Yesterday (I think) Singapore hung Nguyen Tuong Van, a 25 year old Australian drug trafficker. He was caught attempting to smuggle 400 grammes of heroin to Australia. 400 grammes, that is less than a pound. You get more in a bag of sweets. Quite obviously a small time (and probably first time) trafficker, he paid by having his neck snapped by the hangman's noose.

The full story is here.
Hanging in Singapore (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_as/singapore_execution)

I understand this has caused qutie a stir in Australia. What are your thoughts?

To me it's just the hypocrisy (I had to check that word in my dictionary, ha) of the system. I don't know how's the situation in Singapore, but it seems the goverment doesn't like outsiders messing in their affairs, heh. To state that this kind of punishment is an "effective deterrent" is a fallacy, a bad excuse to make them look strong. The death penalty is so middle ages...

It's quite absurd, out of proportion. And I'm against death penalty, anyway. At least he didn't have 10-20 years of deathrow before finally being executed.

It is quite absurd, chev. I don't understand how 14 ounces can be justification for killing him. Maybe if he had been caught numerous times with 14 tons of it, perhaps they could argue that he deserves death, although, IMO, no humans deserves death because of drugs.

Plus, hanging is an awful way to go. Couldn't they have at least done something painless? Of course, that doesn't enforce the law as well as a public hanging, but, still, they should treat a human as, well, a human.

The drugs and drug trade reality is probably harsher in Asia than in Europe, the less affected parts of the US, Australia, New Zealand etc. We don't know if it really works as a deterrent or not in those societies or what effects it brings in the battle against drugs. But still... killing people for attempted smuggle of 14 ounces of heroin?

We are talking about Singapore here, folks. Last I checked, it was illegal to chew gum in Singapore. Seriously.

He was smuggling heroin. Pure, uncut, heroin.

He knew the risks. He got what he deserved.

He was smuggling heroin. Pure, uncut, heroin.

He knew the risks. He got what he deserved. /me claps

You think a man should swing by his neck, pissing down his legs whilst he slowly dies, then choking on his own blood as the pressure crushes his throat... because he tried to traffic a handful of crack? A bit harsh don't you think?

Hanging isn't just death, it's a torture.

14 ounces is not enough for torture. He would have gotten what he deserved if he had been smuggling huge amounts of it.

If you want to dispute the ridiculousness of the law, go become a citizen of Singapore and vote to change it. But the rightness of this particular case is indisputable, IMO. Like T2 said, he knew the risks. And I say he gambled with his life on a measly gain and lost; stupid and unfortunate, but he's got noone but himself to blame for it. So if you want to point a finger for the suffering of his family, it should be squarely pointed at the man in the noose.

Honestly, of all the places he could have smuggled drugs, he picked the one with the harshest penalty? :nuts:

You think a man should swing by his neck, pissing down his legs whilst he slowly dies, then choking on his own blood as the pressure crushes his throat ... Not if you do it right. :rolleyes: You don't hang people by putting them on a chair and kicking it out under them, with a rope that won't let them fall from their previous position. You get them up on a high scaffold and drop them through a trap door with plenty of rope; most of the time it's over as quick as you can snap a pencil. :sick:

And ODing on heroine is a walk in the park then, eh boys? Felinoid has a point. If you do hang someone properly, their neck snaps and there is no pain.

They had every right to hang him here, and I personally disagree with what the Australian government has said about the case. As an Aminesty International worker said on the news a few days back, why haven't they complained about the hundreds of other death penalties in Singapour if they're so much against it? Or American death penalties for that matter?

Like Felinoid said, he knew the risk when he went in there. It was a gamble and he lost out. If you break a law in a foreign country you should bloody well undergo the punishment their legal system places on you. This case was clear cut, from what I've heard, with no doubt whether or not he was guilty. He should hang as per their law.


Regarding the death penalty itself, I am completely against it. What right do humans have to decide who lives and dies? And isn't murdering a murderer murder, even if the law gives you permission?

But until the law is changed, someone committing the crime should undergo that penalty. Atleast if they're an Australian ;)

He was smuggling heroin. Pure, uncut, heroin.

He knew the risks. He got what he deserved. What T2 said.

Ok, zero tolerance crew. Imagine it's you, lying in your cell on your last night, knowing the next day you're going to die. You can't even appease yourself with the thought of it being swift and painless, because it might not be. Your neck might not break. And as you stand there, waiting for the noose, will you conduct yourself bravely or will your last few moments be total humiliation and degredation? Will you be quiet and contained, or will you scream, cry, sh1t yourself? You'll certainly piss and sh1t yourself when hanging from the rope, so the idea of going with dignity is pretty much out anyway.

It's repulsive. I'm not sure there's any crime deserving of such a thing - but certainly not drug trafficking. Certainly not such a small insignificant amount. It's completely barbaric and I'd be interested to know if such a torture is against human rights...

I'm with Barmy Army, geting killed for traficing 14 bloody ounces of herion? when if he had made it to australia before he got caught he would have got a fine and some prison time.

If there's one good thing the Australian goverment has done it's abolishing the death penalty.

"Just" 14 ounces? Wholesale prices for one kilogram (35.2 ounces or so) of heroin ranged from $50,000-250,000 in 2001.

Ok, zero tolerance crew. Imagine it's you, lying in your cell on your last night, knowing the next day you're going to die. Yes, it would rather suck. Being Tim McVeigh the night before his execution would have sucked, too. What's your point? Yes, it's repulsive. Rotting away in prison for fifty years is repulsive as well.

