Gravitymaster 0 #101 December 5, 2005 QuoteAgain....who said it was premeditated murder? It is premeditated killing. A lot of people getting their hackles up when I use that accurate and specific term. Almost as if they think premeditated killing is wrong while trying to hold onto the idea that state run execution is ok. Then this must be a case of assisted suicide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #102 December 5, 2005 ...against their will. Your analogy is way off base. How about you answer the question that Rhonda ignored. If I tell you to stop posting or I'll kill you, but you keep posting....are you therefore committing suicide? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #103 December 5, 2005 Quote...against their will. Your analogy is way off base. How about you answer the question that Rhonda ignored. If I tell you to stop posting or I'll kill you, but you keep posting....are you therefore committing suicide? I think his analogy is pretty good, really. Yours is off though. Big gulf between state/national law and punishment codes and just personal threats. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #104 December 5, 2005 QuoteAh, the usual liberal response. The guilty party is not responsible... Where was that stated by anyone? You are making stuff up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #105 December 5, 2005 QuoteQuote...against their will. Your analogy is way off base. How about you answer the question that Rhonda ignored. If I tell you to stop posting or I'll kill you, but you keep posting....are you therefore committing suicide? I think his analogy is pretty good, really. Yours is off though. Big gulf between state/national law and punishment codes and just personal threats. Why is a heinous decision any less heinous if made by a collective?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #106 December 5, 2005 Quote...against their will. Your analogy is way off base. How about you answer the question that Rhonda ignored. If I tell you to stop posting or I'll kill you, but you keep posting....are you therefore committing suicide? No, because I would come after you first and you would die a thousand deaths before I was done. Of course, that's if I actually believed you. The problem with your argument is you have no authority to prevent me from posting. Nor do you have the legal justification for threatening me. If I really thought you were serious, I'd use all legal means available and the law would be on my side. When Singapore makes it known they will kill you for distributing drugs, they have the legal authority to do that. When you threaten to kill me for posting, you don't have any authority. Now with Billvon......well, that's another issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #107 December 5, 2005 QuoteI think his analogy is pretty good, really. Yours is off though. Big gulf between state/national law and punishment codes and just personal threats Why...people here have been rationlizing that it is ok to execute someone for drug smuggling because he was aware of the consequences if he were caught. Why does it matter who is meteing out the consequences? Dead is dead, right? If I tell you the consequences I will mete out, how are you less to blame for your own death? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #108 December 5, 2005 Hi, Just wanted to ask a question: you said this today QuoteAnd there's also the part about how the human brain is not fully developed as to risk assessment until it's around 25 years old. Do you have a reference for that? It just kind of interests me thats all!! Thanks DaveNever try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #109 December 5, 2005 That's true...but the point I'm addressing is the culpability that you all are attributing to the one being executed. You are defending the harshness of the sentence with the rationale that he knew that was the penalty. If for some reason, he wasn't aware of the penalty, is it still ok to kill him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #110 December 5, 2005 QuoteWhy is a heinous decision any less heinous if made by a collective? I noted his analogy to suicide is good. I didn't state anything about the main topic of the post. Although the post is about whether or not the death penalty is justified or not (I'm not decided either way really - I understand both points and am trying to reconcile the practical consequences of the both sides. It's hard to as the stated positions are really clogged up with emotive arguments and absolute statements that need to be tossed out first), the thread had diverged as to how much fault the individual had for "Knowingly" placing himself into that situation - regardless if the punishment is right or wrong. Stepping into a pit with spikes isn't suicide - but it is if you know it's there and there are signs everywhere - but maybe - just maybe, the cover won't collapse and drop you in whenyou step on it. It's definitely gambling with one's life when you don't have to. That's pretty close to suicide. Seems more like Darwin at work. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #111 December 5, 2005 QuoteIt's definitely gambling with one's life when you don't have to. Kind of like skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #112 December 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteIt's definitely gambling with one's life when you don't have to. Kind of like skydiving. Yeah, and this guys was doing hook turns with only 50 jumps and no training. Is that a better analogy? and I'm not defending the harshness of the sentence with the rationale that he knew that was the penalty - just taking the two parts as separate discussions - which they can be. If Kallend and GM aren't, then that's ok for them ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #113 December 5, 2005 QuoteYeah, and this guys was doing hook turns with only 50 jumps and no training. Is that a better analogy? Yes...that's much better. Still not perfect though. That puts blame on his stupidity or ignorance as opposed to claiming he willing wants to die. But it still misses the point that ultimately, his death is the responsibility of the state. Since they could very easily choose to not kill him, the ultimate cause of his death, is them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #114 December 5, 2005 QuoteYes...that's much better. Still not perfect though. That puts blame on his stupidity or ignorance as opposed to claiming he willing wants to die. But it still misses the point that ultimately, his death