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..

PRP SG

Originally posted by PRP:
[b]My main arguments

Firstly, death penalty is inhumane.Many advanced countries have abolished such punishment.S'pore has become an advanced country.We should similarily follow.

Secondly,drug traffickers do not intentionally want to kill anyone.They commit the crime for money and the addicts buy drugs voluntarily and most of them don't die after taking drug.So to use death penalty on drug traffickers is wrong under the principle of law.[/b]

Stupidissmart,

Since your rebutals are wrong,would u think harder to rebut my argument persuasively?

stupidissmart SG

U say capital punishment is absolutely necessary.Why can some advanced countries abolish it?

America legalise firearms too. Why can't singapore have it ? Other advanced countries sell pronographic material by the roadside, why can't singapore have them ?

If S'pore has no drug,drug addicts can still take drug in foreign countries such as JB.Even with capital punishment,there are still drug traffickers.So the punishemnt is really not effective.

There is death penalty In JB too

Why don't u answer the question:Is death penalty a murder?

Yes. So ? Is caning considered intentionally hurting a person ? Is Jailing restriction of freedom ? Is fining forceful possesion of individual ?

Poopie-Head SG

There r always cases tat people get punished for an offence they never do, but then if u r the judiciary system, wat should u gonna do ? We can't let everyone be freed isn't it ? It is sad to punish an innocent person but there is no better solution. If u do not want to punish the innocent, the only way is to free all criminals, which obviously is worst off for the society

1. Please distinguish between NO CAPITAL punishment and no punishment at all. There should be some system to keep the society safe from certain people. I am against DEATH SENTENCE/capital punishment, not against the whole judiciary system. Removing the Death Penalty DOES NOT automatically mean all criminals are free to go. The punishments for fines and imprisonment can remain WITHOUT the death penalty.

2. I'm not sure if u have been to law classes. INITIALLY, one of the very basic ideas behind criminal law is that ONLY when a person is PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, will he/she be pronounced as guilty. Another good point to note is that imprisonment was originally meant for people who are dangerous to the society, i.e. people who committed criminal acts such as murder, robbing, kidnapping, theft, rape, etc. There is a need for these offenders to be kept away from the society to protect the general public.

Of course, over the years, various different amendments were made in different countries/states, so much so that it is sad that sometimes the basic ideas are forgotten or altered. Now we get, IMHO, absurd punishments such as IMPRISONMENT for people who didnt change their window rivets, AS IF the person committed a CRIMINAL ACT. Rolling Eyes Please check again what is considered a criminal act and what is the idea behind imprisonment. Seems like the law now uses absurd (IMO) penalties to "scare" people into doing what they want them to, in this case, to change to approved window rivets. Laughing If scaring people works so well, why not juz change EVERY SINGLE penalty to imprisonment or death to "scare" potential "offenders". (ok abit off-topic but i juz wanna show how the law can sometimes deviate from its basic ideas).

Similarly, a person found with an excess of a certain drug is getting the MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE, I hope the authorities consider the background of the person, whether the accused has connections with drug traffickers/suppliers, if not, since there is a doubt that the person is able to source for the drugs, the general requirement for 'proving beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be established, and in this case, the accused should not be pronounced guilty and sentenced to death. Judgement must not be placed solely on the fact that the accused was caught in possession of the drug, which is very superficial. However, if u read on you will find that this is probably wishful thinking on my part.

I hope u understand tat punishment is necessary isn't it ? Now if we do not have the death penalty, the possible greatest punishment is simply lifeterm imprisonment. Is tat enough to deter people from committing serious crimes ? There r many people who don't mind jail sentence, especially people who had lived in jail for a long time before being released. They in fact may yearn to go back to jail, a system where they r already used to. Wat is going to stop them from committing offences such as bank robbery, murder, drug trafficking or acts of terrorism ?

Yes, I agree punishment is necessary, the question remains - where to draw the line, and whether capital punishment is effective at all.

Like PRP said "Even with capital punishment,there are still drug traffickers.So the punishemnt is really not effective."

Some very interesting quotes i get from Amnesty International. This is a very good article.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa360012004

"Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. Criminologists have long argued that the best way to deter crime is to increase the certainty of detection, arrest and conviction."