Smuggling pot is one thing--being executed for that would be absurd. Smuggling heroin is quite another, and quite deserving of the punishment. It isn't as though he didn't know the risks going in, either. He decided making money selling heroin was worth the risk of death. He made a gamble and lost. Tough.

Well I'm against death penalty in general and find the punishment to be more than a little bit too harsh, but on the other hand it's Singapore and it's quite well known that the penal system there is very harsh so it was not really something unexpected.

@Barmy, et. al. - Does it matter if I die with or without dignity? Act like a whiny sh*t and beg for my life when there's no chance of a reprieve? No. I'm woman enough to deal with the consequences of my actions. If I get busted for knowingly holding drugs, I deserve what I get. I made the choice.

Ok, zero tolerance crew. Imagine it's you, lying in your cell on your last night, knowing the next day you're going to die. You can't even appease yourself with the thought of it being swift and painless, because it might not be. Your neck might not break. And as you stand there, waiting for the noose, will you conduct yourself bravely ... 1. I wouldn't be in that situation because drugs are repulsive. I certainly hope nobody else on this board is trafficking either.
2. You're damn straight I would face it bravely; I've been prepared for death since I was 15. Being a clinically depressed kid with suicidal ideology for 20 years makes death rather blase.

14 (ounces) might be a nice small number that you can trivialize, but 400 (grams) sure as hell isn't. Also keep in mind that it's very nearly a full pound of heroin. Imagine snorting three-and-a-half quarter pounders ("royales" for our British McD's customers) up your nose, and you get a better idea of just how much this guy was smuggling.

Any further questions can be answered by Rotku's post; he's clearly got it straight. The death penalty may be a bit extreme for this, but it was the law and he knew it.

The question here is not whether or not the criminal was guilty, but whether the punishment fits the crime. There is also certainly no argument about whether or not it was a stupid thing to do. Crime is always stupid. But is stupidity an adequate reason to be hanged by the neck until dead - which is a particularly vile way of executing someone.

It's always essential for the law makers to keep an impartial, relatively unemotional state of mind, but it's in searching for the wrongs and rights of punishment that you have to become more emotive. Torture is not civilised, and because you can't have death without torture, execution is uncivilised, too.

The coldness of some people (even people in this thread) is a little too much for me to stomach. The death penalty is completely inhumane at best, and pure evil at worst, especially so for petty crimes.

Yeah, it's a stupid and rather grisly law, and if I (and I imagine most others here like Rotku who have come out against the death penalty) had any say about it, it'd be changed. But unless we are citizens of Singapore, we don't (and shouldn't) have a damn thing to say about it. It's their law and we have to respect it, just as the man who was hanged should have respected it. He broke the law and he paid for it; whether or not it was too much is not for us to determine.

The death penalty is completely inhumane at best, and pure evil at worst, especially so for petty crimes. Dealing heroin is not a petty crime, period, end of story, full stop.

But it doesn't matter if he was dealing heroin, he doesn't deserve to die. He deserves to go to jail (for a very long time), have his heroin confiscated, and have all of his contacts arrested, but not death.


It's their law and we have to respect it I don't respect a law that kills people for crimes that did not result in anyones death. We should not respect a death law. Murder is not deserving of respect, period.

But it doesn't matter if he was dealing heroin, he doesn't deserve to die.Oh, I probably wouldn't execute heroin dealers. Life in prison, yes, but probably not execution. But, the thing is...he knowingly risked his life to make money selling drugs. Makes it hard for him to complain, or others to say "that's not right".

Yes, it isn't right, but all he had to do to avoid being hanged was...not take heroin to Singapore. Pardon me if I'm unable to muster any sympathy or moral outrage.

You're right, he didn't deserve to be hanged, he deserved to be impreisoned, addicted, go through what his clients go through for the first 13 ounces then use the last ounce to give him an overdose. That way, he would learn the true horror caused by his sins, and could be better prepared to face judgement.

Capital punishment is how Singapore attempts to deal with drugs. It's their law. As long as they only hang the guilty ones, and a fair trial is given to establish that, we have no right to object.

Frankly, hanging is more cost effective than other forms of execution. You can re-use the rope, but firing squads use up bullets, lethal injections expend doses of costly drugs, and the needles aren't likely re-used. But I do agree with Chev on one thing--Death row prisoners shouldn't sit for years awaiting their fate. It should be done quickly.

@ AMaster, couldn't agree more.
we still have 2 states here in the us that offer hanging and firing squad (washington and utah respectivly). personally believe if the sentences were carried out in the town square and everybody was required to watch , it would be a much more effective detterent.

/cue the Clash

He fought the law and the law won....


Today 14 ounces, tomorrow 14 tons.

He should have respected the Singapore's laws. Maybe hanging is going too far, but I am sure he knew the risks.

If it were up to me, he would be flogged, but I will not feel too sorry for him.

Life in prison -- BAH. A life in prison sentence should be a short one. I have NO desire to pay to keep a criminal alive. Fine, let the bleeding hearts take up a 'feel sorry for the scum of the earth fund' to finance the prisons. We'll see just how much people care for low lifes.

So basically the next time you drive through red lights you'd want us to hang you? I'll have to keep that one in mind. ;)

You're right, he didn't deserve to be hanged, he deserved to be impreisoned, addicted, go through what his clients go through for the first 13 ounces then use the last ounce to give him an overdose. The thing is though that dealers are very often more or less users themselves. And from what I read from the guy it did not look like he was some big time dealer but more resembled someone who possibly did this to pay his drug debts. This is just speculation however since I really don't have enough background facts to judge the guy's motives.

