singapore No.1 in EXECUTIONS

last SG · 2004-01-21T21:46:06+00:00

yes, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but to leave the initial wrong as is, would be wrong too.

stupidissmart SG

U know how much is 15g ? is actually quite substantial since the purity level on the drug for sale is actually quite low. It may be able to develop into a kg of salable drug. And tis fact is very well known among fellow drug abuser, thus they will try to avoid carrying more than 15g at one time. As such, it seems to be quite effective in determining if u r trying to sell it or u r trying to buy it. Buyers will buy in small doses at one go, traffickers trying to get drugs from overseas have to risk carrying such amount.

Anyway hanging is not inhumane... they tied weights on your feet thus ensure instant death. And the cause of death is not due to suffocation but a broken neck.

If education can reform prisoners, then there wouldn't such things as repeat offenders. In fact, there would not have a need to have prison at all. We might as force them to go for school while living in the comfort of their house. It is good to try, but thinking it can replace punishment is futile.

Thinking about the loopholes of judges, I need to say something. Before the case is presented to be held, there must have substantial evidence from Investigators that points to his guilt. If not, it would already be swiftly rejected by the Public Prosecuters before the hearing. This explained the notion of Innocent Unless Proven Guilty which we took from British laws.

About the possibility of errors made by Judge, this cannot be helped. Which country doesn't have such errors being committed ? Even established countries like US and British have many such cases too.

stupidissmart SG

BTW... those who kill without intent r charged with Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder, which means the worst punishment u can ever get is not the death penalty Cool

CX SG

Originally posted by pikamaster:

You sound extremely cruel. In fact, u sound like someone who would hang his friend because the friend took a pencil away from him.

drug trafficking: Death
murder: Death
kidnapping: Death

these are the crimes i've brought up. theft of a pencil doesn't seem to be one of them. i dunno how u came up with your "pencil" analogy, but i'm sure its obviously not from my post.

let me put it to u another way. instead of a pencil, lets make it say... a loved one who was cruelly taken away from u by drugs, by a murderer, by a kidnapper.

truly speaking, corporal punishment won't bring a person back. but i'll be damned if u think i'll be satisfied to see that muthaphucker suffer anything less than death.

with regards to drugs, how many pple coming into the country with more than 15g of heroin are actually traffickers? DO the authorities know? no, they do not. thus, the Death penalty is given to ALL these "criminals". Seriously, how moral can this be?

what is a trafficker to u? the gang boss sitting in the comfort of his villa in the golden triangle? the "middle man" who "imported" the stuff? the "mule" who "transported" the stuff? or an addict who just happened to be "carrying" a lot of the stuff?

to me, they all are. and if they could be caught, they should all be hanged if they happened to be carrying more than 15g of the stuff. but we can't get to them all. so we do our best by getting those we can which are, fortunately or unfortunately, the "mules", who're mostly dumb bastards who're greedy for money or were forced into it by debts or addiction.

but why split hair? laws are functional in their simplicity. they ought to be applied strictly, evenly and without exceptions, except when something really bizarre comes up and conventional intepretations don't apply.

what's so bizarre about a "mule" who was recruited and paid to undertake the risk of carrying bags of dope in his/her stomach?

As for society becoming blablabla, i think an essential point which many of us have forgotten (and the Dalai Lama has reminded us) is that Education is still the best Prevention. To perpetuate the Death penalty is the same as avoiding the issue of WHY the crimes actually happen, the causes behind them. In essence, it is like shedding crocodile tears over spilt milk.

does education REALLY prevent crimes? the flip side of it would tell u that education breeds more intelligent criminals. truth be told, the only criminals u see are usually those dumb enough to get caught.

really smart ones know what's in store for them if they do... they've weighed the pros and cons and decided to do it anyway so they take pains to cover their tracks and think of their cover story.

they may still get caught eventually... but are u gonna let them off just cos they're smart and educated?

i won't deny that crimes occur for many reasons and the "root" of it is usually complex and has little bearing on punishment. but i say the issues have to be managed in its entirety.

