off my chest...
i know this is probably old news but i have to get this off my chest...
When Van Nguyen was convicted of heroin smuggling and hence sentenced to death by hanging, there was an outcry in Australia. Opponents of the death penalty begin to say that it’s barbaric. Proponents say it’s a deterrent. The debate goes on from all layers of society, from ministers to lawyers to journalists to telemarketers to students to cab drivers. In fact, after his execution, there was a service for his funeral normally reserved for war heroes (excluding the gun salute).
I shall not debate on his martyrdom. That is for the people and history decide.
I am a pragmatic person. I do not view it as barbaric nor archaic and neither do I see it as the only mean . It is however, an option. An option for the state. An option in which the state can use as a means of punishment. How right or how wrong the option is depends on the nation’s think tank and people. Whether a person has the right to take another person’s life is subjective. This I say because, throughout history there have been examples where a killing has been justified by the flimsiest of reasons. So I will leave it for someone else to discuss it.
But the thing is, how right or wrong capital punishment is depends on how much of the punishment is classified as murder.
In contemporary societies, a cynical perspective towards the state is prevalent among its citizens. Although there are many reasons for this, it can be classified into two types; the reality and the perceived reasons. Much of the reality is for example when citizens finds out about state misbehaviours and indiscretions. For example, a politician having an extra-marital affair or corruption. Because of such incidents, it directly affects the perceived beliefs of a citizen. Consequently, because of that one bad politician, the citizen might imply that every politician is corrupt and promiscuous.
Due to this cynical attitude towards the state, every move the state makes might be more or less wrong in the eyes of the general public. Thus when a state has a device in its system such as the capital punishment, regardless of whatever reasons they give, the death penalty is evil, and it is murder.
Logically, it can be seen as a form of self defence. The state, protecting its citizens, is repelling the fatal effects of illegal substances. If it cripples or worst kills the citizens of the country, don’t you think the state deserves to defend itself? In some places, this form of murder is called manslaughter.
For the better or worse, Singapore and Australia has dealt with the problem. Van Nguyen is gone. Some think he’s a martyr. Some people believe he is a drug dealer. Well to each his own.
However, one of the funny things that came out of all this mess was about Singapore’s oral sex law.
The thing about this case is that the law is archaic. It is a remnant of the old Singapore British order that Singapore inherited. I am sure that if you look at the Australian Law you will find a similar clause. Anyway, no one thought it would be brought up so this law was reasonably, neglected, until one fine day, when someone who probably had vengeance on their minds, decided to invoke this law. So when brought onto the judge, what can the judge do? Ignore it? Following the rule of law, the judge had no choice but to mete out the punishment for breaking the law. I have a strong suspicion the judge probably was sniggering in his chamber with the two other judges when they came upon this decision.
When Van Nguyen was convicted of heroin smuggling and hence sentenced to death by hanging, there was an outcry in Australia. Opponents of the death penalty begin to say that it’s barbaric. Proponents say it’s a deterrent. The debate goes on from all layers of society, from ministers to lawyers to journalists to telemarketers to students to cab drivers. In fact, after his execution, there was a service for his funeral normally reserved for war heroes (excluding the gun salute).
I shall not debate on his martyrdom. That is for the people and history decide.
I am a pragmatic person. I do not view it as barbaric nor archaic and neither do I see it as the only mean . It is however, an option. An option for the state. An option in which the state can use as a means of punishment. How right or how wrong the option is depends on the nation’s think tank and people. Whether a person has the right to take another person’s life is subjective. This I say because, throughout history there have been examples where a killing has been justified by the flimsiest of reasons. So I will leave it for someone else to discuss it.
But the thing is, how right or wrong capital punishment is depends on how much of the punishment is classified as murder.
In contemporary societies, a cynical perspective towards the state is prevalent among its citizens. Although there are many reasons for this, it can be classified into two types; the reality and the perceived reasons. Much of the reality is for example when citizens finds out about state misbehaviours and indiscretions. For example, a politician having an extra-marital affair or corruption. Because of such incidents, it directly affects the perceived beliefs of a citizen. Consequently, because of that one bad politician, the citizen might imply that every politician is corrupt and promiscuous.
Due to this cynical attitude towards the state, every move the state makes might be more or less wrong in the eyes of the general public. Thus when a state has a device in its system such as the capital punishment, regardless of whatever reasons they give, the death penalty is evil, and it is murder.
Logically, it can be seen as a form of self defence. The state, protecting its citizens, is repelling the fatal effects of illegal substances. If it cripples or worst kills the citizens of the country, don’t you think the state deserves to defend itself? In some places, this form of murder is called manslaughter.
For the better or worse, Singapore and Australia has dealt with the problem. Van Nguyen is gone. Some think he’s a martyr. Some people believe he is a drug dealer. Well to each his own.
However, one of the funny things that came out of all this mess was about Singapore’s oral sex law.
The thing about this case is that the law is archaic. It is a remnant of the old Singapore British order that Singapore inherited. I am sure that if you look at the Australian Law you will find a similar clause. Anyway, no one thought it would be brought up so this law was reasonably, neglected, until one fine day, when someone who probably had vengeance on their minds, decided to invoke this law. So when brought onto the judge, what can the judge do? Ignore it? Following the rule of law, the judge had no choice but to mete out the punishment for breaking the law. I have a strong suspicion the judge probably was sniggering in his chamber with the two other judges when they came upon this decision.
Finger Acrobatics Performed
On Wednesday, April 05, 2006 at 11:47 am.
Skip It and Leave Some!