Is the execution justifiable by Singapore law? Yes. End of story. We can't complain, because we don't live there. Do I think it's a harsh sentence? Yes. For a comparable crime in the U.S., if it was his first offense, he would likely have spent about a month in prison. According to the "three strikes and you're out rule", if you are convicted of three felonies, you can be sentences to jail for life. Trafficing heroin is certainly a felony, but if he had no previous felonies on his record, it would have been a short jail term in most countries.

If the penalty for driving through a red light was a hanging, you can bet I wouldn't do it. As a matter of fact, I don't do it because the penalty COULD be death. Running red lights is a dangerous and foolish thing to do.

Everyone can complain, it's not like it's going to make any difference, and it's the theme of this forum.

I read in the newspaper a couple of days ago that the Singapore embassy received more letters of support than outrage... and even the public poll in Australia was in favour of hanging the guy (47% for and 46% against, but still). The point is, as many people have pointed out here, he knew the risks before going there. Crying about being caught later makes about as much sense as grabbing a running chainsaw blade with your bare hands, and then acting all surprised that you don't have your fingers attached any more, but that the chainsaw keeps running. Well, duh, cause and consequence.

Well, death penalty is indeed less constly than life in prison but who says life in prison has to be life on the couch, watching free porn till you die? Prisoners cost money. International law more or less clearly prohibits labour as punishment (invidual countries get away with community service because the offender can always choose prison instead), but it would be a good idea to make prisoners work. To make that work, their work would have to affect the conditions in which they are kept, give them some cash to spend or reduce the sentence or whatever such benefits, but does anyone know a better way of resocialisation than work? Several years of job experience isn't lost after being released, anyway. Prisoners' work can go towards compensating the victims if applicable, as well. Besides, I think work should often meet the purpose of "adequate" punishment: since many offenders offend to escape the need to work, making them work sounds quite fitting. Besides, sane people would eventually choose even unpaying work rather than boredom, anyway. So prison work all the way. :p Especially for drug pushers and others who are too smart to work like normal people.

Years ago "chain gangs" of working prisoners were common in the U.S. The term "chain gang" referred to the fact that they were all shackled together by the ankles to prevent them from escaping. They were involved in many activities, including clearing debris from roadways and even some minor construction projects. Another popular work program was to have some type of production facility in the prison, most notably license plate manufacturing (as in the piece of metal on the front and/or back of your car with numbers and letters on it). Now it's all automated, but in the old days, you had to place the numerals and letters in a cast before pressing the license plate, and it was done by hand. Since it was a job that required no prior training and further required negigible skill in anything, it was perfect for prisoners.

I guess the two big problems with this are: 1.) It's illegal to make someone work, even if they are a prisoner, and not pay them, and 2.) Once you start paying them, then you are going to have to allow them to spend their money on something. Then you're going to start seeing projection TVs and the like showing up in prisons. If you aren't going to pay them, or if you are going to severely restrict what they can buy if you do pay them, it will remove all incentive for them to work at all.

I don't see a problem with prisonders buying tv sets and the like with their own money. Unless they are so dangerous that they actually might whack some inmate in the head with that television set. I do believe in second chances and labour would be a good way of giving that. First giving them the opportunity to work there to earn money and then possibly offer them possibilities for further education or a job if they have done their job well enough. Plenty of prisoners will never find their proper place in the society but that's a risk I'm quite willing to take, atleast if the other options were to lock him for life or start using the death penalty.

I never really understood the point in making a prison a hell-like enviorment. Anyone living under the illusion that someone coming out from such an enviorment can ever hope to do something constructive with their lives? Then there are of course those who believe that once someone committs a crime they are scum forever and can never achieve anything good in their lives, I'm however quite confident that those people have it all wrong.

As for complaining about the penal system of Singapore. Well I don't see the point with this forum if we are not allowed to critizise anything other countries do. Of course Singapore has the right to choose their penal code themselves but I fail to see how that makes it beyoned criticism.

First giving them the opportunity to work there to earn money and then possibly offer them possibilities for further education or a job if they have done their job well enough I'm no expert on this topic, but I do know that there are educational opportunities to prisoners in the U.S. At the very least, you can get a GED while in prison, and some even offer some trade skills. I can't defend that many prisons are hellish places, but most of them are the maximum security type prisons for the worst of the worst.

We have a course at uni that offers us the opportunity to teach inmates. You can choose between inmates and highschoolers. :p

Well don't know about hanging (there are probably better ways to die), but he knew the penalty. Drugs destroyed many parts of Asia, and continues to do so today so they take that kind of thing very seriously.

I have to say that I'm with the pro -- cap group on this one. This wasn't some bizarre law that the guy had no idea existed. As near as I could tell from the article, it was not a frame up or a misunderstanding. Nor was it a brief lapse in judgement or skill (like running a red light because you're trying to tune the radio.)

This guy CHOSE to smuggle drugs, knowing that the penalty in Singapore would be quite harsh. Of COURSE now he's sorry, penitent, and all that -- all criminals are . . . . when they get caught! His trying to hide behind his Australian citizenship is also vile in the extreme. Being Australian means that the Government of Singapore has to treat him differently than any other criminal? What B.S.

When it comes to his family, any suffering they feel as a result of losing their darling little boy is to be laid at the feet of that "darling little boy." He's the criminal, not the law enforcement officers and legal system that is trying desperately to keep their population safe from drugs.

