Boycott Singapore

John, good to have you in on the discussion. Let me touch on a few points you made.

However, mandatory death penalties are not consistent with international law, which tends to reflect the attitudes and values of the majority of people in the world. By the existence of a mandatory death penalty in the Singapore legal code, Singapore has placed itself outside the world community.
Click to expand...
I am not comfortable with the term "international law". I understand law to be a function of sovereign power. I will accept a concept of "international treaty" as relevent to specific instances of international interest. The World Trade Organization would qualify. The International Court of Justice would not.

I find the attitudes and values of the majority of people in the world irrelevent, as whatever justice is, it is like truth, not a matter of a vote.

If Singapore has placed itself outside the world community by this one fault, as you see it, then there is no world community, as few if any nations can claim total purity of action and intent.

It is a basic principle of democracy that there be separation between the political administration of a society and the judiciary. When the political arm introduces mandatory sentencing it over rides the judiciary and destroys one of the basic principles of democracy. Singapore purports to be a democracy, ...
Click to expand...

I would like us to be clearer about the designation of the branches of government. We in the US look on them as executive, legislative, and judicial. In Britain, it seems the executive and legislative branches overlap.

However, in both cases, the judicial branch does not write its own laws. The legislature writes the laws and that includes determining the penalties for transgressing them. This being so, I don't agree that one can speak of the legislature overriding the judiciary by writing laws with mandatory sentencing.

Also, law and justice is not exclusively a function of democracy, and democracy itself is a variable concept, especially when compared across cultural lines.

In law statistical evidence can be admitted as testimony.
Click to expand...
Pretty much anything can be admitted as testimony. In some instances, statistical evidence will be persuasive.

But statistical evidence of past injustice is no bar to our improving the system to eliminate the errors, and even more important, the corruption, that led to these abuses.

I can state with certainty that the actions of these countries was a direct result of diplomatic pressure applied on these countries by the USA. You may accept this or not, as you wish, but it is fact. At the same time we were pressuring Australia and other countries to toughen their stance on drugs, however not all these other countries saw fit to introduce the death penalty for drug related offences.
Click to expand...
In other words, the US suggested tighter drug controls and some countries, with a history of harsh laws already, went farther than others in complying. Not our "fault" they went with their instincts.

Incidentally, another one of those countries was Turkey. Have you seen the movie "Midnight Express"? A young American was caught with drugs in Turkey right after Nixon had been hassling the Turks about being soft on anti-drugs policy, so they took it out on their new victim.

I personally am opposed to the death penalty, but I am not opposed to the democratic right of the citizens of any country to decide that they want the death penalty.
Click to expand...
I guess I could write the same thing. I am never happy with the idea of damaging humans, however "necessary" it often seems.

Capital punishment is a temporary and imperfect solution to a problem we haven't yet learned to solve properly.
 
I don't want you to feel like we're dogpiling on you, John, but I have a few more things to add.

By your definition of just - "the quality of being fair and reasonable" - sounds good to me. Was this not a fair and reasonable conviction and punishment? Reasonable, of course, depends on who you ask. (Evidently in Singapore, such a punishment is considered reasonable by the majority.) The fairness of it can't be argued. This rule applies to everyone and, due to the mandated minimum sentence, the human factor has been removed - everyone receives the same punishment for the same crime, every time. I cannot think of a system that's more fair.

For the record, I support neither a death penalty nor the criminalization of drug use for a variety of reasons (at least one of which you mention), but that isn't the issue here. The issue is whether justice was done or not. Was it? I believe that it was.

About Singapore itself, I've been there several times. It's clean, most of it is quite beautiful for a city, and the people tend to be very polite. I didn't like it. :) I have some pictures and videos from the last time I was there, if anyone's interested.

One of these days I'll tell the story about the Chewing Gum Black Market and the kiosk on the quay. It was actually quite funny.

Good discussion all around, gentlemen.
 
The separation of the elected government from the judiciary is not essential to democracy. Rule of the majority is essential. In the UK, the courts are whatever the Commons says they are and the procedural and substantive law is whatever the Commons says it is. There is no constitution limiting the power of Commons.

Interesting factoids (At least I think they are facts and not opinions.):

>Treason is subject to a mandatory death sentence in Turkey.

>Blasphemy is subject to a mandatory death penalty in Pakistan. "Blasphemy" is not defined. The act has been applied to public professions of a faith other than Islam. Is that "fair"?

>Possession of more than 100 grams of heroin is subject to a mandatory death sentence in Thailand as well.

>Murder is subject to a mandatory death sentence in a number of jurisdictions, including Trinidad and Barbados and several African nations.

>Statistical evidence has limits under U.S. law:
A criminal act may not be proved by statstical probablity in the U.S.
A civil wrong may not be proved by statistics showing the liklihood of the wrong based on the conduct of others.