we are not avoiding the issue by having harsh laws or the death penalty. we are just taking a more comprehensive approach to a complex problem: by both persuasion AND coercion.

pikamaster SG

kkk

pikamaster SG

you are really mocking the education system here. perhaps, this is an indication of how much Teo and Tharman have screwed up our local education system...

but anyway, the education im talking about is not what you may be thinking of. I am talking about MORAL EDUCATION, and one that goes right down into the heart. the problem with our current CME is that Moral Knowledge is taken as sth else that can be stuffed into young minds and make them better.

and what is the cause? ironically, it is what allegedly gives us racial and religious harmony: secularism. One thing that religion does that any law, no matter how perfect it is, cannot do, is to give the person a fear of supernatural consequences or a desire to be elevated to teh same level as a supernatrual deity. Either way would be more effective in preventing crime than any law could. the religion im talking about here is not any cults or religious extremists. Im talking about the Establishments, like true CHristianity, Pure Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism.

you talk about treating issues in their entirety. well, the Death Penalty does not treat ANY issue in entirety. it is a quick means of evasion from the root causes. Haven't you read what our dearest Mr WOng Kan Seng said? He said," the death penalty has prevented crimes from happening." in other words, to him, the Death penalty is the miracle cure for every ill. n obviously, he is very flawed in his reasoning. By pushing the Death Penalty to resolve any social ill, the policymakers are in effect shirking responsibility for nto solving the ills properly.

perhaps, i need to remind you of the proverb: prevention is better than cure.

the thoroughly disappointed pikamaster

pikamaster SG

we do our best by getting those we can which are, fortunately or unfortunately, the "mules", who're mostly dumb bastards who're greedy for money or were forced into it by debts or addiction.

I shall say nothing except ask you to reflect on this situation:

At Cambodia International Airport, u leave your luggage on a seat at teh departure hall when going to the loo. There is nobody to look after it for you since you are travelling alone.

After leaving the toilet, you board the plane.

On arrival at SIngapore, Customs discovers 20g of heroin in your bag. immediately, youa re arrested and hauled to the police. In court, you are informed by the judge that you are to be hanged the next day.

I hope you can reflect on this properly and with a heart.

the hopeful pikamaster

CX SG

you are really mocking the education system here.

am i mocking it or are u placing blind faith in something that is at best, open ended.

but anyway, the education im talking about is not what you may be thinking of. I am talking about MORAL EDUCATION,

criminals do not necessarily suffer from a lack of morals u know... many are "truly repentant" afterwards... and many will say that they would't normally have done it, but they were "blinded by greed", or "driven by circumstances". does it change the nature of their crimes? or the fact that they did it? heck no...

and what is the cause? ironically, it is what allegedly gives us racial and religious harmony: secularism.

i do believe this point to be nonsense. we have a secular state, not an atheistic state. there's a difference. and we are allowed to practice whatever religions we so choose.

so secularism isn't a problem. but assuming that religious faith pre-empts crimes is just bizarre.

why would anyone assume that an individual who is a firm believer in a certain faith would definitely, 100% not commit any crimes?

you talk about treating issues in their entirety. well, the Death Penalty does not treat ANY issue in entirety.

and eliminating it specifically would be doing justice to the complexity of the issue and addressing it in its entirety???

stupid politicians making morally blind statements aside, i believe that nothing can be ruled out in something as complex as a human being.

perhaps, i need to remind you of the proverb: prevention is better than cure.

deterrent IS part of prevention. while executions may not necessarily be the cure, it must nevertheless form a component of it... at least until humans evolve further and it can be removed... now? no way... remember what i said? persuarion AND coercion.

the thoroughly disappointed pikamaster

i do not post to impress u. leave your ego out of this.

and as for someone spiking my bags with dope, i was just wondering if u're familiar with the institution of the "judiciary"? and the concept of a "fair trial"? and the fact that the death sentance is only imposed after "due process of law" and executions are only carried out "after all avenues of appeal had been exhausted"...

we are talking about the death sentance and the due process of the law, not summary executions that takes place willy nilly above the law.

pikamaster SG

I do hopw you haven't been brainwashed by teh propaganda we have in our school textbooks.

