Laws protecting human rights, in my opinion, supersede national laws.

A country may have laws that allow for torture or executions, but these laws conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and and carrying them out constitutes a crime against humanity.

Andrew

“Decency demands pressure be brought to bear on countries which use this unjustifiable penalty: and especially on those which use public and the more barbaric forms of execution.”

No. It is the responsibility of the populations of countries using capital punishment to bring pressure to bear on their own governments if they wish to stop capital punishment.

Keith Kennelly is guilty of cultural imperialism.

Leigh, I sometimes wonder if your enthusiasm to be contrary (on just about everything) is in realty an insufficiency on your behalf to come up with an original idea.

Following your logic(?) we should not have intervened in Germany during WW2. Some basic understanding of the totalitarian government in Singapore would immediately signal to the most ordinary of Australians that an international expression of decency is required -especially where domestic populations are gagged under fascist rule.

If there was clear evidence that Nguyen Tuong Van was innocent but still facing a mandatory execution (no discretionary powers are accorded to Judges in Singapore) would you still be so supportive of Singapore citizens taking up the call on our behalf?

That he appears to be guilty of a criminal offence does not mean his citizenship in this country and his rights as a human being are cashed in. You have a very bloody minded sense of democracy and civil society.

Nguyen Toung Van is unfortunately the victim of his own bad judgement. This issue can not be so easily laid at the feet of our politicians and the Government of Singapore. The mistake of a fool, who if successful would have added to the misery that drugs bring to any society, means that he must suffer the consequence of his own action.

The death penalty is something that should not be dismissed out of hand (my opinion only), there are cases that deserve the ultimate penalty but there should be limits on how it can be used, for what, and how a conviction was gained, e.g. circumstantial evidence should never allow imposition of the penalty.

It is perhaps popular to oppose such things, yet I believe (yes, just I), that a government is demonstrating its resolve, and its conviction to protect its citizens without bowing to a noisy lobby group. Never any noise when I see reports of Chechens cutting the heads off bound victims, Javanese settlers cutting the heads off Sulawesi schoolgirls!? Dont you find this repulsive?

I will be visiting Singapore with my family for the holidays, and funnily enough I feel very safe in this country! The law and order is well under control, the place is clean, the people are hardworking and they mind their own business. Perhaps we could become a little more like them.

So morally the 'death sentence' is unokay, yet is it not simply one of suit of deprivation, punishment and denial a court can exact on the guilty?

The outcry seems to be that of these - only the death sentence is 'barbaric'.

By what standard¿

So readily arguers argue the court’s alternate ability to authorize and exact the denial of a criminal's right to basic freedoms - by caging and demeaning those criminals into mindless and uncivilized human zoo's - relegating and confining the muck, quagmire, reptila and detritus of society to and against each other...

- as a rather enlightened ethos!

'Crikey mates!' {{sighs}} – sees;- Steve feeding a recent 6ft 3in child molester-rapist-dealer while performing cartwheels of repentance - ’What a whoppa!’...}}

......ooo00ooo.....

Surely it isn't the process of dying that is seemingly considered so horrific; for we all must die and go through some or other form of the processes of death.

The civil death sentence by whatever means say by hanging, lethal injection (and even {gosh} stoning...) is certainly a far quicker and humane process in the context of what we currently exact and invite upon those of us who are too to die.

That is, our elderly (and by proxy) ourselves? Theirs is so often a long purgatory of agony, suffering and torment by devious devices such as respiratory strangulation, prolonged angina, mental and cerebral decay amongst other ghoulish outcomes, and perhaps even {{horror of horrors}} the frightening prospect of Australian hospitalization and institutionalization.

And in this - we are not barbaric¿

......ooo00ooo.....

So the actual net effect of a death sentence is that of a circumscription 'time' (or alternatively the denial of such time at the human zoo.)

Hmmm... why is this denied 'time' so sacrosanct¿ Why should courts grant it to those who have so patently abused that, that they've already had ...

So from this perspective - to deny the most tumescent criminal further 'time', is not barbaric in the least; and is arguably a mark of humanity when compared to other customs

(Hmmm ....unwritten in the argument of those most against a death penalty is seemingly an assumption of some greater omni-being or phenomena whose shrouded precinct it is - to give and (thus causally) to take life.

The caucus of this fanciful thought finds society over-stepping its jurisdiction decidedly repugnant.

...the hidden premise is regrettably never explored, and remains hidden within its cloak of taboo.

Regrettably this avenue of debate is also vexed by determining what omni-being does in fact hold executive¿

(In the stakes of deity-arm-wrestling my appointed agent, internuncio & plenipotentiary is the ancient and ancestral Afarensis God Toth - who regrettably, is mute on these matters (...having not yet evolved speach by the time of his / her extinction.))

So sad - really

Andrew H and Rainier have got it right

This is part of an article I've published online.

'The murder of Nguyen Tuong Van'

http://dimc.axxs.org/?action=newswire&parentview=5007

Extracts - Apart from the death penalty in Singapore being a hangover from their colonialist past, this respect for sovereignty is demonstrably selective. Australia's recent militarist adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and (closer to home) the appalling social outcomes of Australia's Aboriginal people makes that obvious.

A right to force "our" values on Singapore?

So has Australia a right to pressure Singapore to accept "our" values? It is a deliberately loaded question that needs some qualification.

Certainly Australia has a moral obligation to assist an Australian facing death overseas. A moral obligation paramount to the immorality inherent in the barbarism of Singapore's mandatory death penalty for drug smuggling.

As to these being "our" values? The United Nations and the European Union have criticised Singapore's use of capital punishment which bucks a world-wide trend towards its eventual abolition.