>In democracies, or governing systems claiming that status:
Many judges are elected, making them part of the "political administration."
Those judges who are not elected are typically appointed by elected officials, making them, in many respects, a part of the "political administration."
 
Just a bit of hit and run...

I don't like the global village concept. Might, whether by ballot or bullet, does not make right. If it did, "right' has no real meaning, in any absolute sense. neither would the word fair.

I'll just state the implication bluntly, to save time. There can be no truth, or true binding morality, absent a personal, self existent, eternal, omnipotent God who made all things.

I don't mean to be rude, but that is my understanding of things as they are, and anything else I could say would just be beating around the bush.

To make it relevant to this discussion, the only question for Singapore is, did they correctly discern, understand, and apply the standards that God requires of us?

Take care,

Tom
 
gravertom said:
There can be no truth, or true binding morality, absent a personal, self existent, eternal, omnipotent God who made all things.
Click to expand...
Truth, in the sense of information which correctly describes reality, is not dependent on a whim of God. As long as he allows a consistent reality, truth is nothing more or less than a reflection of that. In the absence of a God, information can still describe reality, as best we are able to understand it.

Morality (from the Latin mores, meaning 'customs') might be seen as a compilation of the communal will. I would rather derive a secular morality from an understanding of the commmunal utility.

Killing antelope would be moral for a lion, feeding his pride.
 
As a social matter, Judgement must be tempered with mercy. If judgement is not tmepered then you see the one year prison sentence for chewing gum.

If judgement is not tempered then one may see the spectacle of an execution for missing the waste basket with a McDonalds wrapper. After all one knows the penalty for not disposing of garbage properly and yet one did not do that so one is liable for the decreed legal penalty.

That being said, I can see how the Singaporeans sought to punish the societal harm that X amount of drugs can do. The difficulty with that view is that it was not shown to specifically harm anyone. The drugs were a potential harm not an actual one.
 
fixer27 said:
If judgement is not tempered then one may see the spectacle of ...
Click to expand...
No, only if the law is written so that severe penalties are prescribed for minor offenses.

The difficulty with that view is that it was not shown to specifically harm anyone.
Click to expand...
Smart Singaporeans. They decided to punish a crime BEFORE their citizenry was victimized by it.

If the police see a man walking down the street with a loaded pistol, pointing it at people and saying, BANG ! ... should they wait till he pulls the trigger before arresting him?
 
No, only if the law is written so that severe penalties are prescribed for minor offenses.

They are handing out one year prison sentences for chewing gum and not disposing of it properly.


Smart Singaporeans. They decided to punish a crime BEFORE their citizenry was victimized by it.

To the point of execution? On one hand it makes sense to dissuade anyone else from doing the same act, on the other hand to execute for mere potential seems a bit extreme. your exampe of the film "Midnight Express" did show that execution is not always neccesary.

If the police see a man walking down the street with a loaded pistol, pointing it at people and saying, BANG ! ... should they wait till he pulls the trigger before arresting him?

That would assume that every use of an illegal drug leads to a capitoal offense. And the police would be within there brief to shoot someone who is clearly threatening a person by pointing a firearm at them. That being said in NC the police are constantly arresting drunk subjects who have "pointed a firearm" and manage not to shoot them. The actual intent to harm anyone is not actually present and the police are wise enough to know that no harm was meant.
 
I might feel bad for someone who walked down a Singaporean street chewing gum, who hadn't realized it was an offense. But if you know the law, and don't violate it, you get NO jail sentence.

The Singaporean drug laws are not all that draconian. They only prescribe the harshest penalty for a defined large quantity of the drug. Once again, don't do the crime and you won't hang for it.

"Midnight Express" might sound better than hanging, but the general consensus in this country was that the poor boy was grievously mistreated by those rotten Turks. Would you believe, I myself had no sympathy for him?

I had just spent over a year in Turkey. We were given a good bit of information on local customs, and the dos and don'ts of behaving ourselves over there. Most of it was pretty obvious and logical, not hard to obey at all. The Turks were dignified, friendly, and helpful, in the cities and in the countryside. Even though they knew we were a bunch of rotten infidels.

Although one Turk I spoke to said the locals were more comfortable we me, being Jewish, than with the other guys, being Christians! :D

Of course, I wasn't over there to traffic drugs.
 
The whole point of tempering justice is not to protect the defendant, the concept is meant to protect the society from the excesses that can happen when the police and the justice system attain to much power. Govts have always shown a tendency to pass laws that it is accepted that will be violated.
 
So? Criminals break laws. That's why there are penalties attached to bad behavior.

"Tempering justice" provides for unequal application of the law. Courts are made up of fallable humans. If two criminals commit the same crime, they should stand a reasonable chance of getting the same penalty.

How much discretion does a judge need? Look at the discretion exercized by the judge in Van's brother's case. Disgraceful. I would call it circumventing justice, rather than tempering it.
 