"Singapore is believed to have the worlds highest per capita execution rate, relative to its population. "

"Claiming that the death penalty has been effective in controlling the trade in illicit drugs, the Singapore authorities reported an overall decline in the number of drug abusers arrested between 1994 and 2001....According to the website of the Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), a total of 3,393 drug abusers were arrested in 2002. The number of new drug abusers increased by 16% compared to the figures for 2001."

Secondly, if a person hate another very deeply and killed him. Is tat fair for the innocent person who was murdered ? The innocent gets a heavier punishment than the guilty.

"Any humane criminal justice system could not continue to justify the retention of the death penalty based on retribution."

"I do not now believe that any one of the hundreds of executions I carried out has in any way acted as a deterrent against future murder. Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge". Former British executioner Albert Pierrepoint."

"The death penalty is a violation of one of the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There is no escaping the risk of error which can lead to the execution of an innocent person."

"The eradication of the supply of drugs is important but equally important is the alleviation of social conditions that encourage would-be traffickers or addicts. The socially excluded young and poor school dropouts are the most affected and drug addictions are disproportionately high among males with poor education... Are we assisting the socially excluded to reintegrate into society or are we disposing them off [sic] as rejects?"

Chinese saying: When a men works in society, they cannot afford to be idealistic and have little choices in the things they do

Men have to be realistic, even making decisions tat may cause harm to a minority to protect the majority. There is no way a justice system can be removed. There is no way to be sure all prosecuted r not innocent. There r no better options. So wat to do ? Free all criminals ?

So u agree to the idea to "kill all people wrongfully than to let one slip off?" Wow! You have no regard for the innocent??!

There are many more states that do not support capital punishments, are they unrealistic and too idealistic?

Supporting the idea of harming the minority of innocents just so to protect the majority is undeniably discriminatory. What if one day you are to be executed because you are carrying an infectious and fatal disease becoz the deaths of you and "your kind" will ensure the safety of the rest of the people? Do you think it is right to do so? If this is allowed, soon it will turn to differences between race, religion, social classes, and what-have-you. The strong majority bullies the weak minority, is this your idea of justice? People should be judged on whether they are found guilty, not because they are in the minority.

Since you agree that there is no way to be totally sure that all prosecuted are not innocent, all the more should a death penalty be abolished! Better options are available, such as better crime detection, fairer trails and procedures, transparency, etc. Like I said, removing the death penalty does not mean other punishments are removed as well.

Poopie-Head SG

Every punishment r irreversible. But we cannot not mete out justice.

Of course every punishment is irreversible. It is also a fact that no justice system in the world can be free from the risk of error. Justice is not revenge.

The harm is still already done to tis individual. For caning, the process is irreversible as well. The best way is to make processes tat prove an individual is innocent or guilty, not enacting punishment which require time to consume

You have not yet answered: would it be better if an accused was executed and then found innocent? Harm is already done in either cases, but you do not see the severity of the wrongfully EXECUTED, as compared to the wrongfully imprisoned.

U can push the charge of murder easily to another as well. But wat to do ? Free all drug traffickers ?

In order to prove a person guilty of murder, there must be evidence, backed with a motive and the actual act itself, to back the claim.

In order to prove a person guilty of drug trafficking, there is NO requirement to prove actual physical contact or knowledge of the possession, just as long as the drug is found in the accused's possession, he is deemed guilty. Also, as long as the person is found in possession of a certain quantity of the banned drugs, it is AUTOMATICALLY presumed that the person is drug trafficking. This works against drug abusers who possess more than the allowed quantity, because they would otherwise be charged under drug abusing which does not carry the death penalty. In either cases, the requirements are far too easily established and superficial and the accused is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent. The death sentence is mandatory, meaning the judge have no chance to weigh the situation and perhaps decide in a lighter sentence.

Once again, no death sentence don't equate to "free all drug traffickers"... overtly simplistic view of the situation, even extremist.

