Rapist and murderer of schoolgirl hanged

[Natalinasmpf]

Removal of arbitrary convictions goes a long way to encourage trust between different nations.

Like we will ever fully trust the US.

than each nation is going to sit on you to release those you have in custody so that they can recieve proper justice at home.

Surprisingly, ASEAN (thats the Alliance of South-East Asian Nations for you) and Malaysia seems to support us on the stance of caning Faye. Extradictions from Australia aren't affected, either.

Faye was just an example, where, it had gone too far, and we can't let him go scot free. They comitted a crime on our soil, thus he will be tried in our soil.

In the extradiction of the Orchard Towers criminals from Australia, the crime was also comitted here, thus Australia extradicted them to there. Had Faye, say, vandalised American cars, then fled here, that would be an entirely different thing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, but often in these cases the officer is also in danger. Again, if someone pulls out a gun, and starts shooting people, that's different than a criminal in confinement. You can say that in the first case, that other lives are in imminent danger, whereas in the latter, that they are not.

Officers put themselves in danger. That's different from self-defense. If they wanted to defend themselves they wouldn't be on the force.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why only in rare cases?

If you are just evil and there is no hope for you to have remorse, and there is absolute certainty that you are guilty then I support the death penalty. Generally I don't though, and I suspect that the state will always kill the wrong people if they have the power to do so.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, why equivalent? That implies Lex Talionis, life for life, blow for blow, etc. Why not say that the man who has been wronged has the right to seek vengeance to an equivalent measure to the harm he received? Why should only the state have the authority to execute others?

Order. You can't have anarchy with everyone deciding for themselves when to exact vengence. That's what the state is for.

[Ben Kenobi]

Faye was just an example, where, it had gone too far, and we can't let him go scot free. They comitted a crime on our soil, thus he will be tried in our soil.

But the punishment must fit the crime. You yourself have admitted that the punishment is arbitrary, thus the US is right to condemn your punishment, regardless of the support to which others give you.

[grobnok]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Caning is not that degrading, just painful. The main thing is the barb attached to the end of the cane...its all conducted in private, the last thing on your mind is modesty.

But our parliament lawmakers apparently think its acceptable, (so do I) and here, where there is LARGE POPULATION density, HIGH use of public facilities, vandalising something would affect much more people, then say, vandalising something out in the Dustbowl in the US.

You should be glad we don't adopt the Chinese practice of chaining people to five vehicles, and then the vehicles drive in five different directions, tearing the person apart. Caning is ordered with discernment.

That was during ancient times. You are comparing ancient china to singapore today. I'm chinese and I know a lot about chinese history. Corporal punishment shouldn't be applied to anyone except terroists. Forcing someone to strip and bend over in inacceptable.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Caning is not that degrading, just painful. The main thing is the barb attached to the end of the cane...its all conducted in private, the last thing on your mind is modesty.

But our parliament lawmakers apparently think its acceptable, (so do I) and here, where there is LARGE POPULATION density, HIGH use of public facilities, vandalising something would affect much more people, then say, vandalising something out in the Dustbowl in the US.

You should be glad we don't adopt the Chinese practice of chaining people to five vehicles, and then the vehicles drive in five different directions, tearing the person apart. Caning is ordered with discernment.

You live in an authoritarian state and it's no wonder that you all cane people there. The state is not your parent. It has no right to punish you as if it were. Again, we don't even allow parents to do that to their children in the US.

[Natalinasmpf]

Corporal punishment shouldn't be applied to anyone except terroists.

I'm seeing a double-standard. Because terrorism is as much a felony as vandalism or murder is.

You are comparing ancient china to singapore today

We have the same Asian conservatism.

You yourself have admitted that the punishment is arbitrary

I did not. I just remarked, "so what if it is?" - since it does not matter whether it is or not.

thus the US is right to condemn your punishment,

Opinion does not change the right. We still have every right to. Take that, US nationalism!

But the punishment must fit the crime

Fits the crime perfectly. It is in every justification to cane foreign vandals who do so for the sake of their nationalist agenda. We had to set a precedent, a deterrent.