As for the method of execution, a topic that has been discussed many times on these boards, hanging is fairly humane if the neck is snapped ASAP. If it is not, then it is not so much death by hanging as death by strangulation. Most of the other methods of execution that I have seen discussed in literature tend to be more vicious -- the gas chamber apparently can take a very long time, and no one really knows how much pain is involved in lethal injection.

no one really knows how much pain is involved in lethal injection Not enough. The prisoner is given a powerful sedative prior to the lethal injection. He/she just goes to sleep. I'm all for having prisoners face an equally painful death as they inflicted on their victims.

Enough people die using heroin that I sleep quite well knowing another heroin smuggler is dead. Too bad we can't convict drug dealers for any drug related death of their customers.

Not enough. The prisoner is given a powerful sedative prior to the lethal injection. He/she just goes to sleep. I'm all for having prisoners face an equally painful death as they inflicted on their victims.Then how does that make you better than the murderer? To take a human life, whether it is legal or not, is still killing.

Then how does that make you better than the murderer? To take a human life, whether it is legal or not, is still killing. Ah, yes. Killing and murder are two (slightly) different things. I don't care about being 'better.' I'm not against killing to protect society. I don't care whether or not some of the scum in our prisons live through the night. I don't believe I should need to pay to keep them alive. If we (as a world) put more criminals to death we would have a safer world (attrition and fear would eventually win out). That said, I also believe the key to lowering the crime is education and fairness -- but fear helps.

@LKD how do you know it doesn't hurt to be hung, or any other death penalty for that matter? it's not like you can "try" it, or am i missing something?

@chev prisoners for sure


on topic: i never think death penalty is a fair sentence, not even when gambling with it

But I do agree with Chev on one thing--Death row prisoners shouldn't sit for years awaiting their fate. It should be done quickly Alright, what happens if you kill them a month after their crime. A month later, the detectives find evidence that proves he was innocent. Too bad for the dead guy, right?

Right.

There is an appeals process, which does allow for what Saber touched on, but usually, the outcome doesn't change...

Uh, Balle, if the death is quick, there is comparatively little to no pain. It is also my understanding that once the neck is snapped, your ability to feel pain is severely curtailed, which HAS been demonstrated by people who have broken their necks in accidents.

In addition, beheading removes the head from the body (duh) and as such the death is quick and very obvious. I was referring to methods of execution that involve the prisoner obviously suffering for a long period of time, such as crucifixion, strangulation or similar methods wherein the agony being experienced is clearly visible.

As for the whole "better than them" issue, my feeling is that if Bob has taken the life of Ted for purely selfish reasons (financial, temper tantrum, etc.) then we as a society have a responsibility to protect the rest of society from Bob's depredations. If we do not, and he then takes the life of Rob, then we have learned nothing and basically spit on Rob's life and are saying that Bob's life has more value than that of Rob's, not to mention insinuating that Ted's life was worth nothing. The only surefire way to ensure that Bob will not kill anyone else is to kill him. Society does not do this for selfish reasons, but for the protection of that society and the many, many other decent members that make it up.

To me, this extends to a large number of crimes. We cannot just ask horrible criminals to "please stop dealing drugs, raping women or bombing buildings, pretty please?" We also cannot afford to house and feed these societal parasites humanely. The only way to protect society from predators is to eliminate the predators. While I acknowledge that criminals are people too, the rights of society take precedence over those of the people who clearly do not respect that society.

This has seen a lot of coverage in Australia. I do not believe Nguyen deserved to die, although there can be no doubt of his guilt and his crime. Personally, I am convinced of the following:

1. That hanging is a brutal and just plain nasty manner of execution.
2. That capital punishment is unacceptable, and should never be practiced even against the worst offenders.
3. That any mandatory sentencing legislation which requires the death penalty is fundamentally flawed.
4. That Van Nguyen was duly punished according to the law in Singapore.
5. That no other nation can dictate to Singapore what its criminal law should be, irrespective of what they think of it.
6. That it is the duty of everyone who does not agree with the death penalty (in this case or any other) to make their sentiments known, but recognise that popular sentiment alone can not change the laws.

Singaporean law provides that anyone carrying 15 grams or more of heroin is automatically subject to the death penalty. Anyone in that position is condemned to hang, with absolutely no discretion at all for the judge. That is my primary concern with Nguyen's punishment - that, plus the half-arsed attempt by the Government to deny that they could have extradited him (although it seems to be a pattern, now; first David Hicks, then Nguyen). Here's a useful link to a legal opinion from yesterday's The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/nguyen-the-advice-that-might-have-saved-a-life/2005/12/05/1133631200199.html

I hold the belief that we should avoid killing wherever possible, and I'm not a vengeful person; everyone deserves justice, yes, but that includes criminals as well. Of course, defining "justice" is like asking how long a piece of string is. I don't claim to know the full story of Nguyen, but he certainly didn't seem to be a real danger to Singapore - especially since the drugs he was transporting were intended for Australian markets.

Nguyen knew what the consequences would be if he was caught, although he was apprehended in neither the source nation nor the intended nation. From all accounts, he was an almost ideal victim, from a media perspective. Indeed, Nguyen and his lawyer don't seem to have been anywhere near as vocal, rabid or dogmatic as pro- and anti-death penalty proponents on this one. If I had to describe it, I would say theirs was a resigned but resolute stance.

No-one can dispute that Nguyen was lawfully executed for his offence. That doesn't make it morally right, IMO (and to hear some people in Australia talk about it, you'd think that they believed that The Law could never possibly be flawed - unless it affected their back pocket, of course).

