remorse and leniency

[Trien Chieu]

And by the way, for people who have never read my views on people who grow up in rough neighborhoods, I have argued with the likes of TC many times that sometimes criminals who come from impoverished backgrounds are victims of their environment – so I am not some Republican who favors frying criminals. But, coming from a poor background doesn’t justify murder. I can fully understand how someone may be driven to stealing or robbing in order to eat, but that does not justify cold blooded murder.

For people living in countries like USA/Canada/Australia/FirstWorldCountries, no matter how poor they are, they still can make a living. Even people in welfare, they still able to make end meet. Imigrants with no english still can earn a living from a minimum wage job. Life is tough, but people always can get by without committing crime. My family was poor with no english, but we still can get by. Local borned with english as their first language, things should be easier for them. Jiang Bao, I remember you said your family was poor when you first moving to US and still made it by hard work. You even have a master degree!! If your family can made it, don't you think local born with english as their first language can make it easier?

I have a question for TC, so do you accept the death penalty for a woman who commits adultery? I am guessing yes since I remember you mentioning that before and how you always use ancient Chinese series as your back up. Also, you mention in one of your posts that if we get our way then we are going back to the ancient times. Can't you see that you are doing the same thing?? Remember to think closely about things before you say/ post about them because you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense.

No, but I won't feel sorry for them if their husband found out and kill them both in anger.

[jiang bao]

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.

[Trien Chieu]

what's next? we KILL everyone who commits a crime to promote a crime-free paradise?

Jay-walking? DEATH PENALTY.

Chewing gum in public? DEATH PENALTY.

Swearing? DEATH PENALTY.

Speeding? DEATH PENALTY.

Parking Ticket? DEATH PENALTY.

Are you out of your mind? People here talking punishment for first degree murderer, not Jay-walking, chewing gum, swearing, speeding, and parking ticket.

[Ghaleon]

No, but I won't feel sorry for them if their husband found out and kill them both in anger.

Damn you're cold-blooded. I bet you wouldn't even try to save the adultury-commiting wife from her bloodthirsty husband. NO wonder you support the death penalty.

Are you out of your mind? People here talking punishment for first degree murderer, not Jay-walking, chewing gum, swearing, speeding, and parking ticket.

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.

[Trien Chieu]

Trien Chieu: You so totally sound like a Mercykiller that it's not even funny anymore...:-)

I am not a mercy killer, I am for justice. I believe the punishment should fit the crime. Where is justice for the victims?

[Trien Chieu]

That's the point, really. People change. 25 yrs later the guy probably regrets all the bad stuff he's done. When we execute someone we're not giving them a chance to change.

Who is going to give the victims a chance??

[Trien Chieu]

Damn you're cold-blooded. I bet you wouldn't even try to save the adultury-commiting wife from her bloodthirsty husband. NO wonder you support the death penalty.

Of course I would try to save a life if I can, but I won't feel sorry for her and her lover given what they have done to another man. If she is no longer wanted to be with her husband, then divorce him and move on. I despise cheaters.

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.

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.

[Cesare]

The victim is still dead.

Precisely. The victim is still dead. No matter what you do to the killer, it's not going to bring the victim back to life.
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.

[Trien Chieu]

Precisely. The victim is still dead. No matter what you do to the killer, it's not going to bring the victim back to life.
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.

So your solution is let the victims Die in Vain and give the murderer a chance to change. My solution would be follow the justice system of Singapore where the sentence is mandatory and non-negotiable

[Cesare]

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.

[Sourplum]

Of course I would try to save a life if I can, but I won't feel sorry for her and her lover given what they have done to another man. If she is no longer wanted to be with her husband, then divorce him and move on. I despise cheaters.



Are you out of your mind? They have death penalty for murderers and drug dealers,

and Kidnapping, Perjury, and Treason against the Government.

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.

[wkeej]

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.

[jiang bao]

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.

[kidd]

The problem with the Death Penalty and, to a degree, the justice system is that in most cases, the murder/extreme crime did occur, but in some rare cases, an innocent man is prosecuted when they never committed said crime in the first case.

This is also why I don't judge Defense Lawyers. I don't care if they have to defend a cold-blooded killer because I know, I'd rather let a 100 guilty people go free rather than see 1 innocent person go behind bars for something they didn't do.

So with that in mind, I don't support the Death Penalty.

This is exactly who I'm against Death Penalty. There's a possibility of an innocent person being convicted and death is irreversible.

[Ghaleon]

This is exactly who I'm against Death Penalty. There's a possibility of an innocent person being convicted and death is unreversible.

people who support the death penalty just treat the innocently convicted person as a casulty of statistics.

[kidd]

people who support the death penalty just treat the innocently convicted person as a casulty of statistics.

Yes, for the supporters, it's a matter of few sacrifices for the 'greater good'.

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?

[Trien Chieu]

and Kidnapping, Perjury, and Treason against the Government.

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.

Murder, drug trafficking, kidnapping, perjury and treason against the government are very very serious crimes. Death penalty is appropriate for such crimes. In the case of Nguyen Tuong Van, I agree with the government of Singapore. Imagine how many lives could have ruined if he was successfully delivered the drug. If he had been living responsibly (living below the mean), he wouldn't be in financial trouble as he did. Don't live the life you can't afford!!! Regarding repay loan, drug trafficking should never be an option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuong_Nguyen

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".

[Trinie]

Of course I would try to save a life if I can, but I won't feel sorry for her and her lover given what they have done to another man. If she is no longer wanted to be with her husband, then divorce him and move on. I despise cheaters.



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.

WOW, you are cold blooded... But hey, I should not be surprised...

Did you know that the crime of rape is pretty equal to the murder??? Rape is a very bad crime too you know.

[Sourplum]

Murder, drug trafficking, kidnapping, perjury and treason against the government are very very serious crimes. Death penalty is appropriate for such crimes. In the case of Nguyen Tuong Van, I agree with the government of Singapore. Imagine how many lives could have ruined if he was successfully delivered the drug. If he had been living responsibly (living below the mean), he wouldn't be in financial trouble as he did. Don't live the life you can't afford!!! Regarding repay loan, drug trafficking should never be an option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuong_Nguyen

Perjury and treason against the government deserving of death? Basically you're advocating for death against freedom of speech. If a person doesn't like a law and speaks out against the Government, are you saying they should be killed? And in the case of perjury, how is death an appropriate course of action? There are many reasons a person lies in a testimony or when giving evidence - they might have been blackmailed or had little choice but to produce false evidence. Don't look at everything at face value - MOTIVE is very important.

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.

[Guo Xiang]

Perjury and treason against the government deserving of death? Basically you're advocating for death against freedom of speech. If a person doesn't like a law and speaks out against the Government, are you saying they should be killed? And in the case of perjury, how is death an appropriate course of action? There are many reasons a person lies in a testimony or when giving evidence - they might have been blackmailed or had little choice but to produce false evidence. Don't look at everything at face value - MOTIVE is very important.

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.

I find the Singapore government to be much more merciful than TC. At least Singapore doesn't hang people for perjury and adultery.

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.