You just seem mean. You live in an authoritarian state and it's no wonder that you all cane people there. The state is not your parent. It has no right to punish you as if it were. Again, we don't even allow parents to do that to their children in the US.

We are not. It is our sovereign right, as a state.

Authoritarian? Not really...conservative, far right, and a bit of a nanny state with some police state elements in it? Yes. We don't cane for no reason, or out of whim. Caning exemplifies something major, and vandals with nationalist agendas, well, suits the bill.

The state is not my parent? Well it thinks it is, I can't change that currently, but it still does not affect sovereign rights. It has every right, especially if the parliament thinks so, if its people thinks so, why not?

The parliament has every right to ratify any laws it wants, as long votes are passed accordingly, and of course, a lot of representatives would bear the people's opinion in mind due to elections...

If the people have considerations in it, and since a country is made of them, why cannot it do that?

[Ben Kenobi]

Officers put themselves in danger. That's different from self-defense. If they wanted to defend themselves they wouldn't be on the force.

But officers only shoot in self-defense. They do not shoot unless the situation warrants.

If you are just evil and there is no hope for you to have remorse, and there is absolute certainty that you are guilty then I support the death penalty.

First of all, evil is in everyone. How do you define one person to be more evil than another?

Secondly, how do you know that someone is incapable of remorse? I agree with you that if someone is incapable of remorse, this would be a good defense of the death penalty, however, I believe that everyone is capable of repenting from their crimes. There are no lost causes, or if there are, we cannot infallibly sift the lost causes from those who will repent. It would be wrong to kill somone who has the possibility to repent, and many of these people would die under a death penalty.

Finally, for your third criterion, can we be absolutely sure that someone is guilty of the crime? The courts are only required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a considerably less stringent standard. Since we cannot prove absolutely, we ought to refrain from an absolute punishment.

Generally I don't though, and I suspect that the state will always kill the wrong people if they have the power to do so.

Indeed. Which is why you and I agree. According to both of our standards, the death penalty would never be used.

Order. You can't have anarchy with everyone deciding for themselves when to exact vengence. That's what the state is for.

Is the only way to establish order through executions?

[Natalinasmpf]

Anarchy rules.

Plus, bear in mind, in a republic, the people often make up the state.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is in every justification to cane foreign vandals who do so for the sake of their nationalist agenda. We had to set a precedent, a deterrent.

And I suppose you only cane foreign vandals who have nationalist agendas?

What about the communists?

[grobnok]

In singapore you are caned by a discipline master for not doing assignments and parents have canes at home because they think that their kids did not recieve enough dicipline at school.

[Natalinasmpf]

And I suppose you only cane foreign vandals who have nationalist agendas?

No, merely as one of many types of felons.

We only imprisoned the MCP for supporting rioting or taking part in a conspiracy. Caning wasn't involved.

Other communists of other parties besides the MCP they seem to tolerate. I should know. The Internal Security Department (ISD) questioned me before, I admitted I was communist, and I was released. (Btw, the point of the interview wasn't even my stance anyway).

In singapore you are caned by a discipline master for not doing assignments and parents have canes at home because they think that their kids did not recieve enough dicipline at school.

No, that is such an arrogant assertion.

In Singapore, in schools when you collect SIX DEMERIT POINTS, it warrants a caning. Not just doing assignments, which you would have to skip 27 assignments to collect six demerit points.

Parents have every right to....and its a bamboo cane (without barbs of course), quite harmless, it hurts as much as pinching yourself.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Indeed. Which is why you and I agree. According to both of our standards, the death penalty would never be used.

I think Manson is beyond remorse, but then again I just assume he die in prison.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is the only way to establish order through executions?

No. Executions really have nothing to do with order.

My point is that the state has to have justification to confine people as well as execute them. The justification is the crime the was commited.

[Ben Kenobi]

My point is that the state has to have justification to confine people as well as execute them. The justification is the crime the was commited.

And I argue no crime warrants the punishment of death.

[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.

[Ben Kenobi]

We only imprisoned the MCP for supporting rioting or taking part in a conspiracy. Caning wasn't involved.

That seems rather arbitrary.

Vandalise a building with a nationalist agenda nets you caning. Inciting a communist riot nets you prison.

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