And as for the cost-effectiveness comments... well, a bullet or a rope is cheaper, certainly. Throwing someone off a bridge or drowning them is cheaper still - should we do that instead? Hell no. That doesn't make it better; I believe that if we want to stand in judgement on someone, we need to demonstrate that we are fit to do so.

Killing someone for a crime is pure retribution, at best, and while some people may see it as justice, I do not. Besides, there are plenty of other horrible things that we use as punishment which, in many ways, can be even worse.

LKD - I hadn't heard about him trying to hide behind his citizenship, and we've been flooded with news about Nguyen. What I did hear about was a possible case for extradition, which relied on Nguyen's Australian citizenship. That, as I see it, was more about escaping the gallows than ducking justice, since I don't see any "justice" in mandatory death penalties.

While I acknowledge that criminals are people too, the rights of society take precedence over those of the people who clearly do not respect that society.And I'd agree. I would also contend that denying them liberty, privileges and everything except basic rights or earned entitlements is preferable to exterminating them. Criminal law should be first and foremost about protecting people, not stripping them of their rights, even down to their very existence. While I'm happy that people like Garry David and Martin Bryant will never be released from prison, I also still believe that proper judicial systems must display majesty, justice and mercy to be worthy of respect.

to hear some people in Australia talk about it, you'd think that they believed that The Law could never possibly be flawed - unless it affected their back pocket, of course). I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with the case of Schapelle Corby (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4074084.stm) which stirred widespread public sympathy in Australia and which led to a rekless and indeed criminal attack on the Indonesian mission in Canberra (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4598419.stm). I would have expected a more indignant attitude from the Australian public.

I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with the case of Schapelle Corby which stirred widespread public sympathy in Australia and which led to a rekless and indeed criminal attack on the Indonesian mission in Canberra. I would have expected a more indignant attitude from the Australian public.Some of the more cynical commentators over here have wondered out loud whether the response would be different if Nguyen was an attractive white female (like Corby or Michelle Leslie). I'm guessing that Nguyen's full confession and conviction might have had something to do with it; Corby has always loudly protested her innocence.

I'm fairly certain that a degree of innate racism has played a part in this, though - a young Asian man trafficking drugs is a fairly potent symbolic image for Australians, and not a good one. Nguyen's case was never described in great detail by many news reports; it was as though they were purposefully avoiding it and focusing solely on the nature of his punishment. His trial was 3 years ago; it shouldn't have been hard to get that information.

Mind you, had Corby's case taken place in Australia, the prosecution wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. Between sloppy evidence handling and a lack of substantive proof of Corby's offence, I wouldn't have been surprised if a judge threw the case out. Of course, the onus of proof is different in Indonesia - you have to prove yourself innocent, rather than having to be proven guilty.

The only surefire way to ensure that Bob will not kill anyone else is to kill him Lock him up for a long time, and then, once he gets out, when he gets a job, make him pay off what he used. If he was in jail for 10 years, and it cost the government 5000 dollars, make him pay it off as soon as possible. Hopefully, the jail time and the addition of making him pay will teach him his lesson. Perhaps.

Thanks for the response NS. I can't say that I am familiar with the weight of the evidence against either Nguyen or Corby and this is another thing that curdles the blood. What if Nguyen was innocent and his life was taken not only needlessly but unlawfully? The police in Singapore are notorious for "extracting" confessions through agonising brutality. Then his death can bring no appeasement to any party and the word "justice," which is so liberally employed, can prompt only a sad, derisive guffaw.

Like you, I can never accept the grotesque and chilling spectacle of the state, in all its power and with a calculated and deliberate slowness, ice-cold, evil, and inhuman, strangle the life from another human being; even that of the convicted drug smuggler.

Folks, this is a lot more complex than just bumping off a heroin dealer. No-one denies that Nguyen was guilty, not even him, his family or his lawyer. This thread is firstly about whether anyone should ever be hanged (and more precisely, whether Nguyen should have), and probably secondly about whether anyone should be put to death by the state. It is not about whether Singapore's government or judicial system is corrupt, it is about the severity of punishment.

Nguyen was a first-time offender. He was a drug trafficker, not a drug dealer; he was caught with an amount of drugs that no seasoned dealer would ever carry in public, or in one place. His alleged reasons for doing it were connected to his brother's criminal past and debts. He did not pose a re-offending risk and was not himself a drug user, as many (probably most) dealers are. In short, there is plenty there to build a narrative that positions Nguyen as a hero or martyr (and one which I would reject). It's a long way from the image of a calculating market-share-driven drug cartel heavy.

Was what he did stupid? Yes, it was. Was it wrong? Well, it was certainly illegal, no matter what your perspective. Should he have been sentenced to death for it? To be hanged for it? I find it hard to believe that anyone could examine the case in depth and still say Nguyen deserved to die.

BTW, before anyone decides to say "Do you know what heroin addiction does?", yes, I know what it does. I know what drug addiction does, too; it's not pretty, and it's put more than one person I know into a large wooden box. And yes, knowing that, I still don't think Nguyen deserved to die, although he did deserve a prison term. Not as much as the bastards involved in the drug trade do, though.

@ SBF: You're welcome. There's no evidence to hand that Nguyen's confession was forced; indeed, there seems to have been evidence that he co-operated fully with police after his apprehension. Whether that's accurate or another obfuscation is unclear, at this point.