For drugs, the person who takes it DEFINITELY have harm done to his body. For casino, only very few people who gambles becomes an addict and commit crimes. Drugs is also physically addicitive, while gambling is at most mental, making it easier to kick or not be addicted. If u look at the law, even illegal casino operators do not get death penalty when they r caught since the harm, as deemed by the judiciary system throughout the world, agree tat the potential harm of casino is much lesser than drugs. It is different.

Drug addicts harm their own bodies, so what has it got to do with anything? Are drug traffickers responsible for the addicts' decision to take up drugs? The decision for harming their own bodies are by the addicts themselves. Since drug traffickers are punished for being the channel that provides the addiction, other people who provide channels for crimes and vices should likewise be punished, but why the disparity in the sentencing?

The assumption that gambling is an easier addiction to quit is highly hypothetical, even if it were so, there is a much larger number of gambling addicts compared with drug addicts, resulting in MORE occurences of social problems. The social problems that can be caused by both types of addicts are similar - theft, robbery, murder, etc.

The majority of the world's judiciary systems oppose capital punishment, so what are we waiting for?

Tat is why a harsh punishment is necessary to "convince" people from not committing out heavy offences. Implementing death penalty to save more lives numerically r more meaningful

There is no evidence that harsh punishment works effectively to deter potential offenders. Most people think they will not be caught. Wink

Mandatory death sentences

"The provision of mandatory death sentences deprives the courts of the discretion to weigh the evidence in capital cases in order to consider mitigating circumstances. This can result in decisions which are both arbitrary and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case."

This means that the decision whether or not to hang a prisoner depends on the amount of drugs found. This increases the risk of executing vulnerable drug addicts or minor drug pushers, while those who play a leading role in drug trafficking syndicates often escape detection and prosecution.

...the Misuse of Drugs Act allows for secret evidence from informers to be used during trials. The use of testimony from an anonymous witness violates the accuseds right to examine witnesses, because the accused is deprived of the necessary information to challenge the witnesss reliability.

Presumptions, and Guilty until proven innocent. Shocked

The Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

According to Clause 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, any person proved to have had in their possession more than specified quantities of drugs, is presumed to have that drug for the purpose of "trafficking" unless the contrary can be proved.

Anyone proved or presumed to have a controlled drug in their possession is presumed to know the nature of the drug, unless the contrary can be proved. According to the law, these presumptions cannot be rebutted by proof that the accused never had physical possession of the drug. In addition, where one of two or more people, with the knowledge and consent of the others, is in possession of a controlled drug, it is presumed to be in the possession of "each and all of them".

stupidissmart SG

Of course every punishment is irreversible. It is also a fact that no justice system in the world can be free from the risk of error. Justice is not revenge.

Actually, one of the reasons for justice may be to right out the wrong for the victim. Though it was never stated as such, it do gives the idea tis is a form of revenge

You have not yet answered: would it be better if an accused was executed and then found innocent? Harm is already done in either cases, but you do not see the severity of the wrongfully EXECUTED, as compared to the wrongfully imprisoned.

If u ask me, it is true tat if the victim was executed, the result is much worse than if he is jailed. However we have to compare between the final result of the soceity instead of just individual. DO u agree tat if a death penalty, it do deter many forms of serious crimes such as murdering, firearms transaction, kidnapping, bank robbery and drug abuse ? If u compared statistic, u will find tat overall, more people benefited from tis system. It make little sense to save an apple by throwng away a basket of them

Wa about firearm ? It is the same isn't it ? U r deemed to possessed firearms when u really have firearms isn't it ? Wat else could have been added in to prove a person is a drug trafficker ? Maybe the best way is to make the public wary of being a victm to such a crime and be more careful in dealing with their belongings.

If u talk about drug abuser, than u should be glad tat the amount stipulated is actually very great. The amount of drugs could last them for a long time and thus normal drug abusers will not have in possession of such amount unless they r really drug trafficker. It is like u will not buy 100 bottles of Slim 10 pills if u r not the supplier or directly help in supplying them.

Drug addicts harm their own bodies, so what has it got to do with anything? Are drug traffickers responsible for the addicts' decision to take up drugs? The decision for harming their own bodies are by the addicts themselves. Since drug traffickers are punished for being the channel that provides the addiction, other people who provide channels for crimes and vices should likewise be punished, but why the disparity in the sentencing?