Have you heard of nazi Germany? im sure you have. Down there, alot of atrocities were committed. they were legal by German laws, yes, but nonetheless they are still cruel. In fact, most of these were carried out in the "due process of law" in Germany. SO ,in that case, the law was wrong.

Down here in SIngapore, yes, i know our justice system is ranked fourth in the world, but have you read accounts of defamation trials by AI and SFD? perhaps you haven't, so let me enlighten you.

All the things you are saying is basically legal jargonic propaganda. SInce the Death Sentence is mandatory for drug trafficking, what kind of appeal is possible. btw, did u notice that in the situation i quoted, you were "brought to court" and not "dumped into jail"?

and anyway, "all avenues of appeal" sounds alot, but in reality there are only two avenues: The COurt of appeal and the President. Now, let's see, teh COurt of Appeal has judges who don't have power against mandatory sentences and the President is just a rubber stamp of teh cabinet, ie. he can be pressured, so where does that leave the poor person? nowhere at all!.

the pikamaster

CX SG

Originally posted by pikamaster:

I do hope you haven't been brainwashed by teh propaganda we have in our school textbooks.

i'm past the age of textbooks... haven't touched one for many years.

Have you heard of nazi Germany? im sure you have. Down there, alot of atrocities were committed. they were legal by German laws, yes, but nonetheless they are still cruel. In fact, most of these were carried out in the "due process of law" in Germany. SO ,in that case, the law was wrong.

Nazi athrocities were legal because article 21 of the Weimar Constitution allowed for emergency powers to the chancellor if it could be passed with a 2/3 majority in the Reichstag. So it was "legal" only because the constitution suspended itself.

i'll give u that much: that legal doesn't mean right. but don't draw bizarre parallels between 2 cases that don't fit. do we have the Gestapo running around, imprisoning pple? do we have Brownshirts running around beating up pple? do we have concentration camps with showers disguised as gas chambers?

...and anyway, "all avenues of appeal" sounds alot, but in reality there are only two avenues: The COurt of appeal and the President. Now, let's see, teh COurt of Appeal has judges who don't have power against mandatory sentences and the President is just a rubber stamp of teh cabinet, ie. he can be pressured, so where does that leave the poor person? nowhere at all!.

the pikamaster

gee... then they should've thought of that before bringing all that dope into the country. mind u, its no big secret that we hang traffickers. this information is very prominently desseminated.

so what's your point? that taxpayers money should be wasted to allow a convicted criminal unlimited appeals and re-trials?? why bother bringing criminals into courts anyway if u know they're gonna appeal till they walk eventually.

shawnsh SG

the law is based entirely on evidence, only in rare cases when the law will take into account the plight of the accused...

in this case, the accused should have practice responsibility, he should be responsible for his own actions, imagine a place where the law only consider the plight of accused?

i do agree that the law can be quite harsh at times, however, without this tight law system, wouldn't this place be in chaos...
*The statue outside the court had her eyes blindfolded*

NathanG5 SG

i wonder how does we link ourself to the nazis?
didnt know we have concentration camps?
n what propaganda in textbooks??? if you are talking about Nazis Germany in History text... Rolling Eyes

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I'm not worried about HARSHNESS of our laws, my main concern is with their FAIRNESS.

Unfortunately, the law here certainly operates with the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" rather then innocent until proven guilty. A single sly word from a female, lie or truth irrevelant, will end up getting you having some jail time, is a good example.

It can be argued that this way of operating keeps us on our toes and nice people who are very careful with the law, but unfortunately it also has the effect of coming down extremely harshly on people who are not entirely to blame for their crimes, if they are at all. The burdern of proof is always with the accused, not the prosceution.