State control of the media and the undemocratic suppression of oppositional voices to State policy in Singapore, makes the presumption that the death penalty is a popular Singaporean value, a matter of conjecture anyway.

Think on this

For those people repulsed by the drug-related nature of Nguyen's fatal predicament (and I am surprised by how many Australians have rightly seen this as an irrelevancy) let me create a hypothetical scenario.

You are in Singapore, after enjoying a pleasant flight, where you perused the latest in-flight news on Nguyen, who you felt, deserved everything coming to him.

Unknown to you, a panicked drug courier (who read the same article about Nguyen on your flight) has slipped a plastic bag of heroin into your overnight bag.

How do feel about Singapore's mandatory death penalty for drug smuggling now, as the noose is placed around your neck?
-

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, once again. Some trendy lefty ascends his pulpit, dons his white cloak of moral sanctity, and there, amid a chorus of singing angels, presumes to tell the rest of us just what is morally right and what is morally wrong.

Don’t you just get sick and tired of these wowsers who think that they morally superior to everybody else? Where Keith Kennedy gets off thinking that his personal philosophy is the epitome of moral perfection is any ones guess. Perhaps his worldview was formed in an educational institution where moral perfection was demanded, and where the concept that one moral value could take precedence over another moral value was ruthlessly suppressed?

It apparently infuriates Mr Kennelly that at least 75 countries in this world do not share his concept of what is right and wrong. Furthermore, it is likely that in those countries that oppose capitol punishment, if the people were given a plebiscite on this issue, that many more countries would gleefully demand that their governments genetically eradicate the scumbags who have declared war upon their own communities.

If Mr Kennelly opposes capitol punishment, the onus is upon him to explain why this is so. Simply acting superior and talking down to people with superior airs is a method guaranteed to make his audience oppose whatever cause the arrogant sod supports.

The best explamation that he could come up with was to claim that capitol punishment is obviously ineffective as a deterrent to drug trafficking, because it has failed to stop drug trafficking in Singapore. That is like saying that imprisoning armed robbers has failed to stop armed robbery, therefore it is an ineffective deterrent which must be abolished.

Pariah, anyone stupid enough to allow others access to their luggage whilst travelling is looking for trouble. What about the death penalty handed out to those, by bombing, terrorism, invasion, criminal activities, doctors. Don't they get a say.

The death penalty should be use rarely, but it should be used. Presently you can go out and kill hundreds and you will just go to jail for life or less. As it stands in this country, if you kill someone you would be lucky to serve a few years. The PC's are happy to allow the death of innocents in conflicts, but not use something that will make people think before committing murder. For drugs, other punishments but not death. For our poor fool in Singapore, he knew the laws, but still went ahead with it, he finally confessed and pleaded guilty. if he had not been caught, he would have payed his debts and maybe had some left over, whlst many would be on the streets commiting crimes to pay for their hits. Some time we must come to terms with fitting the penalty to fit the crime and circumstances.

Maybe violence is increasing within our society because people know that they won't get punished very badly, if at all. As it stands now, we have more in jail than any time before, yet the vast majority convicted go free. We either find a way to deter or stop those that wish to violently disrupt our lives, or our society will go down under the weight of anarchy and chaos.

i'd be a bit carefull redneck, im willing to bet that most of those arrested last month on terror charges also wanted australia to be a bit more like some of those 75 countries that still have the death penalty. you dont want to get done for sedition now do you?

actually i would be even more carefull about using those countries to support your arguement, the majority of those countries are the furthest from australia that can be imagined, and are by no means crime free societies.

"That is like saying that imprisoning armed robbers has failed to stop armed robbery, therefore it is an ineffective deterrent which must be abolished". keep running with this line of thought and you may come to the terrible realisation that no punnishment throughout history has been sucessefull, hell the 10 commandments are doing well arnt they? is it that the punnishment isnt harsh enough? i mean its only eternity of pain. what about those like me who dont believe in god, heaven,hell or anyother vestiges of our primative past. the whole concept to punishment as deterent is flawed. there will allways be someone desperate, callous, arrogant, selfish or psycotic enought to disregarde the laws and the people of a society.

so what do we do? to be honest i dont really have an answer. but i do know that no government should ever have the right to take away a humans right to life(to steal a phrase from the anti abortion mob).

I’m a humanist who believes that there is never a place for a death sentence. Any society that uses a death penalty as a deterrent is missing the point – state violence will not deter anyone – the US is an excellent example of this and aren’t they strangely silent right now? Humanity is not served by the violence of its institutions, only by its compassion, thoughtfulness and cohesion. Violence of this sort reflects the cowardice of governments in the way they tackle crime. The only solution to the drug problem is decriminalisation. My heart reaches out to Nguyen's mother, family and friends whose punishment through anguish is beyond measure.

David Sentinella.

Oh my God. I'm sorry for this man. I'm sorry for his family.

I'm sorrier for the infants that have never known food.

I cry for the mothers that can't provide. Just food.

The shame of the fathers.

Also let us think of them.

The alchemist stated - "Pariah, anyone stupid enough to allow others access to their luggage whilst travelling is looking for trouble."

They deserve to die?

