Rapist and murderer of schoolgirl hanged

[Natalinasmpf]

Why don't you cane your communist vandals? Soft on crime?

Communist rioters aren't vandals.

Many arrested weren't actually rioting; they had been charged with conspiring against the state to cause public disorder because evidence had been found that they were going to take part in a riot.

Attempted crimes tend to have lighter sentences then comitted crimes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
But bear in mind, not only is the crime considered in the sentence, but future crimes, precedents, and conservation of principles.

Preserving critical principles and social stability warrants punishment of death as a deterrent.

No. You have no right to give individuals punishment that goes beyond the crime they commited. That is a human rights violation. That state has no right, and if they can't maintain order without violating individuals like that they should go down.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And I argue no crime warrants the punishment of death.

How do you justify confinement?

[Natalinasmpf]

That is a human rights violation

Tell me, where in the UN Declaration of Human Rights is it mentioned?

Btw, the state has every right if it was elected.

If the criminal, in doing his crime, endangers critical principles or tenets in the process, destruction of principles should be considered as part of the crime, and therefore the appropriate sentence should be taken to restore that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Caning is degrading.

yeah, it is!

[Natalinasmpf]

There's a difference between one done in public and one done in private in prison.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf

That is a human rights violation

Tell me, where in the UN Declaration of Human Rights is it mentioned?

There's article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Giving punishment that is harsher than the crime is inhuman.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Btw, the state has every right if it was elected.

Nonsense. Do you have any concern for individual rights at all. What makes you think that the state is more important than the individuals?

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
If the criminal, in doing his crime, endangers critical principles or tenets in the process, destruction of principles should be considered as part of the crime, and therefore the appropriate sentence should be taken to restore that.

Screw principles. Show me how some other individuals are hurt and then we can talk. Are you talking about things that aren't laws? You can't punish someone unless they broke a law, and you can only punish them for breaking the law.

[Kidlicious]

According to Amnesty International someone was put to death for discharging a firearm during an armed robbery. Now, you want to explain the justice there?

Amnesty International Report 1997: Singapore

In brief: At least 34 prisoners of conscience were held throughout the year for their conscientious objection to military service. A further 47 people were imprisoned for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression. One former prisoner of conscience continued to be subject to government orders restricting his freedom of expression and association. Criminal offenders continued to be sentenced to caning. At least 38 people were executed and at least 19 death sentences were passed.

At least 34 conscientious objectors to military service were imprisoned during the year. All were members of the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious group, which has been banned in Singapore since 1972. All refused to perform military service on religious grounds; they were prisoners of conscience. They included Edgar Chua, who was sentenced in October to 15 months' imprisonment. Young men who refuse to comply with military orders are court-martialled and sentenced to an initial 12 or 15 months' detention in military barracks. A second refusal to comply results in a further two years' imprisonment. There is no alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors to military service in Singapore.

Trials of other Jehovah's Witnesses (see Amnesty International Report 1996) took place during the year. Between November 1995 and July 1996, more than 60 Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted of membership of an illegal society or possession of banned literature. All were fined but most were imprisoned for up to four weeks after refusing to pay the fines on conscientious grounds. All were prisoners of conscience. They included Yu Nguk Ding, a 72-year-old woman, who was sentenced to one week's imprisonment in July under the Undesirable Publications Act.

Government restriction orders against Chia Thye Poh, a former prisoner of conscience, were partially amended but continued to curtail his freedom of association and expression.

In March, three prison officers were sentenced to between six and 10 years' imprisonment and to strokes of the cane for causing the death of a prisoner at Queenstown Remand Prison in July 1995. The court found that they had beaten Ghazali Abdul Manaf so severely that he sustained more than 120 injuries.

Caning, which constitutes a cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment, remained mandatory for some 30 crimes, including attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, drug-trafficking, illegal immigration and vandalism. It remained an optional penalty for a number of other crimes, including extortion, kidnapping and causing grievous injury. In August, Lim Chee Wei, aged 16, was sentenced to six strokes of the cane in addition to a prison sentence for rape.

