You make a good point in regards to non-criminals wasting resources, but wasting resources alone isn't justifiable by death. Some posters have mentioned how "precious" life is, yet who speaks for the life of the victim? At least someone who killed or permanently maimed someone on purpose had his choice, the victims do not (in most cases). It doesn't matter whether he feels remorse afterwards. The victim is still dead.
If we put convicted death row inmates on some deserted island-keeping him away from society and not killing him--letting him fend for himself, I have no problem with that. But it is the combination of underpunishing for the most violent of crimes and feeding him at the expense of the state (i.e. the people) that is wrong.
By the way, an eye for an eye is as fair as you can have. I am not advocating eye for an eye in every crime (like how it looks like some anti-cap. punishment people are trying to spin it). It is the most extreme cases for which the eye for an eye punishment should apply. Also, in the case of capital punishment in the states, in many cases the killer gets put down more humanely than they did to their victims. Strangulation, repeated stabbing, etc. Do you know how painful that is?
I don't know either, since I am alive, but I can imagine.
Are you out of your mind? They have death penalty for murderers and drug dealers, not sure about robbers and rapists. It's totally make sense to give drug dealers death sentence for what they did. Do you know how many lives are destroyed due to drug? In addition, Singapore is not the only country that give death sentence to drug dealers, lot of other countries practice it as well.The price for a crime-free paradise. Isn't that where Singapore is heading? They have death penalty for non-murder crimes. It's only sooner or later when they want to eliminate ALL crime.
And even if you reserve the death penalty for extreme cases only, you still have to draw that line between "extreme" and "not extreme enough to be legally punishable by death". And drawing that line alone entails so many problematic decisions and moral dilemmas that - as far as I'm concerned - it's simply not worth it.
If you kill the killer, the victims have still died a very bad death - and I don't think that killing the murderer will give their death some sort of twisted ex post sense.
I'd rather not add one extra death on top of all the harm already done.
I remember the Van Truong Nguyen case back in December 2005. There were so many difficult circumstances and a back-story - he wanted to repay loans, and he only had a set amount of time to do so. It was very sad to see Singapore reject so many pleas.
Personally, I think it's not our place to decide whether a person lives or dies for their crime(s) - We can't play GOD.
i believe justice should have an intentional and consequence component. to the original question,
(1) if the kid has the intention to kill and mum is dead, then possibly the death sentence is fair
(2) if the kid has no intention and mum is dead, then possibly not the death sentence
(3) if the kid has intention to kill and mum is not dead, then possibly not the death sentence
Whether (2) or (3) deserves a heavier sentence is again debatable. e.g. for (3), if mum is not injured, then possibly a lighter sentence. if mum is injured seriously, then heavier sentence.
If the father's description of the event is as written in the article, then there's no doubt that the kid intended to kill them both, as he asked them to close their eyes and then shot them in the head.
Well, who can give this person justice? Even if they find him innocent now, he's still dead.
THE CANTU CASE: DEATH AND DOUBT: Did Texas execute an innocent man?
和諧唔係一百個人講同一番話，係一百個人有一百句唔同嘅說話，而又互相尊重 ~ - 葉梓恩
In a letter to David Hawker, the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives in Canberra Abdullah Tarmugi, the Speaker of the Parliament of Singapore, wrote: "He was caught in possession of almost 400 g of pure heroin, enough for more than 26,000 doses of heroin for drug addicts. He knew what he was doing and the consequences of his actions." Speaking on behalf of the Singapore Government, Tarmugi said: "We are unable to condone Mr Nguyen's actions. As representatives of the people, we have an obligation to protect the lives of those who could be ruined by the drugs he was carrying."
"We cannot allow Singapore to be used as a transit for illicit drugs in the region," Tarmugi wrote to Australian MPs. "We know this is a painful and difficult decision for Mr Nguyen's family to accept, but we hope you and your colleagues will understand our position. As a transportation hub, Singapore has always been a potential transit point for Golden Triangle heroin. In an opinion piece in the Singapore's High Commissioner in Australia, Joseph Koh, argued that "Singapore cannot afford to pull back from its tough drug trafficking position".
Last edited by Trien Chieu; 06-21-09 at 12:29 AM.
Respect other people's opinions and views. If we learn how to do that than all of these fights and arguments will not occur.
Obviously Van did not have any intentions of killing anyone. He was unemployed for months. He had to repay his brother as well as his own debt. Sometimes a person is forced to do things they don't want to. Even if he had found a cheap job, he still wouldn't have been able to pay off the loan. I'm not saying what he did was right, but you shouldn't always be so dismissing and judgmental without knowing the full picture.
Sometimes, I have the idea that TC is living in the wrong era. Any chance that his previous life had been Vlad the Impaler, who ruled with an ironfist that his reign was considered very moral and crimeless? Nevermind that it's really because of fear for the man.