Nature is injurious to life as it is without us adding to our misery. There are enough natural disasters, dreadful illness' and micro-organisms ready to attack and finish us off without us doing their job.
Molly Cutpurse
www.mollycutpurse.com

In an ideal world all the butchery will be non-existent and unnecessary (Bali bombing victims killed, and the hanging of the perpertrators). Is this a necessary evil to hang people, who we think have done wrong? We will never be able to decide in time for Nguyen. But consider the US as the biggest first world country (who should set the example and which is Australia's biggest ally) whose Supreme Court allows it.....are the Justices stupid people (less clever/moral than the Aussie judges)or people caught up in a bind over what constitutes morality? How about the 57% Aussies who do not agree with aspects of the hue and cry over the Hanging? Are half the Aussies idiots, and which half? Are they blind or is the issue one whose solution is grey in nature, contextual, even cultural..all too confusing. Let's not get too carried away with polemics and emotions of either side, and be ready to accuse each other of insensitivity. We are human and we fail in our judgements, yes even when human lives are concerned. But let us try to be civil about our language with others and respect others' points of view. What makes us so sure we are correct? Is it a good deterrent to hang people? How do we gather the statistics? People who say either way that it does/does not deter, cannot conduct controlled experiments. How can we impose our values on others? Should we try? Isn't this what causes wars?

The countries which support the death penalty range from dictatorships to democracies INEB. This democracy and many others would still have the death penalty if their people were given the choice by their limp wrested politicians. Just like immigration and multiculturalism, the eradication of the death penalty in this country was not the result of public support, but a decision imposed upon the electorate by a ruling class increasingly out of touch with their own people.

I had to laugh at your imputation that Australia might end up like lawless and dysfunctional societies that exist overseas if we reintroduce the death penalty. Guess what, dummy? That is exactly the way that we are heading already. Multicultural societies are dysfunctional societies with high crime rates.

As the proportion of crime prone and welfare dependent people from violent cultures increases in this country, violent criminal behaviour will rise in direct proportion to population increases of these crime prone groups. The result will be a polarized society consisting of monocultural ethnic ghettoes where people from other cultures will fear to tread. It will only take some spectacular act of terrorism resulting in significant loss of life for the population to demand from their sniveling politicians the reintroduction of the death penalty.

In the US, 48 of 50 US states had abolished the death penalty by 1970. Most of those states have now reintroduced it because of demands from the public. It is only a matter of time before our crime prone minorities will be as out of control as the hispanics and negroes of America.

The Lebanese, Pacific Islanders, Romanians, Muslims, Turks and Vietnamese are already doing a great job in those respects.

Bye bye Nguyen. See you in Hell. One less Vietnamese enemy murdering Australians.

May god rest his soul.

And may god forgive redneck.

Amen to that. Any death is a loss...a tragedy. We all lose. Somehow, we all lose.
Molly C

Like all the impassioned rhetoric that goes under the guise of intuitive and simple logic, redneck's remarks spells out the danger of uninformed minds and warns against an inadequate education system that does not recognize the frailties of the young "unguided/misguided" human mind. I mean to say that like Japan not recognizing its mistakes in WW2, Australia still has not come to terms with the record of it colonial past, imposing and maintaining(in this case, ignoring)a mindset that Australians are only European in origin. But this is the nature of conquerors. If anyone should be pitied, it is the poor aboriginals of Australia, not redneck, who is after all the product of the system. Is the Australian record of "pauperism" of the Abos any better than the record of Yugoslavia? The tremendous efforts by many Australians to overcome this mindset is undone by the many yet relative few who deep down are racists in attitude (and many such can't help it because it is in the nature of the primitive beast to be tribal in nature). Hence let's be more circumspect about our comments.....behind every thing we say lies many unexamined assumptions...I am only too aware myself I have made many assumptions. But that is the limitation of 350 words.

I have read where Singapore's crime rate is similar to that in Hong Kong.....does that suggest that the death penalty is a deterrent?

[Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended for 2 days]

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

what a bunch eh? cant wait to join that exclusive club.

it allways ammuses me when the far right claim some kind of majority support. redneck, do you really think the reintroduction of the death plenalty has that much support, enough to win an election on? one would think that this government, so adept at wedge politics would have used it by now if the the support was there. i dont think it is. there are some wedges that are too polarising, and while such a position would attact extremists like yourself you might just find that it loses many in the socialy conservative centre(the real majority), who voted for economic and national stability.

so keep living your fantasys redneck, but if you think that we are going to sit back and let you bring this country down to the third world you are in for a rude awakening.

Sigh.....

Two high ranked dangerous cities in the USA are in Michigan. - its a easy to confirm; Detroit and Flint - one has a highly visible and large population of negroes - the other mainly white, How does that fit in with Redders theory that multi culturalism festers crime?

In the top top ten nations for murder we can find Columbia, South Africa. Jamaica, Venezuala, Russia, Mexico, Lithuania, Estonia Latvia and Belarus - not all but mainly monocultural places. International indices of crime rank nations you could tag as multicultural low down the scale.

Crime rates have fallen in the past ten years in the European Union - where the states there are awash with coffee colored people.

There are some out there who say in South Africa its the blacks what do the killin'; they may say the same about Jamaica and blame the drug barons in Columbia - but either way you cut it this multicultural/racial mix/crime link is stupid

And of the states in the USA with the death penalty 6 appear in the top ten for death by Murder; so the death penalty would seem to encourage people to kill one another: go figure!who would have thunk it! - How the hell does that work? Maybe people see the state as setting a good example where it kills that which it cant deal, cope or understand in any other way - if it good enuff for the state then its good enuff for the individual.

those states without the death penalty have a murder indice around half that of those where the state kills people for fun and profit.

I would have a lot more time for the proponents of the death penalty if they where just honest enough to admit to the fact that they enjoy the notion of seeing people killed and hunger for revenge, rather than bore the crap out of me with spurious arguments, half baked sociological theories and what's worse adoloescent boasting about how bloody clever they think they are.

sigh....! [Deleted for flaming]

I am totally opposed to cold blooded murder be it by bombs thrown in crowded places, premeditated murder, serial murder,by dealing in deadly drugs like heroin, killing or rape of children and other helpless innocents.
I could probably go on but for these crimes, nothing less than the death penalty will do.
And the quicker the better.