@ Saber: It costs a heck of a lot to keep someone in prison for 10-20 years; and by a heck of a lot, I'm talking about six figures per person per year. You have to account for infrastructure, employing guards and prison staff (and their security vetting) and a whole lot of other stuff as well as just the upkeep of the prisoner. It ain't cheap, but it's better than most of the alternatives.

Yes, but you could still have them try to pay it off afterwards. By making them put all of their money after food, water, etc, into repaying their debt, it will make them regret their crime, and it will be a warning to others. 10-20 years plus a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars would be more than enough to make people think twice before committing crimes (hopefully).

Saber, I'm not arguing that it's not a bad idea in principle, I just don't think it's a feasible one in practice. I would like it to be, believe me - if the burden of correctional spending could turned into a "user pays" system, I don't think you'd hear too many complaints from "law-abiding citizens", although you'd have to cut back the time in jail for proportionality in sentencing if they pay back costs for years afterwards. Realistically, I just don't see it happening.

It's well known how much harder it is to get a decent paying job after serving a prison sentence. I would expect a lot of people would probably just resort to crime to pay off their initial debt - which could get them another jail term, with more debt to pay off, repeat ad infinitum. You could end up making things worse (and certainly, some politicians and anti-offender groups would paint the picture as even darker still).

Well, in any case, I don't think we should kill them to save us money - thats just pure, simple, immoral, greed.


EDIT: Or, what you could do is devise a technological advance that makes it so you need less amount of guards, less energy spent in prison (in other words, a more efficient power source), and things like that. Obviously, this is a vague idea, but instead of having, say, 1 guard per block of cells (or however it is divided up), have a huge central security system run by multiple computers (for backups and the like), so you can cut the number of guards down from 1 per block to 1 per 5 blocks, or something.

In anycase, I'd rather not solve crime with crime.

Well, in any case, I don't think we should kill them to save us money - thats just pure, simple, immoral, greed. I'll give you pure, simple greed, but immoral pushes it too far. If killing a criminal results in lower taxes that free up money for a young child's essential medicine, I'd...well, I couldn't pull the switch myself for personal reasons, but you see where I'm going with this. Refusing to kill a mass murderer and causing in an innocent's death would be more immoral, IMHO. Morality is far too fluid to condemn an entire range of situations.

EDIT:
In anycase, I'd rather not solve crime with crime. That's the beautiful thing about crime, though; it's malleable. Laws are made and changed, and the death penalty is not a crime in Singapore (among other places). In some places it's a crime for a woman to show her face, or even to be raped. Though this seems mind-bogglingly stupid to most of us, it's still a crime. A woman showing her face in such a place is flaunting the law and should be punished for the offense. (The being raped thing I can't defend no matter how hard I try. I mean, it's not voluntary and certainly not her fault! :toofar: I'm sure there's some explanation, but frankly it's quite beyond my thought processes.)

Again, there are plenty of what I would consider stupid laws, but assuming that a different set of laws is better is just ethnocentrism. Different societies require different rules, and we have no right to decide what is right for someone else. If you're truly so disgusted by these laws, then just don't go there. Despite what some may think, we (the US) do not have the moral high ground even on someone as despicable as Saddam. (Osama's a different story... :evil: )

[ December 07, 2005, 05:44: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

Death penalty IMO is wrong because there's too big a risk to make an irreversable mistake. The evidence should be extremely condemning indeed, and there should be no doubt whatsoever of the perpetrator of the crime.

Hanging drug smugglers is wrong, because they can't be 100% positive that the person doing the smuggling does it by her free will, or even knowingly.

So maybe only people with previous convictions should be given death penalty...first five times you'd get busted, it'd be jail-time and after that, if the crimes would be serious enough, it'd be the rope.

Somehow this doesn't sound as a very appealing solution...

In some places it's a crime for a woman to show her face, or even to be raped. Though this seems mind-bogglingly stupid to most of us, it's still a crime. A woman showing her face in such a place is flaunting the law and should be punished for the offense. (The being raped thing I can't defend no matter how hard I try. I mean, it's not voluntary and certainly not her fault! I'm sure there's some explanation, but frankly it's quite beyond my thought processes.)Of course rape is a crime... or do you mean she gets punished for being raped? What you said is confusing, even though I understand, because of background information...

To add to your point, in some countries, if a man does something that the government doesn't like, the government will send out a group to rape the offending man's wife or sister, just to bring him disgrace...


If killing a criminal results in lower taxes that free up money for a young child's essential medicine, I'd...well, I couldn't pull the switch myself for personal reasons, but you see where I'm going with this. Refusing to kill a mass murderer and causing in an innocent's death would be more immoral, IMHO. Morality is far too fluid to condemn an entire range of situations.
But we don't know if that tax money would go to buying medicine for children. Perhaps the money gets wasted on Bush's war, or perhaps not. If it were guaranteed that the child would die unless this criminal (and by criminal, i don't mean petty thief, I mean mass murderer, etc) would die, then absolutely, the child deserves life over him. But we aren't choosing life over life necessarily. However, I do see your point.

And when I said immoral greed, I was talking about greed in general: it is immoral.

Somehow this doesn't sound as a very appealing solution... *somewhere a nail winces and rubs its head*

There is no appealing solution. Even reprogramming would be controversial at best. Imprisonment takes money, murdering the criminal "back" takes your soul, etc. No matter what method you can come up with, there will always be a great downside to it, and the lesser evil is not always a clear choice.

