the society here, they treat drugs very seriously and warrant drug traffickers deserve death. High punishment is necessary for crimes which harm individual or society greatly to protect the innocent

snow leopard SG

my take of the whole issue is this. if the lawyer concerned had not gone public and created a hoo har, chances of clemency might have been better. just imagine you get the public into a stand off with the govt. what do you expect the govt to do? back off? what sort of precedence would they be setting? any would be murderer would be able to take comfort in the thought that even if he gets caught, he can get his bed ridden amah, two polio stricken children, kidney patient wife to beg the whole world and he would be safe. would he fear the death sentence anymore? what kind of mockery would that make of our judiciary system? what sort of confidence would the people have with our laws?

no one's directly killed but indirectly lives are destroyed. there's no direct intention to kill anyone per say but trafficking is done under the conscious knowledge of the harm it can do to people. it is knowing yet disregarding the lives of others that makes them guilty.

sgdiehard SG

What is worse is that the traffickers do it for MONEY, while disregarding the lives of others!!!

PRP SG

Well said!

PRP SG

Have anyone answered my repeated question: Why is selling cigarette legal?

The man who was death SG

Cos if u ban all forms of drugs, the economy of a country will collapse due to less tax

iveco SG

Even if it is legal, the sale of cigarettes is bad for the environment. Smokers contribute to greenhouse gas emission and also endanger the health of those near them with their second-hand smoke.

PRP SG

Stupidissmart,
Yes,u are right to say that hard drug is more potent than cigarette and the extent of harm does matter.The govt says cigarette can kill.So cigarette need not be banned?While the govt hang drug traffickers but think selling cigarette is alright.Is there double standard or no consistency in principle.

There is cigarette,i don't smoke.There is drug,i don't consume.So the govt should solve the cause of the promblem rather than punishing ppl cruelly.Cruel action is also a sin!

foxtrout8 SG

Do not be fooled into labeling consumers and traffickers under a levelled playing field. Im telling u, they are not.

The death penalty is there as a deterrent to oust out possible intention of distributing drug in Singapore. The reason why drug consumers do not face the death penalty is because there is no need for such deterent. By taking drugs, they are putting their lives on the line. Their peril shall be their deterent. An example is that, many of us do not take drugs because we are detered not to harm ourselves. There is no need for death penalty to prevent people for consuming drugs.

But what if someone consumes eventually despite that deterent? That individual will be throwed into rehab center to be under a prison-like treatment system. He bears all consequences of a ex-convict. As we can see, a double deterent system in place.

However, things are different in the case of the drug traffickers. Without a penalty, i hardly see any deterrent for traffickers. Traffickers by themselve will not lose their family, their life or their sanity by trafficking drugs while the same will occur if the consumer consumes drug, so how can they be compared within a levelled field?

If u look at every crime in the society, the perpatrator and the victim (lurer) bears different responsibilities in a single offence. For example, if it is not that this old lady show off her jewelry, she wont be robbed. So under this analogy, are we going to punish the old lady the same way we going to punish the robber?

Any sound minded person will say no. The reason why the victim in that case wont be punish because although she is wrong, she didnt bear the greater responsibility. Same goes to perpatrator and victims of family-violence, loanshark haressments etc.

If we will to go back to the topic on drugs. Yes, if not for the demand, there wont be a supply. But the demand for drug doesnt justify ur action of earning profits at the expense of someone's ultimate suffering. Not only you are earning at the expense of ultimate suffering, you are a plaguing the society.

Since the consumer do not share the greater guilt, why should they bear the same penalty? But since consuming drug is an offence itself, they should be let off scott free.

sgdiehard SG

From the little I know, tobacco consumption existed hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. It was said that the american red indians smoked tobacco during religious ceremonies even before they were discovered by the whites. Tobacco was smoked in pipe, chewed and snuff. Nicotine found in tobacco is a mild stimulant and was used as a medicine. Nacotine also makes smoking pleasurable, so for hundreds of years, use of tobacco has been a pastime for many.

What happened next is that tobacco growing, processing and marketing have become big business for many countries. Tobacco tax is an important part of national income. Nothing illegal about it.

It was only in the 1900's did scientists found increasing evidence that smoking endanger a person's health. Health hazards of smoking was only officially announced by the US in 1964. In response, tobacco companies started putting filter, reduced tar and nicotine to reduce the risk to health. In the meantime, more and more legal regulations on the sales and use of tobacco products.

But, no country want to ban it totally. Tobacco related industries are too big and affect too many countries and too many people. Even the none tobacco producing countries are taking large revenue from tobacco tax. Nobody wants to be the first to ban it.

fymk SG

Human rights group fight for the wrong things in life. Drug traffickers know before they come into Singapore that there is a death penalty for drugs. Airplanes warn you before they land in Singapore. If they come from Malaysia , all the more they should know. It is no BIG secret that Singapore HANGS people for trafficking drug

The drug trafficker CHOOSES to undertake the risk of death in order to gain PERSONAL profit. He took the RISK and got caught. Therefore he CANNOT be excused from the DEATH PENALTY. Too bad for that guy . He miscalculated his risks and now he has to pay for HIS mistake.

Ethical or not - it will be a neverending debate . Point above says it all for me.

PRP SG

Originally posted by PRP:
Stupidissmart,
Yes,u are right to say that hard drug is more potent than cigarette and the extent of harm does matter.[b]The govt says cigarette can kill.So cigarette need not be banned?While the govt hang drug traffickers but think selling cigarette is alright.Is there double standard or no consistency in principle?

There is cigarette,i don't smoke.There is drug,i don't consume.So the govt should solve the cause of the promblem rather than punishing ppl cruelly.Cruel action is also a sin![/b]

No one can refute or comment on my points in my above msg?

stupidissmart SG

Yes,u are right to say that hard drug is more potent than cigarette and the extent of harm does matter.The govt says cigarette can kill.So cigarette need not be banned?

As said before, the [b]extent is important. U acknowledge tat drugs is more harmful than cigerrettes. Your only point is cigerrettes can kill. U know wat ? There r lots of things in the world tat kill. Growing pottery on HDB can kill, but HDB is not stopping people from doing tat since the possibility of tat happening is very low. Reckless driving can kill, but they r still letting people buying cars and selling cars. Eating fatty food can kill too, but obviously people should have the rights to sell them and eat them. If u swallow detergent, u also get killed. So do we ban detergent ? Com'on man ! The extent is important. Drugs is only meant to be taken and they does great harm to the human body. Some hard drugs cause brain damage the moment it is taken and people report to have died almost immediately after use. Cigerrettes is at most found to increase chances of cancer and it is extremely, if not impossible to die immediately from just smoking. The extent is totally different

Moreover almost the whole world and the the United Nations had banned drugs because they r harmful. If u talk about cigerrettes, way during the british colony, it was already legal since there r no studies to say it is harmful then. Now after so many years it is impossible or inhumane to ban cigerrettes. Drugs r used only recently. They can be stopped to harm society now.

Even if it is legal, the sale of cigarettes is bad for the environment. Smokers contribute to greenhouse gas emission and also endanger the health of those near them with their second-hand smoke.

tat is why they r taxed heavily and they r discouraged to be used repeatedly. But to ban them will be inhumane to the smokers who r already addicted to it

« Previous Page Next Page »