A book by Norman Mailer titled " The Executioners Song" is worthy of a read. It concerns Gary Gilmour who pursued the State of Utah USA, to carry out the sentence of death imposed by the court. Gilmour is a man with hardly a redeeming feature. However Mailers book clearly demonstrates the barbarity of State sanctioned executions. No thinking person could support the death penalty after reading this book. I dont expect Redneck to hunt it out, his blogs do not to me demonstrate a lot of thinking. My sympathy to the family and friends,of this unfortunate young mans pointless execution.Gilmour eventually won his ' right ' to be executed by Firing Squad and the USA has been killing ever since.

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you Sneaky Peter, for putting your foot firmly back in your mouth. You claimed that that race had nothing to do with violent crime, because of the two most dangerous cities in the US, Flint and Detroit, one is predominately white and the other predominantly black. Could I respectfully point out that your informant is lying to you?

Flint, Michigan is noted for it’s very high crime rate and according to http://www.answers.com/topic/flint-michigan , it is 41.39% White and 53.27% Black. The more blacks you have, the more crime you have.

Flint’s crime rate is eclipsed by Detroit’s, which is 81.6% black and is known as the murder capitol of America. The high black demographics is caused by “white flight”. In other words, the blacks move in and begin robbing, raping and murdering, and the whites get the hell out.

On the subject of monocultural crime, I do not deny that some monocultures are extremely violent. But all culturally divided societies, especially those which have adopted the people from violent monocultures, are very violent.

Could you tell us which are these 6 US states that have the highest rate of executions? I will guarantee that reason why is these states have the highest murder rates, is because they are the states with the highest proportion of blacks and Hispanics. And without capitol punishment to try and keep these crime prone minorities under control, these 6 states murder rates would be even higher.

If you do not want capitol punishment reintroduced in Australia, you had better support me in keeping the wrong sort of people out of this place.

As for crime being “down” in European societies, you are right. Only 17 cars got burned in France last Monday, instead of the 1000 the Monday before.

I will probably be howled down, but for me it is a simple decision, Thou shalt not kill, whether he is a drug trafficer or not, had he been caught in this country, he would have been given a long custodial sentence, and quite rightly so. To me murder whether by the State, or anyone else is barbaric, which is why Australia hung it's last prisoner Ronald Ryan in 1967. I don't believe in the death penalty, and I don't believe in interfereing in other country's laws, except to ask for clemency for an Australian citizen, which is every country's right. Take a situation in Townsville North Queensland a couple of years ago, two USA Marines tried to murder an Australian citizen in a nightclub, Queensland Police charged the pair with attemped murder, after a plea from the USA our Federal Atorney-General allowed the pair to return to their ship, to face trial in the USA. However they never did, one faced disipline, the other was not charged with anything. I make no judgement as to the rights or wrongs of this case, merely to state the USA INTERVIENED, to save it's citizens, and our Government complied with their request, that they be handed over to their own country for punishment. Someone will obviously point out this case to be irrelevent, I am unable to see any difference. If it was good enough for USA citizens to be handed over to their Government for processing, which didn't happen, it follows to me, that our criminals should be handed back to us, for the same reason.

Redneck

Explain the following

Sadly 'Of persons executed in 2004(In the USA):
-- 36 were white
-- 19 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 Asian'

Work it out. The most over represented group using your logic here are Asian. That probably suits you too, but it shows your claims to be ... unusual. And note the hispanic's were white. Now that is sure to confuse you.

memumza bighor

What an obnoxious attitude.

I really don't have time for people who insult me and make accusations as you have.

I'm opposed to the death penalty. For anyone. Either refute my logic or stop wasting my time. Obfuscation bores me to tears.

http://dimc.axxs.org/?action=newswire&parentview=5007
________________

Redneck

Slavery - black internalisation of anger (means blacks kill blacks) - white racism (institutionalised and your sort) - you left them and a few dozen other factors out of your equations.

Which makes your deductions incomplete and worthless.

Racism is entirely illogical if that's any help.

Try http://www.timwise.org/ if you are seriously interested in racism in the USA.

"Indeed, I am beginning to think that whites are so dependent on people of color that we wouldn't know what to do without them. Oh sure, some neo-Nazis say they would love to try, but in reality I doubt they could make it. If there were no black and brown folks around then whites would have no one to blame but themselves for the crime that occurred; no one to blame but themselves when they didn't get the job they wanted; no one to blame but themselves when their lives turned out to be less than they expected.

In short, we need people of color--especially in a subordinate role--as a way to build ourselves up, and provide a sense of self-worth we otherwise lack. To be sure, our very existence as white people is dependent on a negative: to be white has meaning only in terms of what it doesn't mean."

________________

Lose the insults - you devalue this
forum and demean yourselves.
________________

memumza bighor

Firstly thank you for apologising

I oppose the State taking the life of its citizens anywhere. You seem to keep missing that point.

http://dimc.axxs.org/?action=newswire&parentview=5007

It makes much of your wordage redundant.

I see by your phrase "...my beautiful country" that you are an Aboriginal person. You will be pleased to know that I do a great deal of work with your people.

These articles may be of interest to you, given your fascination with this high-profile case.

"The drugs Van Nguyen was carrying most probably came from Burma's golden triangle."

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/viewpoints/s1515307.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/BurmaSingapore_Drugs.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/11/22/1132421665940.html?from=top5

"Singapore is Burma's most important investor. Burma, under military control since 1988, is one of the world's biggest heroin sources. The drug accounts for more than half of the country's economy."

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1517205.htm

Your concerns for Australian drug users are admirable.

Could you please point me to your essays on human rights issues?