It have because the potential harmful effect is much more than gambling addicts. I am sure u realise tat if I hit a person till he is paralysed is different from if I hit a person till he is only blue black. The final effect is different. A car driving at 120 km/hr is speeding but a person driving at 200km/hr is worse still. The resulting impact is different. Furthermore, I have shown u tat most the judiciary system in the world treat drug abuse more seriously than illegal gambling operator. Surely there is a sign tat drug abuser is on a different scale than gambling

The assumption that gambling is an easier addiction to quit is highly hypothetical, even if it were so, there is a much larger number of gambling addicts compared with drug addicts, resulting in MORE occurences of social problems. The social problems that can be caused by both types of addicts are similar - theft, robbery, murder, etc.

Tat is not an assumption tat drug abuse is easier to be addicted and harder to quit since it is physical in nature. If u talk about more gambling addicts, tat may not be true for some countries but true for singapore. Tat is simply because the problem of drug trafficking has been lowered significantly due to heavy punishment and education involved. If they r given free play such as hollad, u will find more people who r drug abuser than addicted gamblers

There is no evidence that harsh punishment works effectively to deter potential offenders. Most people think they will not be caught

If u compare the durg adbuse problem in singapore with the rest of the world tat have no death penalty, u will fidn them to have a lower % of drug addicts per 1000 population or something. Also u will find tat the drug addict cases drop drastically after harsher laws were implemented. Furthermore, I believe it is common sense to know at harsher punishment give higher deterence. Otherwise migt as well free all criminals again since if the lower the punishment the more deterence it gives out

kentona SG

Definitely PRP and iveco are not talking sense here. You r simplying arguing for the sake of argument tat the death penalty is wrong. Hav u all ever considered the feelings of the relatives of the victims? U all tink humans are so readily reformable? The death penalty also exists bcos of this one thing called conscience. U really tink u can sleep with a piece of mind after u killed somebody even if u r spared the death penalty?

PRP SG

Kentona,

U can't understand reason rather than we are not talking sense.According to u,drug traffickers kill someone.Do cigarrette sellers kill ppl?In fact,the business is legal.

Capital is murder -- even Stupidissmart agree but then he still support murder.

PRP SG

Stupidissmart said fine was cruel and banning smoking is inhumane.Then he support capital punishment.Readers,can u believe the opinions of this person?

stupidissmart SG

U can't understand reason rather than we are not talking sense.According to u,drug traffickers kill someone.Do cigarrette sellers kill ppl?In fact,the business is legal.

the harm tat drug trafficking bring to society is not lesser than a murder. Cigerrettes, as said countless but ignored countless times before, r much harmless compared with drugs

Stupidissmart said fine was cruel and banning smoking is inhumane.Then he support capital punishment.Readers,can u believe the opinions of this person?

I said all punishment r cruel but necessary for perhaps the 3rd time. If it is not cruel, then everybody commit crime isn't it ? Capital punishment r cruel but nevertheless necessary.

iveco SG

Exactly my sentiments. There are people who have been wrongfully condemned to the gallows. THe hands of the state are dripping with the blood of the wronged.

I would love to see the expression on Kentona's face when his own relative meets the fate I was talking about.

pikamaster SG

hmm...

quite interesting u shud mention AUST.

I happen to be in there right now and btw, it is NOT TRUE tt u need to travel 5 km to see another person. I've gone to Perth and Sydney and the Gold Coast and now I'm in Adelaide, and there are Housing Estates there. houses side by side. there are shopping centres and so on. I would judge the houses are about 60 cm apart? What the bloody hell r u talkign abt???? This is not teh colonial days, u noe... in fact, I happen to be in a cyber-cafe in a shopping centre right now so there...

the disgusted pikamaster

PRP SG

Wrong in legal principle

There is no argument that drug traffickers should be punished.The argument is whether drug trafickers should be punished with dealth penalties.Whether one support capital punishment is a moral choice.I believe capital punishment is wrong while Stupidissmart believes it is right.