@Saber:
Of course rape is a crime... or do you mean she gets punished for being raped? Sadly, yes; I believe that tradition is still practiced in some places. :grr:

And when I said immoral greed, I was talking about greed in general: it is immoral. Nope. I could give you several pages worth of explanation as to why you're wrong if I could just find that damn paper I wrote, but I guess I'll have to settle for opening a new topic where we and the rest of SP can discuss it. ;)

There is no appealing solution. Even reprogramming would be controversial at best.Well, yes...but reprogramming is more appealing than killing the criminal. At least in my opinion. And it might be more economically efficient too. If only it could be reasonably possible...which it will never be. Might as well define the perfect human being, right now.

Bringing the problem to calculations might solve it, but it might not make us happily agree with the solution.

Mercy cannot rob justice. When a man murders another man, then that man has deprived another man of life. The ony just solution would be to end that person's life. Hanging, as has been put forth is cost effective and relatively quick and painless. Besides, what is the point of life in prison with no chance for parole?

2. That capital punishment is unacceptable, and should never be practiced even against the worst offenders.Well, that's a bit of a problem, so far as coming to a common consensus goes. I'd have to say that

A: Some people are like rabid dogs, and need to be put down (yes, I mean killed) for their own good and for the good of everyone they might conceivably come into contact with.
B: Execution as retribution is not necessarily a bad thing. The worst of offenders can and do merit such punishment; after all, the system can hardly expect to rehabilitate them. Keeping them alive is a risk, however minute.

Not that those points apply to our esteemed, hanged heroin delear. As I said earlier, I'm not in favor of a system executing heroin dealers, but in cases such as this, well...the term Darwin Award comes to mind.

what is the point of life in prison with no chance for parole?It is still "life".

what is the point of life in prison with no chance for parole? It is still "life". :rolleyes: That's debatable. I could never live like that without the hope of release (or escape), and I'd take my own life if they wouldn't do it for me. Even death by strangulation seems kind in comparison.

Yes, I agree with you there Fel. I'd prefer to take my own life than to rot in a jail cell for life. But, that's just me, I'd at least give them the option, instead of just killing them...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what is the point of life in prison with no chance for parole?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is still "life".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's debatable. I could never live like that without the hope of release (or escape), and I'd take my own life if they wouldn't do it for me. Even death by strangulation seems kind in comparison.


Yes, I agree with you there Fel. I'd prefer to take my own life than to rot in a jail cell for life. But, that's just me, I'd at least give them the option, instead of just killing them...
In these circumstances, is not execution more humane than locking them in a hell hole forever?

Further, when it comes to that point, Money does enter into it. Why pay over $100 k per year to keep a prisoner where you get no return when for a few bucks worth of rope, you can string them up and pay little to nothing. Or simply rig up a giand paper cutter to chop their head off to kill them quicker...

*Raises eyebrow* Gnarff, I thought you were always a pro-lifer guy... perhaps I was wrong. To answer your question, it depends on the crime:

If they commit a lesser crime, no they shouldn't die. Murderers (who are convicted for premeditated murder, not for selfdefense murder, or any murder that is not done on purpose) and drugdealers (IIRC, Nyguen was not a dealer, just caught with it?) are the only people who can be considered for death. In most cases, I would say no to death. However, obviously, there are exceptions in which there is no redemption.

@ Felinoid,

I could never live like that without the hope of release (or escape), and I'd take my own life if they wouldn't do it for me.There are plenty who feel the same way - that's why modern prisons get designed without hanging points, amongst other things. The sort of person who gets a life sentence, never to be released, is typically the sort who deserves to rot in jail anyway.

@ AMaster,

If you're going to use possible recidivism as a justification for capital punishment (in conjunction with the offence, of course), you have crossed a dangerous threshold. In essence, while that form of "risk-management" approach to sentencing is certainly relevant to the protection of the community, it tramples any sense of proportionality, concept of essential rights or prospect of rehabilitation.

I don't assume you'd prefer that except in the most extreme cases; I'm just highlighting what I see as a fundamentally flawed basis to that line of thought.

A: Some people are like rabid dogs, and need to be put down (yes, I mean killed) for their own good and for the good of everyone they might conceivably come into contact with.
B: Execution as retribution is not necessarily a bad thing. The worst of offenders can and do merit such punishment; after all, the system can hardly expect to rehabilitate them. Keeping them alive is a risk, however minute.Killed for their own good? I understand where you're going with that (I think), but who decides that? On what grounds? Who stands in judgement over someone and says, "You have forfeited your right to exist"? And how arbitrary is that decision to end a life?

Sure, protect people from them, by all means - but I don't recognise that it is legitimate to kill except in self-defence. This concept stretches that a little too far and is much too elastic for me to be comfortable with it. After all, in a month's time, I could conceivably kill someone - what should be done about it?

On the latter point, I would disagree. Killing is never a good thing; at best, it's the lesser of two evils, IMO. I guess it's an "agree to disagree" situation. Then again, my country stopped killing people before I was born.

@ Gnarff,

You're right - mercy should not rob justice. However, justice is not (and should not be) just mob justice or victim justice. Without mercy, justice is usually little more than officially-sanctioned vengeance.

As for the cost-effectiveness line of thought, well, I've argued that already, and my opinion remains unchanged.

Saber: I believe in the right to life, but when someone kills another, then they have deprived someone of that life. Under those circumstances, they forgo that right to life. That's why I accept the death penalty.

Non Sequitor: At what point is capital punishment more merciful than the alternative? I believe that in the case of our herion smuggler, Justice would demand that he learn what it's like to be addicted then die from an overdose when the last of the 14 ounces was exhausted, but Hanging was more merciful...

