Why we shouldn't abolish the punishment.
refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Tuong_Nguyen
Australian Prime Minister John Howard:
"I don't believe in capital punishment, he was a convicted drug trafficker and that is to be wholly condemned, [but] I hope the strongest message that comes out of this, above everything else, is a message to the young of Australia. Don't have anything to do with drugs. Don't use them, don't touch them, don't carry them, don't traffic in them and don't imagine for a moment — for a moment — that you can risk carrying drugs anywhere in Asia without suffering the most severe consequences."
On the surface it seems this statement supports capital punishment. However, Prime Minister John Howard sarcastically points out the immediate and straight-forward enforcement of Singapore's laws. This source tells us that Capital Punishment is too heavy a punishment despite the seriousness of the offence.
Be reminded that the question is about the removal of Capital Punishment and not of drug trafficking as a serious offence.
I do not feel that Capital Punishment should be abolished as it is a punishment dealt on a single person. It is fair for one to take responsibility for his own actions, any argument to the law should be done before the crime, not after. The matter should not be blown up just because of the internationl implications, which actually are irrelevant. When a crime reaches this level, punishment should not be debated.
The removal of the punishment affects the society's view of the seriousness of the offence. These two cannot be separated. However the effect of the abolishment on the criminal is only personal and should not be considered as a major factor in deciding the law.
Where the law is only harsh to the criminal( who, if you recall, is actually aware of it), we should favour the good of the society as they will benefit much more from the security.
I wish the law will stay, but I do pity the fact that someone has to be punished. Everyone makes mistakes as a result of temptation or desperation, but it is only once in a long while that such mistakes crosses the line and require such a cold and harsh punishment. We should move on from this as there are more people dying elsewhere for no fault of their own.
P.S : I went on www.putfile.com once a year ago. They banned my I.P address because I was Singaporean, saying we are harsh and whatnot. That is ridiculous. People die everyday. Why start a international debate cuz of a single case of drug-trafficking. This is not the first time, and the fact that the uproar started only because our criminal is Australian shows that there is prejudice and this matter no longer has any place in a moral debate.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard:
"I don't believe in capital punishment, he was a convicted drug trafficker and that is to be wholly condemned, [but] I hope the strongest message that comes out of this, above everything else, is a message to the young of Australia. Don't have anything to do with drugs. Don't use them, don't touch them, don't carry them, don't traffic in them and don't imagine for a moment — for a moment — that you can risk carrying drugs anywhere in Asia without suffering the most severe consequences."
On the surface it seems this statement supports capital punishment. However, Prime Minister John Howard sarcastically points out the immediate and straight-forward enforcement of Singapore's laws. This source tells us that Capital Punishment is too heavy a punishment despite the seriousness of the offence.
Be reminded that the question is about the removal of Capital Punishment and not of drug trafficking as a serious offence.
I do not feel that Capital Punishment should be abolished as it is a punishment dealt on a single person. It is fair for one to take responsibility for his own actions, any argument to the law should be done before the crime, not after. The matter should not be blown up just because of the internationl implications, which actually are irrelevant. When a crime reaches this level, punishment should not be debated.
The removal of the punishment affects the society's view of the seriousness of the offence. These two cannot be separated. However the effect of the abolishment on the criminal is only personal and should not be considered as a major factor in deciding the law.
Where the law is only harsh to the criminal( who, if you recall, is actually aware of it), we should favour the good of the society as they will benefit much more from the security.
I wish the law will stay, but I do pity the fact that someone has to be punished. Everyone makes mistakes as a result of temptation or desperation, but it is only once in a long while that such mistakes crosses the line and require such a cold and harsh punishment. We should move on from this as there are more people dying elsewhere for no fault of their own.
P.S : I went on www.putfile.com once a year ago. They banned my I.P address because I was Singaporean, saying we are harsh and whatnot. That is ridiculous. People die everyday. Why start a international debate cuz of a single case of drug-trafficking. This is not the first time, and the fact that the uproar started only because our criminal is Australian shows that there is prejudice and this matter no longer has any place in a moral debate.
posted by shanez at 7:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home