Let's just say capital punishment is acceptable.My next question is whether drug trafficking deserves such punishment.Under the principle that "an eye for an eye",drug traffickers shouldn't be given death penalties because it is not the drug traffickers who may kill drug addicts but rather drug trafficers who excessively abuse the drugs & kill themselves.If a person take too much alchoholic drinks or smoke excessively & died,can Stupidissmart blame their death on sellers of alchoholic drinks or cigarettes?

PRP SG

Stupidismsart said the drug trafficking bring harm to society is no less than murder.Stupidismart,why wouldn't u take drugs since they are availablle.

I said "if there is no demands, there would be no drug traffickers",don't u understand?Why there are drug addicts?Blame them & the govt.

iveco SG

That came from Keynesian philosophy, didn't it?

kentona SG

Wah Lau, u read up on some news article in other countries and applied that to Spore, dont u have the faintest idea that this is Singapore we r talking about? How often do u hear of such cases in Singapore? Dont go shooting off ur mouth juz bcos u feel u r so damn self-righteous ok. Supply us with FACTS

kentona SG

And BTW, when I mean FACTS, I mean cases tat can be found in Singapore. No point talking about USA, Canada, Australia, blah blah blah cos those r not SINGAPORE. IF by now the advocates of non capital punishment cannot see tat this is Singaporean cultures, beliefs and foundation that we r built on, then too sad u r arguing here cos the arguments doesnt give weight, Different countries and different cultures, how ken u even apply them to Singapore in the very first place?

iveco SG

Originally posted by kentona:

Wah Lau, u read up on some news article in other countries and applied that to Spore, dont u have the faintest idea that this is Singapore we r talking about? How often do u hear of such cases in Singapore? Dont go shooting off ur mouth juz bcos u feel u r so damn self-righteous ok. Supply us with FACTS [b][/b]

I can bet that Took Leng Hao is going to hang for murder even if Huang Na's real killer wasn't him.

Poopie-Head SG

u may like to read up on the link i provided in my previous post.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa360012004

this is an excellent report on what is going on here in SG.

scroll to Case Studies, and judge for yourselves if the punishments were too harsh and un-accommodating. Imagine a 18year old girl was hanged, juz becoz they found drugs in a 'hidden compartment'. Guilty or not, I believe the young girl deserves a second chance in life.

And SIS > FYI, the max limit on the various drugs are very very low, making it a MANDATORY DEATH SENTENCE (judge cannot chose other sentence) for anyone found with more than the specified amount (which is a small amount).

PRP is right in the comment that drug traffickers are not DIRECTLY responsible for harming drug addicts - it is the addicts who harm themselves, no one else. The Death Penalty for drug traffickers in SG is not in line with the guidelines set by the UN.

A search on google about Singapore, some website says Singapore is a popular transit for drugs. Goes to show no matter the harsh laws on drug trafficking, SG is still very popular as a transit/destination for these traffickers.

Most controversial is this law presumes a person to be Guilty and the burden is on the person to prove himself otherwise.

Quoted:
Anyone found guilty of trafficking, importing or exporting the following specified amounts of drugs faces a mandatory death sentence: more than 1,200 grams of opium, more than 30 grams of morphine, more than 15 grams of heroin, more than 30 grams of cocaine, more than 500 grams of cannabis, more than 1,000 grams of cannabis mixture, more than 200 grams of cannabis resin, more than 250 grams of methamphetamine. The manufacture of the same drugs also carries the death penalty. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has called for the death penalty to be eliminated for drug-related offences, referring to the Safeguards for the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, which state that the scope of crimes subject to the death penalty should not go beyond "intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences."

Poopie-Head SG

Actually, one of the reasons for justice may be to right out the wrong for the victim. Though it was never stated as such, it do gives the idea tis is a form of revenge

If law gives such an idea, then it must do alot more to fit into our "civilised" society. Law should never be an avenue for revenge.

However we have to compare between the final result of the soceity instead of just individual.

It is my belief that no one person is lesser than another, thus, if the law strives to sacrifice an innocent person or a group of innocent minority in favour of the majority, then this system is making a mockery of justice. We should be judged as an individual, on our deeds, not just so as to make way for the majority. Innocent or Guilty, NOT minority or majority!