- thank you

Moving ahead, I am wondering if all our blustering in this columns will last 2 more weeks. Should we now stop to think that perhaps there's another human right to be twinned with doing away with death penalties: i.e. freedom from dependanence on drugs and exploitation by criminals and drug warlords (and "wedge" politicians whatever that means?) All that celebration and glorification will come to nought if Australia does not take to the streets in similar numbers to say "NO to Drugs"! Will at least half of Australia and the trade unions now protest that the govt is not doing enough to combat drugs? Will parliamentary bipartisan motions be made to say "out, damn spot" to Drugs? (Like Lady McBeth, you'll find the guilt sticks) Will the media take this up in similar force? or maybe this is not an issue that will sell papers? (where is media independence when you need it?) Should we take a different tack and decriminalise drug use? Where are you guys on this track? adios.

To Sneaky Peter.

Norman Mailer is hardly a credible source of informed criticism of the US criminal justice system. He has the blood of an innocent man on his hands, caused directly from his own, oh so superior “be nice to crims” trendy lefty attitude.

Jack Henry Abbot was a vicious career criminal who had been convicted of a string of very serious offences including armed robbery and murder. When Abbot was convicted of the murder he threw a jug of water into the face of the sentencing judge. Abbot then wrote a book in prison “In the Belly of the Beast” in which he raged against his incarceration and praised the anti social attitudes of violent vicious criminals.

Mailer read the book and began a campaign to have Abbot released. He submitted to the parole board that Abbot had the makings of a great American writer. The parole board apparently never bothered to read Abbot’s book when listening to Abbots parole submission, because they failed to recognize that Abbot was obviously extremely dangerous. They simply took Mailer’s personal recommendation and Abbot was released. After his release, Abbot went to a restaurant where he had a trivial confrontation with a waiter who stopped Abbot from using the staff toilet. Abbot reacted exactly the way any dangerous and violent man can be relied upon to react when confronted with an innocuous and trivial situation. He pulled out a knife and stabbed Richard Adan to death.

We can see exactly the same socially superior attitudes exhibited by Mailer in the posts submitted by Hedgehog and Sneaky Peter. Since opposition to capitol punishment is presented as being the cause of “intelligent” people, one suspects that the desire of both of them to appear to be perceived as “intelligent” is far more responsible for their opposition to capitol punishment than any objective analysis of tiresome facts.

Redneck's constant use of terms such as "trendy lefty attitude", "socially superior attitudes" - by his supposed "trendy left wingers, indicates two things:

1. A massive inferiority complex.
2. Appalling ignorance.

Now the inferiority complex is self evident. However his postulation that anyone who opposes the death penalty is a "trendy lefty" indicates narrow perspective. There are numerous people on both sides of the political spectrum who find the death penalty pointless, heartless and regressive.

For people interested in pursuing action against the death penalty, I recommend joining Amnesty International at the following link:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/Act_now/campaigns/death_penalty

While young Van Tuong Nguyen was having his eyeballs pop from his head and his tongue protrude from his mouth like a bloated piece of rubber, his bowels voiding themselves down his kicking and trembling legs, another state sanctioned murder took place in the good ole USA. This man with an IQ of only 77 was murdered in North Carolina as follows:

"USA (North Carolina) Kenneth Boyd (m), aged 57

Kenneth Boyd was executed as scheduled on 2 December 2005. He had an IQ of 77,
placing him in the borderline mental retardation range.

According to press reports, some 200 protestors, including a group from Amnesty
International, gathered outside the prison where the execution took place."

Another death which achieves absolutely nothing.

Suggest that all those in favour of death penalty go and view one.

To all those who see the death penalty for the travesty that it is, please join Amnesty and fight this barbaric practice.

Thank you

Why hang people? It seems so barbaric. Lethal Injection seems a much more humane alternative. I mean we don't euthanase our animals by chucking them off balconies with rope attached to their heads.

Redneck,

Speaking of the US justice system and "tiresome" facts. Here’s some I put to Leigh but never got a response. If the death penalty is such a good idea, then how do you justify these points: -

1. The inconsistencies from state-to-state in America’s execution rate: -

(Since 1976)
- Texas: 355

- All other states with capital punishment: 642

That’s over 1/3 when Texas only has less that 1/10 of the total population of all the execution happy states. Yet execution is reserved only for the most heinous murders. (In the last few decades anyway).

2. Or why it’s alright to execute the estimated 1-5% of death row prisoners in the US who are later found to be innocent? (Figures are sketchy as authorities - for obvious reasons -suppress this data).

One could argue that it prevents murders but when you give governments and justice systems such a power, you’re setting a precedence. And I for one don’t trust politicians THAT much. Nor do I trust a sometimes flawed judicial system.

Sure, murderers kill too. But we don’t trust them to protect us, convict the guilty or run our country now do we?

Your claims that capital punishment reduces crime are questionable at best. If capital punishment reduces the murder rate, then why does Britain and Australia have some of the lowest murder rates per capita in the world?

You haven’t given any logical arguments to the vast majority of posters in the first thread on this issue (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3880). All you can do is rattle-off terms like “trendy lefties”.

Your inability to see the picture as a whole and your accusations of “trendy lefties” somehow having “sympathy for crims” demonstrates just how simple-minded you are. Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself?

No wuckers, Keith.

Firstly. If twice as many “whites” were executed in the USA in 2004 as blacks and Hispanics, then if your figures are correct, (Sneaky Peter's were woefully wrong) it is almost certainly a statistical anomaly in the year 2004. One of the prime arguments of the anti capitol punishment brigade is that capitol punishment is racist because far more blacks are executed than “whites” (even though blacks make up only 16% of the US population.). If you are claiming that more whites than blacks are executed, you are undermining one of the key arguments of your own side.

