I am appalled at the self-righteousness being shown here. It all too easy to jump on the bandwagon and say that a principled approach must be taken to abolish the death penalty.
How other countries decide to govern themselves is entirely for them and not for others. This has been demonstrated in what happened when we stuck our noses into Iraq. Believe it or not we have made a bad problem even worse.
In Singapore Nguyen knew full well what he was doing and he paid the price for it. Whether Singapore abolished the death penalty or not is entirely for them and not for those of us outside.
Whether they do or not, I hope that for their sakes that they are given a mature and rational debate on it.
When the death penalty was abolished in Britain in 1965 it was done without a public debate and without consultation or a referendum. Public opinion polls always show a majority in favour of capital punishment.
In the UK in 1965 there were fewer than 400 murders a year. Last year that figure was close to 1,000. Who said that the death penalty does not deter?

Gavin Staples.

Cambridge UK.

http://www.gavinstaples.com

How did this man ever become the dean of Deakin law school with such simplistic reasoning?

“Thus, it must be pointed out the citizens of Singapore are no safer from drugs (trafficking) as a result of capital punishment.”
Doesn’t high drug use in a country lead to high street crime owing to junkies robbing and stealing to afford their next fix, and aren’t the streets in Singapore much safer than those of urban Australia?

“… a fundamental sentencing principle that should underpin all sentencing systems is the principle of proportionality... This is violated when the most severe form punishment is imposed for offences which do not constitute the most heinous forms of offending. Drug-trafficking is bad, but clearly crimes such as murder and homicide are far more serious.”

So if the punishment for serial killers who murder twenty people is death, then we can’t issue the death sentence for those who murder only five victims?

“…to maximise human flourishing where each individual's interest counts equally. The most important interest recognised in this universal moral code is the right to life…. The right to life can only be violated where there is a compelling reason to do so (such as self defence). This is not the situation in the case of capital punishment. No benefit is derived from killing wrongdoers.”

What about guaranteeing that a cold blooded calculating murderer never takes another life? (murder, like practically all crimes, has a recidivism rate.)
What about giving closure to the grieving relatives and loved ones of the victim of a brutal killing?
What about the possibility that the threat of death will deter drug importation and may in fact save some part of a generation of youth from being lost to drug addiction and associated diseases from sharing needles?
What about reassuring the general public by making a very visible and unequivocal statement that innocent life is precious and that there is just NO tolerance for those who intentionally, with malice aforethought, destroy it?

Singapore Drug Situation Report

http://www.cnb.gov.sg/report/index.asp?page=405

http://www.cnb.gov.sg/report/index.asp?page=244

Drug abuse situation has been on a decline for some time. Dramatic reduction on heroin abuse as supply is very limited.

However users are now using "legal" substitutes -- sabutex for heroin ( heroin is considered as the worst abuse.)This drug is a substitute and it is used to help them wean off heroin but it can be abused.

We are now going after the doctors who are over prescribing ... no death penalty ... its legal ... but maybe shame them if they are blatantly over prescribing.

Capital punishment (targets supply) as i argued above acts very effectively combine with education and prevention (targets users). It is a two prong approach.

Those who are addicted on heroin ... it is almost impossible to get out of it ... its really tough ... its like touch the stuff and you are dead to the world. Hnce Singapore applies the toughest law on it.

It is not that we don't value lifes, we value the innocent lifes more than the drug trafficers.

This is the culture clash -- one life vs many -- individual vs community.

We value community but apparently for Australia ... the thought of losing one life versus the potential (which is real) of destroying many ... The present emotional feeling of one lost life versus the future destruction of many is hard emotionally.

Nobody wants to take lifes. Certainly not our government, that would be crazy. It is just the law that we enact. If you don't do the crime ... you don't die. Simple.

Commentators,
Howdy and 'ats off to ya all cowboys. Hey, I've got a good ol' stock whip out the back, lets go get it and whip 'im first... oh, sorry about that, I thought I was on a Texan website.

Compassion, understanding, valuing life - in my opinion those things have always been way too, well...Australian.

It takes a special kind of person to stand by and watch another die.

Congratulations and keep up the good work.

Well said here.

"Singapore Drug Situation Report

http://www.cnb.gov.sg/report/index.asp?page=405

http://www.cnb.gov.sg/report/index.asp?page=244

Drug abuse situation has been on a decline for some time. Dramatic reduction on heroin abuse as supply is very limited.

However users are now using "legal" substitutes -- sabutex for heroin ( heroin is considered as the worst abuse.)This drug is a substitute and it is used to help them wean off heroin but it can be abused.

We are now going after the doctors who are over prescribing ... no death penalty ... its legal ... but maybe shame them if they are blatantly over prescribing.

Capital punishment (targets supply) as i argued above acts very effectively combine with education and prevention (targets users). It is a two prong approach.

Those who are addicted on heroin ... it is almost impossible to get out of it ... its really tough ... its like touch the stuff and you are dead to the world. Hnce Singapore applies the toughest law on it.

It is not that we don't value lifes, we value the innocent lifes more than the drug trafficers.

This is the culture clash -- one life vs many -- individual vs community.

We value community but apparently for Australia ... the thought of losing one life versus the potential (which is real) of destroying many ... The present emotional feeling of one lost life versus the future destruction of many is hard emotionally.

Nobody wants to take lifes. Certainly not our government, that would be crazy. It is just the law that we enact. If you don't do the crime ... you don't die. Simple".

Top post that is.

That speaks for itself. Where else in the world has drug abuse been in decline. Certainly not in Australia and most certainly not here in the UK.
I wish.

The punishments in Singapore obviously work then.

Gavin.

UK.

This situation is very close to me... Please read the whole post...
My father died in prison last Wednesday, 12th of September, 2007. He was serving a life sentence for heroin importation with no parole. This sentence created legal history on several levels... Firstly, it was the first time an Australian had been sentenced to life without parole for a drug offence; Secondly, it was only the second time in Australian legal history in which an individual had been given a life sentence for a drug offence (ironically, it was my father who was the FIRST person to be handed a life sentence for drug offences in Australia); and Finally, it is the first time in WORLD legal history that a human being has served 2 back to back (separate) life sentences AFTER being on Death Row in ANY country...
Sadly, most people sent to death are purely "mules" of the drug trade, and are often threatened by the senior parties involved if they don't traffic (either a threat against them or their families). However, in the case of my father, he was the man in charge of the operations to import. He also had enemies.
My father was set up in Singapore in 1980. A rival boss secretly had a small parcel of heroin placed in the top pocket of dad's jacket during a legitimate business meeting in Singapore. Yes, he did have a legitimate business (all drug bosses do). When he was arrested, a customs officer just reached into dad's top pocket. They knew exactly where to look. Dad was set up in a country where drug trafficking carries the death penalty... I won't go into it (The Australian government intervened and he ended up serving 3 years in Changi for a lesser offence). Over a 45 year period, he served time in Australia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Zurich and London...In hindsight, he probably should have been put to death in 1980... and if the Singapore government were actually aware of his prior convictions, he would have been.