DO u agree tat if a death penalty, it do deter many forms of serious crimes such as murdering, firearms transaction, kidnapping, bank robbery and drug abuse ? If u compared statistic, u will find tat overall, more people benefited from tis system. It make little sense to save an apple by throwng away a basket of them

The whole idea of the death penalty and other forms of punishment is indeed to deter and "scare" people. However:

1. Does Capital punishment really work better? "Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments." Statistics of drug abusers in SG rise and fall thru different times even long after our implementation of the death penalty for drug traffickers, indicating the fact that death penalty does not effectively deter these traffickers.

2. Is there a better way to prevent crime? the best way to deter crime is to increase the certainty of detection, arrest and conviction. Most criminals think they can get away with it, esp drug traffickers, which is why they did it in the first place, and may even do it again. If detection is improved up til the stage of almost fail-safe, drug traffickers will realise that it is very difficult or impossible for them to get away undetected.

3. What should we do with the criminals? put them away, or kill them so that the rest of us live in peace? or help them integrate into the society? condemn them because they made a mistake out of folly or becoz they had little education to begin with?

i quote again:
"Are we assisting the socially excluded to reintegrate into society or are we disposing them off [sic] as rejects?"

4. Do we really need to kill them? Does it reflect well the state of civilisation that we have? Are we still living in a society that encourages execution? Is it humane? This goes a long way to show how "civilised" we really are.

The fact that our law shifts the proving part to the accused is totally in opposite of the fundamentals of law. If they need evidence, motive, etc to prove a person guilty of murder, I don't understand why the case of drug trafficking has such a superficial and simplified condition. They dont need to produce any other evidence, the only condition is to find u in possession of a banned drug. Possession not necessarily mean found on your body or bags, it can also mean a location where u have the keys to, perhaps a room, ur drawer/locker or ur car. This can open up to a huge range of possibilities!

What else could have been added you asked.
1. Does suspect have a motive? e.g. Suspect having financial diffculty? Suspect is an addict himself? Suspect bring in for friend?
2. Does suspect have any means of contact with the suppliers? there's no way i can get drugs if i dont even know where to get from!
3. Any proof of ownership or knowledge of possession of illegal drug? physical contact will probably leave fingerprints. Also further proves that suspect has knowledge of possession. If I have never seen or touched it, there is a chance that I have no knowledge of it.

There can be so much more that can be done to prove that the accused has knowledge of possession of illegal drugs. However, our law does not require all these. Is it becoz they are lazy or cant be bothered to find more evidence to prove their case? Or is it becoz a human life is nothing to them? Why else would the condition be so simplistic and easily established?

Making the public more aware of their own belongings is a good idea. However, no matter how alert we can be, sometimes some people can still be pickpocketed. Likewise, putting stuff into a tired and unsuspecting traveller is easy, much easier in the case of the common Singaporean - we have grown to be very careless people as a whole. Therefore, should a careless person be sentenced to death?

If u talk about drug abuser, than u should be glad tat the amount stipulated is actually very great.

Contrary to what you said, the amount is very little. That is why sometimes a drug abuser, whom does not deserve death according to our law, suddenly and automatically becomes labeled as a drug trafficker and his punishment becomes death.

Also u will find tat the drug addict cases drop drastically after harsher laws were implemented. Furthermore, I believe it is common sense to know at harsher punishment give higher deterence. Otherwise migt as well free all criminals again since if the lower the punishment the more deterence it gives out

Repeat what i have said before, statistics show that there's increase of drug abusers in SG even after implementation of death penalty for drug traffickers is a good indication that harsher punishment (death sentence) doesnt work. So it is really not our common sense we should trust, rather the actual facts and statistics.

So now i ask - why not mete out an EVEN HARSHER punishment since the death penalty does'nt work? Should we extend the punishment to execute the guilty's family members as well? Common sense says this harsher punishment should work better to deter. hahah back to Ancient China system! Wink

PRP SG

Instead of chop off head,why not just chop off hand as a form of punishment.Even thou the suggestion is still cruel & inhumane,but it is less cruel than capital punishment.Would supporters of capital punishment agree?

« Previous Page Next Page »