Secondly. The average murder rate for blacks is 50 times higher than for “whites”. Black women are murdered by their spouses at a rate 6 times higher than for their white sisters. These figures hardly gell with your implication that whites are more violent than blacks. In Southern California, the homicide death rate of Hispanics is four and a half times higher than for “whites”

Thirdly. What is a “white”? Native American Indians, Arabs, Calabrians and Pacific Islanders are all classed as “white”. These races and ethnicities are disproportionately represented in serious crime and their unacceptable behaviour is ballooning out the rate of “white” criminal behaviour.

One US Justice Department web site that I once visited gave these figures for incarceration rates of versus ethnicity. Imprisonment rates for negroes is 1993 was 1,947 per 100,000 population. For Hispanics it was 529, for “non Hispanic whites” it was 306, and for Japanese Americans it was only 36.

Clearly, cultural and ethnic factors are significant in rates of violent criminal behaviour. I presume that you will now try to figure out some angle to blame white society for what you do not wish to focus upon. I see that Pariah has already attempted that feat

The hypocrsiy on this site has to be seen and read, to be belived.

Most of the posts claim they are against the death penalty, however, I strongly suspect, closer scrutiny would reveal these very same posters would support state sanction murder, ie, sending off troops to invade a country illegaly and as a consequence, murder thousands of their population indiscrimanently.

It would appear, such actions as carried out by their Governments, do not come under the heading of "death penalty". (Wonder what the victims would have to say about it ?)
Neither would it appear, (and completely fails to register with them), that their very own countrymen who have been trained by their Government to carry out these gruesome tasks, are actually the instruments of carrying out these death penalties.

So when you folks stand upon your soap boxes and begin your speil, you should first ensure you have your facts 100% correct, and stop cherry picking the issues that you feel are the easiest for you to deal with.

Sure, we should not be putting anyone to death, under any circumstances whatever.
That's the whole point, and IMHO, the whole issue.

So if you're gonna cry obaout something, why not cry about the whole subject, not just one tiny selective piece of it ?

"itchyvet"

I doubt that's true

In my experience, most of the people who oppose Nguyen's death are opposed to the deaths caused by our intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc...

Just as most of the people who believe Nguyen deserved to die support such military intervention.

I raised this point when discussing the hypocrisy of our "selective" respect for Singapore's sovereignty.

"Apart from the death penalty in Singapore being a hangover from their colonialist past, this respect for sovereignty is demonstrably selective. Australia's recent militarist adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and (closer to home) the appalling social outcomes of Australia's Aboriginal people makes that obvious."

http://dimc.axxs.org/?action=newswire&parentview=5007

State-sanctioned murder is wrong - and I agree with the scope of your definition.

To Space Cadet

Why Texas executes criminals at a higher rate than other US states is something I do not know.

If “1-5%” of death row prisoners win their appeals and are found “innocent”, it is because juries are very loathe to apply the death penalty if there is the slightest doubt of guilt. Whether these convicted people actually are “innocent” is another matter entirely. The OJ Simpson case demonstrated to the world that even those killers who’s guilt is beyond doubt, can be found innocent by juries who are more concerned with social activism than any notion of justice for the victims. As for the 95-99% remaining on death row after appeal, juries have no doubt about their guilt.

The reason why Australia and Britain have some of the lowest rates of homicide in the world is because of the non violent nature of British culture. This is now changing in Britain with the importation of extremely violent ethnic groups like the Jamaicans and the Muslims. It is also changing because of the glorification of violent criminal behaviour in Western media.

Australia lost 100,000 soldiers in two world wars. These men fought and died to protect this country and it’s people, and they killed God knows how many enemy soldiers in order to achieve that aim. How do you reconcile your approval for killing soldiers from enemy states, almost all of whom were decent men, by the tens of thousands to protect your own society? Yet you will not kill a single drug pusher who has declared war upon our own people and who is partly responsible for the 1000 heroin deaths now occurring in Australia. Are the worthless lives of heroin pushers and rapist murderers more important than soldiers?

Oh, and Sneaky Peter, you know that Kenneth Boyd with the IQ of 77 who is next in line for execution in the USA? You conveniently forgot to mention to our readers that he beat his mother in law to death and then strangled his six year old daughter in law who witnessed the murder to shut her up.

Frankly, the volume and intensity of comment over a dead drug dealer, when compared to the deafening silence over the deaths of patients in Bundaberg Hospital, is deeply offensive. One death was caused by a government as punishment for a crime that leads to the death of many. The others were killed by a government intent on hiding its mistakes, intimidating those who sought remedy, and protecting those who's standards were below community expectations.

This hypocritical double standard simply doesn't make sense until we look at the reader profiles in the article "our family". This shows that 40% are Labor voters, 26% vote green and 5% vote Democrat. Only 14% vote Coalition and, we must assume, that at least 2/3rds of the remaining 15% undecideds lean towards green/labor. So we have a readership, and by implication, post writers that is at least 81% green/left. The very people who have voted for those in charge of our hospital system for a decade in NSW and 13 of the past 15 years in Qld.

Clearly, this "dead gook" is a smoke screen to mask your own denial of your part in electing and maintaining this triad of criminally negligent scum. So keep up the chatter folks, I suppose any distraction will do, as long as you avoid mirrors.

Quite right Perseus, I am also amazed at how little interest is shown for real things instead the illusionary things that recieve the most attention.

You will note the lack of comment on anything to do with the environemt, climate or energy in these threads. Whilst the slimmy politicians and braindead beaurucrats slumber on in their daydreams, their srupidity and lack of responsibility are killing thousands each year.