Where are the checks and balances to make sure that legal powers are not overapplied? It seems that it's almost too easy to run afoul of the law in Singapore (to tell the truth, we probably break several laws each and every day). My beef is not with harsh punishments, but with fair methods that have heard each and every side of the story.

wuming78 SG

i think theres only one place in this world tt still uses the notion tt one is guilty until proven otherwise, and tt is china (pls correct me if im wrong). singapore relies on the std innocent until proven guilty, and for murders its beyond reasonable doubt. for others, to diff degrees. as for crimes against the female, our laws tend to protect them - a relic of the past tt shud be relooked, i agree. but still, they shud be protected.

checks and balances? hm.. i cant say there is any. but is there any in the other countries where laws are supposedly more fair (let's not compare with the jury system). i haf asked myself the question too of who are the judges, being human too, to judge on ppl. but i guess apart from relying on computers to do so, or on a larger panel of judges, wat else can we haf? o cos we oso need other channels for appeal and redress. but if we begin to even doubt if our judges can mete out fair judgements, den where wil we end up?

stupidissmart SG

and what is the cause? ironically, it is what allegedly gives us racial and religious harmony: secularism. One thing that religion does that any law, no matter how perfect it is, cannot do, is to give the person a fear of supernatural consequences or a desire to be elevated to teh same level as a supernatrual deity. Either way would be more effective in preventing crime than any law could. the religion im talking about here is not any cults or religious extremists. Im talking about the Establishments, like true CHristianity, Pure Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism.

I am pretty sensitive toward religious issue, and sad to say I find the above paragraph a bit hard to digest... Sorry but I had to sidetrack a bit...

Can religious stop crimes from taking place ? R u sure ? I believe it very much depend on ones' interpretation of the religion. If religion can prevent crimes, then there will be no such things such as terrorists and religious wars.

I have heard of people saying this, "I won't hesistate to kill u as I know Jesus and God will forgive me". Of course people will complain tat he had a twisted interpretation of the religion, thus cannot be linked together with the main religion. But then again who knows wat should the real interpretation should be ? Why is there the differentiation between Catholic and Christian when the bible is the same ? Does Al Qaeda member really have a twisted interpretation of their religion ? Not really because their holy scripture really do mention about the jihab or holy war. It is like an exception clause... Muslims should like peace and not violence. But if their brethen is bullied they had to draw arms to assist them. Religiously and literally speaking, the self bombing religious fanatics aren't wrong. The "real" form for Muslim may not be the one mainstream is applying now. This "real" form is only because tis is the form the Gov or society prefers. If being religious will prevent crime, then there will be no such incident like jailing of Galileo and witch burning incident in the west ages before. The bible speaks God of mass murdering people (Noah's Ark, Moses, family member of Job) without valid reasons, making it very useless in preventing people from committing wars and murders.

Personally I had heard of another wrong interpretation of religion in the following story. A Muslim is caught being a drug abuser. When he was in lock up, he paid overwhelming details about his religion like whether his bunk mates r eating halal etc. When question why does he take drugs then, he replied Quran says they can not eat pork and take alcohol, but they do not say anything about drugs and smoking so it is okay for them to do it. (NOTE : Tis is an example of a person having a wrong interpretation of his religion. I am not trying to put down the religion. Muslim scholars had said tat the real interpretation of Quran is Muslim should not do anything harmful to their body, thus drugs and cigarrettes r no no too)

Again I have to say, religion acts like a double edge sword. It may help in small crimes like theft and cheating. However it justifies terrible sins like war and terrorists and illegal imprisonment. It depends on how people interprete their religion. Sad to say, there r always a lot of people having the wrong interpretation in religion. Or sad to say, sometimes religious made people lose the way instead of finding it.

stupidissmart SG

Unfortunately, the law here certainly operates with the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" rather then innocent until proven guilty. A single sly word from a female, lie or truth irrevelant, will end up getting you having some jail time, is a good example.