Criminals break laws. That's why there are penalties attached to bad behavior.
Click to expand...

So, we're all criminals, by that definition. Do you know how many local, state and federal laws there are? (Hint: no-one knows them all.)

As I tried to explain previously in the thread, most of the laws are mallum prohibitum- not necessarily "bad behavior". In Mobile, AL, it's illegal to walk downtown in high heels. In VA, I think there's still a law on the books making it illegal to bathe indoors.

So..."criminals" in VA take baths. Wow.

By your easy definition- assuming you mean, by breaking the law, one becomes a criminal- speeding makes you a criminal; smoking in the bathroom (in many places) makes you a criminal; in many places, if you relieve yourself outdoors, you're a criminal.

We're all criminals, by the standard you seem to be applying, regardless of our intent.
 
Speaking of intent, what do you think my intent was? Are you more interested in "winning" this exchange of views, or discussing the actual issue, rather than the artificially hyped issue?

We know there are laws that are minor, some that are petty, some debatable. We can debate them without reducing the discussion to the absurd.

We can debate the value of removing meaningless laws in another thread. Van didn't get hung for taking a bath.
 
Nobody in Singapore has ever been arrested for chewing gum. This is an invention of the westerm liberal media that hates the singapore govt for its close ties to the republican party in the US.

People have been arrested, then fined and let off for littering by throwing extremely sticky chewing gum all over the place. No difference from any big western city.

The usual punishment for littering is a fine. I cannot remember anyone ever serving time for littering in the street. Sometimes, the offender is given a session of community service....this entails going on a litter clean-up patrol, and wearing a bright orange vest.

The teenager caned was the son of a rich man who got his kicks by pouring paint and acid over dozens of cars, including the car of a High Court Judge. He was serial vandalizer who also stole road traffic signs and abused drugs(convicted later in US).

After his caning, he thanked those who caned him and said he was sorry. Did not sound like he was hurt very badly.

He was also given special treatment because of his american status....less two strokes. A local would have received more.

This drug mule is a sad story. Since he says he did it for his samurai-wannabe brother, how come his brother doesn't offer to take his place? And the judge giving a lesser sentence not to affect the singapore trial seems absurd.

All that heroin(one pound?) would have hurt a lot of people and families. He knows the consequences of carrying it. Maybe it was not his first time.

Hang him high.

Esav, thanks for your support of singapore's policies. We try to please.
 
When Frank Sinatra sang, "I did it my way," it was a big hit. I figure you've got as much right to the feeling as anyone else.

Hmmm. How come you get thrown out of the world community for hanging a drug runner, but nobody remembers what you provided for the tsunami victims as a counterweight to that?
 
When a pretty small country ignores the pleas (5 separate times) of the Prime Minister of a fairly large country like Australia and hangs a 25 year old kid for his first and only, non-violent offense, you can expect that people will be upset.
When people get strapped to some 18th century rack and beaten with sticks for vandalism, you can expect that people will be upset.

If anyone in Singapore thinks they have gained the respect of the world, they are sadly mistaken. They have joined the ranks of the "dont go there on holiday" club. After that caning incident, they had a chance to show they world that they werent keen on cruel and unusual punishment and possessing an impassionate, draconian legal system.

They blew it.

You can debate all you want about the meaning of justice and democracy, but the fact is that even the frigging Pope begged the government of Singapore for clemency and they told him to go to hell.

Not smart, singapore.
 
the people who now do not wish to go there on holiday are probably not the ones the singaporese want coming there anyway. feel free to stay away, sounds like a good place to visit to me.

anyplace that would knuckle under to a bigger country just because one of their citizens was rightly convicted of a capital crime & his criminal family was upset over their poor little darlin' who was not doing anything other than smuggling poison for his own gain, does not sound safe or fair enough for me to visit, cross off australia where it's obviously based on who you know & who whinges most, rather than what you've done.

esav seems to have the right idea in this, imho.

lets not personalise this tho, we come from all over the world, and have many different atitudes to life & social responsibilty. lets agree to disagree & get on with life.

if you don't like their rules, don't go there. simple.
 
If you travel do different countries, you are a guest there. As a guest, make sure that you know how to behave and act accordingly. Not much else to say in my opinion.

When I travel to different countries, I try to get a basic understanding about the laws. Drug- and weaponregulations are among the first ones to check.

We all are guests in other countries and should act that way. Don't like it, don't go there. You can still argue wheather the laws are good or not, that's ok; but there should be no sympathy for anyone who [knowingly] breaks the law and then complains about the consequences.

Keno
 
DannyinJapan said:
Boycott Singapore.
Click to expand...


I would say don't go to Singapore with a pound of Heroin becasue they will hang you if you are caught. And that is the exact point behind capitol punishment.

And punishment should have a varying standard depending on the actions of the criminal who was convicted. The idea that .999999 of a pound of herion does not carry the same punishment as 1 pound of heroin does is absurd however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top