How many people realise that more than 20000 people are murdered by bad mmedical practises each year in Australia. Or what about the couple of thousands that are murdered on the roads each year. Or the many thousands that are murdered by tobacco and pharmecutical drugs each year. Then we have the murder of millions of animals each day for self centred greed and profits. I never hear any uproar about these deaths.

Yet we have the religious, PC's and right wing dorks constantly arguing about semantics, whilst our planet and its inhabitants go down the gurgler.

I would be interested in Philo's, BD's and Rednecks views on those forms of sanctioned murders. But I won't hold my breaths it appears there only interest is in being right about delusion.

The religious are happy to destroy there opponents in the name of gd, but they aren't prepared to take responsibility for their own collusion in these situations.

Sure it was sad for the bloke executed, but he did it and went to Singapore where they hang you, so whats the beef. Its very simple, don't do it. As long as we have war and religious conflict, then you will have state and religiously sanctioned murder. Better to rid the world of these obscene religions first, that will take care for 99% of murders on the planet. Religion is just like any drug of addiction, it takes away a persons freedom to think and act responsibly, thats why 98% of those executed are religious people.

I see we have a few wowsers who think we should treat Singapore like a leper, when all they have done is sort out a problem for us.

Interesting statistic about the incidence of executions per capita though. Maybe that has to do with
A: Singapore having a very small population (4,435,000)
B: Singapore is a significant trading nation and on one of the great historic trade routes – our recently departed Aussie-Vietnamese drug peddler was, after all, “in transit” – not that being “in transit” is any excuse for dealing in illicit drugs.
So Keith, to improve the analysis maybe it should separate out “Singaporeans citizens executed” from “transients executed”.

As for me, I reckon we should thank Singapore for cleaning up the 26,000 herion shots which they intercepted and follow their lead and terminate the filth who seek to pollute our streets too. I would be reasonable, first drug-related offence, a period of imprisonment but second offence, death (obviously, recidivism indicates an inability to understand the heinous nature of the crime).

Anyone who thinks hanging is inappropriate gets some support – I personally think execution is a solemn process, not a public spectacle or entertainment and I believe lethal injection is the most “humane” method of execution, so would prefer that be used rather than any other.

Now, next, bring on the Bali Nine - "Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang" - lets have a BBQ to celebrate that cleanup too

Redneck,

Some good points there. But I don't think it's always that simple.

In regards to the 1-5% of innocents, I was actually referring to the convicted that had already been executed. Most guilty people in America, when asked what their last words would be, turn to the family of their victim and apologise. But I read of a case where a man - when asked what his last words would be - turned to the victim's family and simply said "I didn't do it". A few years later they caught the guy who did it.

The main point of my posts on this issue is that the death penalty is simply not worth the risk - no matter what. Especially when you look at the Texas execution rate compared to the rest of the US. This shows that something is going very wrong somewhere – and hence, not worth the risk.

BTW: I've had a bit of a look into why Texas executes so many more people than the rest and I think some of it's due to the fact that, when Bush was Governor, he almost totally demolished the public defender system. In other words, in Texas, if you can’t afford a lawyer you’re pretty much screwed. Again – not worth the risk.

Perseus,

”Clearly, this "dead gook" is a smoke screen to mask your own denial of your part in electing and maintaining this triad of criminally negligent scum”

I agree it’s a smoke screen. But I think it’s also a smoke screen for IR reforms, welfare reforms and anti-terror laws.

In regards to the heath system, I hardly think that an under-funding Liberal government would do much better. Look at what the Liberal government’s funding of mental health has done. We now have police and family members - who are unqualified and unable to cope - having to baby-sit the mentally ill. Not to mention the many suicidal people that are turned away due to lack of beds and later found dead in their own home. The Liberals aren’t much better.

…They too are criminally negligent.

Man eating tigers are killed,sharks who hunt humans are killed, rabid dogs are killed , then why shouldn't rabid humans be also killed for the sake of those who would become victims?
Rabid humans are just as dangerous, just as deserving of death as any animal that preys on others , it is only the human animal who kills for any reason beyond food.
Sympathy on such creatures is wasted.

Gee - a rush of what I can only categorise as hate posts.

The sympathy for Nguyen (a drug-runner) by the Australian public hit a nerve?

Yes you all care very deeply about drug users. Sure you do.

I'm always bored and disgusted by the fake compassion tactic, used by people who condone murder and violence.

In another post elsewhere someone rightfully mentioned the 800 (?) annual deaths in Australia through heroin use.

This was my reply.

"Most were male about 30. Most suffered longterm unemployment and drug use and most weren't in a drug programme at the time of death.

Most also had alcohol abuse problems. It takes less heroin to kill an intoxicated person.

That tells me we need more programmes and education - because heroin is a market commodity that can't be eradicated - even in countries with barbaric laws.

Caring about people facing death in Singapore and drug users in Australia is not incompatible.

In fact you'll find that the people and groups with compassion for people facing death in Singapore and drug users in Australia - are mostly the same.

As are those with no compassion."

For those of you with a religious bent, this also cropped up in the same thread.

Mathew 5:21

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, you are worthless, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Intersting point, Mijiko. Has a person who has killed, or who has embarked on a course of action that they know will result in death of the innocent, squandered their right to remain among the living? Is the death penalty a punishment or the logical consequence of someone waiving their right to be one of us?

If a person, of their own free will, can take their own life then they must also accept the the consequences of smuggling Drugs in Singapore. The latter is clearly no more than a slower, more expensive and ultimately less satisfying form of suicide.

I always hope that I never have any part in someone else's suicide. For if I do not then I can always sleep well. I had no part in Mr Nguyen's self destruction so I need shed no tear nor lose any sleep for a dead dealer.