is the responsibility of the state. Since they could very easily choose to not kill him, the ultimate cause of his death, is them. Sorry, this is a BV and Kallend tactic lately but - So - By your opinion, then we should also blame the DZOs for anyone that hooks themselves to death - they could have jsut refused to let them jump. The ultimate cause of his death is whatever technique was used to kill him - and the individual that administered that technique (pull the switch, press the syringe, drop the noose, swung the axe, released the guillotine, etc - any one of those, that individual could just refuse). You can play the 'cause of the cause' game all day and it will remain futile. Doesn't release the DRUG SMUGGLER from his very stupid decision to play that card in a society that obviously frowns upon it. And Singapore really doesn't have a drug problem, so I'd also think the deterrent works well (this is still not an assessment on the moral value, just the effectiveness) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #115 December 5, 2005 DZO's don't expend effort to cause the death of others. They may be enablers, but they aren't the cause. The state is the DECISION MAKER on this ONE ISSUE. Shall he be put to death. Yes he shall. That is the domain of the state and the state alone in this circumstance. QuoteSingapore really doesn't have a drug problem, so I'd also think the deterrent works well Before you jump to such a conclusion, you may well consider the lack of elephants in Singapore. Unless you believe that no countries without the death penalty have low drug use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #116 December 6, 2005 QuoteHi, Just wanted to ask a question: you said this today QuoteAnd there's also the part about how the human brain is not fully developed as to risk assessment until it's around 25 years old. Do you have a reference for that? It just kind of interests me thats all!! Well, I found a reference of sorts, but not the article I read a couple of months ago. In the course of the search, I learned that tall people are smarter than short people (something to do with growth hormone) and two-to-three year old children are the most malicious of all humans. There are a number of scholarly articles, but they're "pay-per-view" and nothing in the abstracts is very helpful, but here's a starting place: In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regionsIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #117 December 6, 2005 QuoteShall he be put to death. Yes he shall. That is the domain of the state and the state alone in this circumstance. Who is "the state"? It sounds like a big, impersonal machine to me, but in this country, at least, it's the voters who put the death penalty in place. Singapore is a parliamentary republic. Last I knew, that's not the sort of government where the peepul are prevented from voting. rl [#666666]Sarcasm: the last refuge of those without proof to substantiate a claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #118 December 6, 2005 QuoteThis guy went into Singapore knowing the law and knowing he was subject to it (or at least he should have). He broke their law, thus he has to abide by it. I have no problem w/ some d bag drug smuggler get the axe, especially when he broke laws that already said he'd get it.Maybe he also got a haircut when he arrived. I know in the mid 70's, if you needed a haircut upon arrival, you got one or you were escorted back on the plane. Nice place, but it is their law.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #119 December 6, 2005 I am solely in support of marijuana law reform and in no way support those who deal and traffic in narcotics such as heroin. Although I do not support death penalties the smuggler in question was aware of the risk in what he was doing. Play the game and pay when you lose."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #120 December 6, 2005 Nice...either way, you don't like the way they do things, don't go; it's that simple. Unfortunately some people are just to stupid to put 2 and 2 together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twibbles 0 #121 December 6, 2005 First off, i grew up in singapore, and i agree with you (rehmwa) that they don't have much of a drug problem. The goverment does a lot to re-habilitate people who suffer problems with drug addiction. Walk into a drug re-habiliation centre and you get the treatment you need. But once you get arrested and convicted as a drug peddler, and that's the term used there, is a whole different matter. For heroin, the cut off point is 15 grams. Caught with that or more and it's a mandatory death penalty. The limit is different for other drugs. I don't see why a foreign national should be treated any different considering that in 1998, a new provision was made in the law to treat consumption of drugs outside Singapore by a citizen or permanent resident as if the offence took place in Singapore. I'm not trying to argue that death penalty is moral, but it's effectiveness in reducing crime is apparent in singapore. There's also a mandatory death penalty for people convicted for using firearms in a crime in singapore, and there is no gun crime in singapore to speak of. I guess law enforcement is a lot more effective in what is a very tightly controlled state where everyone is issued ID cards, all entry points tightly policed and not a lot of space to hide, but it's effictiveness is proven Eugene "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #122 December 6, 2005 QuoteWho is "the state"? It sounds like a big, impersonal machine to me, but in this country, at least, it's the voters who put the death penalty in place. When is the last time you voted to put someone to death? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #123 December 6, 2005 QuoteI guess law enforcement is a lot more effective in what is a very tightly controlled state where everyone is issued ID cards, all entry points tightly policed and not a lot of space to hide, but it's effictiveness is proven Sounds like a right wing wet dream. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #124 December 6, 2005 QuoteSounds like a left wing wet dream. fixed it for you ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #125 December 6, 2005 I'll fix it for both of us.... Sounds like an authoritarian wet dream. As you know, that could be left (ussr) or right (nazis). Either way, doesn't add much fuel to the argument that it's ok for them to kill people because they broke a rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