I assert that with truly heinous offenders, or truly flagrant ones, that the only way we can ensure they do not re-commit is to kill them.

In the case that you postulate, Sabre, it would be great if he could pay society back for the cost of housing his criminal butt, but what if he kills someone else while paying off the first debt? What efforts has the society taken to protect the life of this second victim? The Judiciary needs to protect society from the acts of people who have already proved they are killers.

@ Gnarff,

I can understand your reasoning (both on the pro-capital punishment and mercy arguments), but I don't believe that justice is as simple as retribution. Killing is never justified; it can only ever be excusable, IMO. If such a technically precise killing as Nguyen's was carried out by anyone other than the state for the same reasons, it would be considered cold-blooded murder or a payback killing. It serves virtually no purpose except revenge. I believe that is also true for the proposed justice you consider appropriate for Nguyen's case - it's quite cruel and unusual punishment, IMO (though certainly ironic, given that there is no evidence that Nguyen was a drug user himself).

Also, re: capital punishment possibly being more merciful - the sort of person who earns themselves a death sentence probably deserves to languish in prison for 20+ years (such as multiple rapists and mass/serial killers). I say "probably" because I am strongly opposed to any form of mandatory sentencing, particularly when it involves execution. That is my biggest problem with the recent hanging of Van Nguyen in Singapore - not that he was found guilty and punished, but because there was no room for judicial discretion in the law.

No matter what the judge thought, or what other factors could have been relevant, according to the law Nguyen had to be hanged. To me, that is utterly unjust. Should Nguyen have been jailed? Yes. Punished? Undoubtedly. Automatically executed? Certainly not.

@ LKD,

That's true - the only way to be 100% certain is to kill them. However, recidivism isn't the only consideration, IMO. Yes, I'm very happy that some prisoners will be held for the term of their natural life and will die in jail. I still don't support killing them; life in prison with no hope of release is probably less merciful than a bullet or a rope, and it is 100% effective unless they escape.

Killing is never justified; it can only ever be excusableThen can capital punishment be excusable killing?

such a technically precise killing as Nguyen's was carried out by anyone other than the state for the same reasons, it would be considered cold-blooded murder or a payback killing.But the State would be the one giving this order. Only the state can legitimately be allowed to do this.

the sort of person who earns themselves a death sentence probably deserves to languish in prison for 20+ years (such as multiple rapists and mass/serial killers).That's where the cost effectiveness arguement comes in. Why pay for someone that should never see the outside again anyway?

but because there was no room for judicial discretion in the law.There should be that, but if Singapore doesn't have the drug problems that the rest of the world have, then other countries may adopt this law too...

I understand where you're going with that (I think), but who decides that? On what grounds? Who stands in judgement over someone and says, "You have forfeited your right to exist"? And how arbitrary is that decision to end a life?*shrug* The judicial system. So, that would be judges. I'll admit I haven't put all that much (read, any) thought into the way in which such a system would be implemented, but since I don't expect it to be, and further don't expect to be responsible for its implementation if is, well...

I guess it's an "agree to disagree" situation. Sure looks that way.

Then again, my country stopped killing people before I was born.I'm pretty sure Australia's armed forces have been deployed abroad within the last few decades.

That wasn't what you meant, but still.

That's where the cost effectiveness arguement comes in. Why pay for someone that should never see the outside again anyway?In my opinion - and this is one of those few cases I'm completely stuborn on and cannot be swayed - no matter the costs, people have NO right to decide who lives and who dies. To me, using an arguement like this is just like a parent killing off their children when they can no longer financially afford to support them. I believe capital punishment is murder - maybe not murder in its purest form, but muder none the less. So who is worse, the murderer or the murderer who murders the murderer?

To me, using an arguement like this is just like a parent killing off their children when they can no longer financially afford to support them.Why kill the innocent? I'm advocating killing those guilty of the most greivous offesnes against the law and society in general.

In my opinion - and this is one of those few cases I'm completely stuborn on and cannot be swayed - no matter the costs, people have NO right to decide who lives and who dies.Really? So, for example, you don't believe a police officer has the right to use lethal force to subdue someone who is threatening and/or taking civilian lives? You don't believe there are situations (WWII comes to mind) in which the use of military force is necessary?

You are, in short, a complete pacifist?

The person who would indiscriminately kill another is worse that those who seek retribution. Period.

Really? So, for example, you don't believe a police officer has the right to use lethal force to subdue someone who is threatening and/or taking civilian lives? You don't believe there are situations (WWII comes to mind) in which the use of military force is necessary?Police officers have a right to self defence. Here it is one life over anothers. With the death penalty it's not one life over anothers - taking the life of the criminal won't bring back the innocents. In self defence it can prevent the death of innocents. There is a difference there - but even that should be avoided if possible.

And no, I don't think military force is ever necessary. WWII was a result of terrible politcal descisions and could have been prevented without ever using military force, IMHO.


The person who would indiscriminately kill another is worse that those who seek retribution. Period.The worse of two evils, prehaps. But two wrongs do not make a right. I could also say that crashing a plane into the Twin Towers was better than dropping a nuclear bomb on the city. I would be right, but it doesn't mean that the former case is justified.


Why kill the innocent? I'm advocating killing those guilty of the most greivous offesnes against the law and society in general.I know, and I understand your reasoning. But I believe that killing anyone is wrong - whether they are innocent or guilty. Killing is killing no matter who you kill.