Funny, why does u keep insisting tat singapore is operating in the pretext of "guilty until proven otherwise" ? I thought I have mentioned in the previous mail tat before they charged a person to court, the police must have gathered all the necessary substantial evidence before wasting their time, the Public Prosecutor times and the judges time.

The man is innocent during the entire hearing in court. "A single sly female" is a witness trying to prove tat the Man is guilty. The court thus is determining if he is guilty from the statement of the 2 parties. It is innocent before proven guilty isn't it ?

Frankly for molest cases, little evidence can be gathered. A man molest a girl in private. Wat other evidence can the girl produce to prove she is victimised ? In tis sense, the law believes a woman will not take the trouble to charge a man in court if there is not a shred of truth in it. The other question is why doesn't the girl charge other people but only the molester ?

Several defenses can be employed, if the alleged molester can proves she has a personal feud with him, it may help his case substantially. If the girl is emotionally unstable, it can also acts in the guy favour... BTW I had gone too deep in it...

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

On paper yes, and it seems that way... but one only needs to read the fine print to realize that their substantial evidence is not as substantial as we would like it to be, and of course, the problem is that we have a heavily pro-prosceution court system, with no jury and the like, with all the powers of judgement resting on well... the judge.

Basically, while we may claim to operate on a innocent until proven guilty, do we operate that way in reality? Do we really have a truly fair and impartial court system or one that handicaps the offender?

Of course, one needs to note the "favourable" rulings against opposition people whenever their case comes up in court.

nismoS132 SG

Originally posted by stupidissmart:instead of finding it. [/b]

do us a favor, edit your thread so it doesn't stretch the page.

you put in [code] instead of [quote] and it really messed the page up.

stupidissmart SG

sorry :p I wanted to put as quote but some silly errors came out for the previous stretching error...

If u talk about the ruling for opposition parties and LKY lawsuits, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH U ! These lawsuits are a real mockery to the political and judiciary systemin singapore. Frankly I hate to see these kind of lawsuits as much as u do, and I felt really unjust for the opposition parties.

However to the main topic, in the case of lawsuits not related to political issues, singapore law system is still fair. Jury system is the real unfair system since emotions will come into play. Making people who knows little in judiciary system as jury members means tat the whole lawsuits will turn out to be more emotional than logical. A judge, with years of experiences will be more fair since they will less likely get into emotions.

I still feels tat singapore court is still fair and impartial, regarding to normal criminal lawsuits...

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

If this is the case with the civil court, one only needs to wonder what would happen if any politicaly dangerous individual was up for destruction in the criminal court.

The court remains fair as long as the judge himself is fair... but if he himself is harsh, biased towards offender/victim, or just plain ignorant of the implication of evidence, we can be sure the result would be anything but justice. And it dosen't take a alrge ammount of corruption in a judge to do a person in. The risk is almost certain for people to recieve extreme judgements in either direction (soft/harsh) because each judge him/herself represents a diferent strata and worldview of soceity. Is it any surprise that some times our sentencing seems to be surprisingly harsh for seemingly minor offences?

A jury system is far more robust to this kind of miscarriage justice, by selecting people from all walks of life there is a balancing out of the extremes in people and the end result better reflects on the true opinions and judgement of the soceity rather then one person.

In the end, sometimes we wonder... are the people judged on the laws as deemed by the people of Singapore? Or each individual judge's view of it?

CX SG

i really think we should leave politics out of this discussion... becaus once u introduce that into any equation, even a supposedly "perfect" system can turn to s.h.i.t...

i don't suppose that the jury system is any better in that regard...

and since we're talking about the death penalty; the same death penalty that is only madatory for very few of the worst crimes and imposed only after due process of law, what's the business of politics in it?

think the powers that be can frame a political opponent for murder? or for trafficking dope?? just to have him hanged and taken out of the picture???? Rolling Eyes that's frankly absurd... they have them taken out of the picture well enough with libel suits.

either the death penalty really shouldn't be part of this discussion, or the issue of the compliant judiciary in ruling against opposition politicians shouldn't be lumped together here.

« Previous Page Next Page »