At least 38 executions by hanging were reported to have been carried out, the majority for drug-related offences. Despite the lack of official information, there were reliable indications that the real figure was much higher. In March, five Thai migrant workers convicted of murder were executed despite appeals for clemency by Thai non-governmental organizations and Thai government officials. In September, two Malaysian nationals, Zulkifli Awang Kechik and Pauzi Abdul Kadir, sentenced to death in February for trafficking in cannabis, were executed.

At least 19 people were sentenced to death, of whom 15 were convicted of drug-trafficking, three of murder and one of discharging a firearm during an armed robbery.

Amnesty International urged the government of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to release all prisoners of conscience and to lift the restrictions on Chia Thye Poh. The organization also urged the authorities to end the punishment of caning and to commute all death sentences.

[Ben Kenobi]

How do you justify confinement?

Like life imprisonment? It provides a venue for rehabilitation as well as for punishment.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Like life imprisonment? It provides a venue for rehabilitation as well as for punishment.

You are telling me the goals of the state, but what justifies them doing that.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are telling me the goals of the state, but what justifies them doing that.

The crime committed by the attacker. It's the balancing of the two desires for punishment and rehabilitation that produces life imprisonment.

A second argument would be that confinement protects the other people from the killer, while still permitting his rehabilitation.

[Natalinasmpf]

Are you talking about things that aren't laws? You can't punish someone unless they broke a law, and you can only punish them for breaking the law.

Breaking principles can be considered a law. Well a principle OF laws, because they generally are concerned about laws in general.

Giving punishment that is harsher than the crime is inhuman.

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, four times over.

The punishment IS supposed to be harsher than the crime. Thats what deterrent sentences are for. Its supposed to severely outweigh in cost, the benefit of the crime. Hardly inhuman, in fact, it sounds like human nature.

When you take principles into consideration, its not even harsher than the crime; in breaking principles, it warrants a harsh sentence in order to restore them.

Nonsense. Do you have any concern for individual rights at all. What makes you think that the state is more important than the individuals?

I have a lot of concern for individual rights. But...

The goals of the greater group are transcendent

Especially when the invididuals make up the state.

According to Amnesty International someone was put to death for discharging a firearm during an armed robbery. Now, you want to explain the justice there?

*skims over report*

I have to admit our political freedoms aren't exactly free, as well.

Caning, which constitutes a cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment

I protest.

It is not cruel, inhuman, and only slightly degrading.

It is however, extreme, and thus used in only discernable cases.

As for conscientious objection, I don't really think you can evade duty to your country simply because you want to...heck, 99% of the traineers will probably never undergo war, hardship training is another thing. Its actually a career path for university, as well.

At least 19 people were sentenced to death, of whom 15 were convicted of drug-trafficking, three of murder and one of discharging a firearm during an armed robbery.

They are DRUG-TRAFFICKERS.

Look, in Singapore, we have different priorities than the US. We have no natural resources, our only other resource besides our people is our port. Now, we can't have drugs messing up our society, because then it will be widespread, messing up our cashflow. In the US, its less of a problem, more tolerable, well because you have existing natural resources, and reputation isn't that affected.

If not for the death penalty, drug trafficking rates will skyrocket - this is bad for trade, CRUCIAL to our country's survival. Therefore the death penalty must remain, because otherwise principles and country will be endangered. Drug trafficking in the sense, is the equivalent of treason by affecting trade and overseas investor reputation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's not a violation of the individual if the individual is guilty.

Neither is executing them then.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The crime committed by the attacker. It's the balancing of the two desires for punishment and rehabilitation that produces life imprisonment.

A second argument would be that confinement protects the other people from the killer, while still permitting his rehabilitation.

Yes. Now how do you determine how much punishment is justified?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Neither is executing them then.

Yeah. Were you saying that executing murderers was a violation of their rights?