I think that Van's crime deserved a hefty punishmnet however I do not agree with the punishment given. I dont think it was just. It is inhumane to take another life so what gives the singapore government, let alone any other country that uses capital punishment the right to carry it out legally?! Not only has Van died for his crime but instead of just punishing him the government has in turn given his family a life sentence and that is what is so sad. I think that life imprisonment(no parole), although at the taxpayers expense, would have fitted the crime - but that is my opinion.

I rather think when in some way society changes , then attitudes change when you have been effected: Case in history, when a young 18 year old J Jago copped a bullet in the chest by Middle Eastern scum, Shot dead and his friend Andrew C was saved because the pistol jammed, while they walked home from a football mach, the scum escaped to Lebanon aided by their Family, 6 odd weeks later when they considered the heat was off, they come back , Police got them , they were mauled by a wet lettuce Justas system, only a couple of years: Should have read their anti –sedans.
As at the Japanese Embassy, what they tell Japanese women when they come to Australia: Yes they give them comprehensive WARNINGS of RAPE; in AUSTRALIA, not AFRICA: see a common thread. Yes we have lost our society already, and we will regain the initiative, when, is another question. The bed wetter’s and moochers are the perpetrators of this heanis crime in Australia, They are the Left.
And three cheers for Singapore, their Government shows gumption and stayed the course.

Your claim that 1-5% of executed people were innocent is an unsupported allegation. It sounds like balderdash to me.

Execution is well worth the risk. We already have a legal system where it is said that it is better for 100 criminals to be found not guilty than for one innocent to be found guilty. The over riding factor is the survival of the nation as a whole. I once watched a program on TV on the fighting on the Kokoda Track on TV. The fighting was very bad and the conditions the men lived in was atrocious. No prisoners were taken on either side. In one item, an old soldier recounted the most dreadful thing that he saw. A platoon of Australian soldiers were ordered to put in a feint attack in order to mask the real attack by the rest of the brigade.

The old soldier said that all of those men knew that they were going to die. They did not have a hope. The soldiers gave away to their friends their personal belongings to take back to their kin, in an act reminiscent of the scene in the movie “Gallipoli.” They were ordered to die and die they did. Half starved, exhausted and wet through for weeks, they did their duty. Their mothers did not give them a hug before the event.

No society can expect soldiers to willingly throw away their lives for the good of the community, if the rest of that community balks from killing the swine who are at war with our women and children, all because they are too chicken sheet to take an immeasurably small risk that an innocent might get executed by mistake.

Crime costs this country $32 Billion dollars a year. This is money siphoned from the welfare of our people. I find it incredible that people like you, who are forever complaining that the government can not find the means to fund your favourite causes, will shrink from getting permanently rid of the drug traffickers, armed robbers, arsonists, rapist murderers and terrorists who are pillaging our society.

An admission from Memumza that he would pay to see someone get tortured, sick satisfaction indeed. I love it, hopefully less Australians will support the death penalty when they see the company they're keeping.

And Redneck, you keep going on about drug dealers being at war with our women and children, blah blah. Ok, lets ignore the fact that people CHOOSE to use drugs. Lets assume instead that they are mindless fools who must be protected from themselves, and that the government should do this by killing those people who attempt to sell the drugs that might harm the mindless fools. With me so far?

Heres the confusing bit. Why does the government not do anything about the people who sell the legal drugs that kill many, many more people than the illegal ones? Do you realise that tobacco kills around 19,000 Australians every year? Try this link if you think this is some kind of pinko lefty propaganda http://www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=907897

And that some of those Australians are entirely innocent, never having CHOSEN to use the drug themselves, but dying of cancer due to passive smoking. Or what about the people like the young man I knew who was attacked by a gang of drunks one night when riding his bicycle home, thrown into a river, left for dead and is now permanently brain damaged. Not illegal drug users, drunks. Or another aquaintance of mine, recently having surgery for a fractured cheekbone after being attacked with a baseball bat by a gang of, you guessed it - drunk people, off their skulls on drugs they brought from the local bottleshop.

Why doesn't the government do something about this! These people, these alcohol and tobbaco pushers (and they are pushers, there is far more pressure in society to drink excessively than there is to take illegal drugs), why should they not be killed? Tell me why, Redneck, or any of your fellow death enthusiasts, I am very curious.

Redneck,

”Your claim that 1-5% of executed people were innocent is an unsupported allegation. It sounds like balderdash to me.”

Balderdash? Maybe.
Unsupported allegation? No.

I can’t remember the exact figure but it was a study done by law students at Harvard University. A further 40% were guilty but found not to have been legally deserving of the death penalty.

Redneck, you seem to think it is OK to squander the lives of a few innocents whom may be mistakenly executed all in the name of communal good. If by chance you found your son, brother or even yourself sitting on death row the night before execution and quite possibly there by the mistakes of our fallible judicial system would you then just simply shrug your shoulders and say "no problem, it's for the good of the community".

[Deleted for flaming and abusive Nick]

Memumza (etc.),
Aside from the ludicrous pseudonym, you demonstrate a contumelious disregard for the ethics of this forum. If you wish to take part in an adult discussion please act like an adult, for instance when attempting to refute another’s argument, particularly a well reasoned argument, please endeavour to fault their logic and research. Reversion to hyperbole and adolescent vilification of your opponent’s intelligence and sanity, are neither witty nor particularly effctive.

Whilst I do not agree with much of Pariah’s argument, basically I feel that any person in another country is in fact subject to their law, I do respect his reasoning and persuasive argument. The following is an excerpt from the speech given by Alastair Alcock, at the conferral of an honourary LLD on the Hon Justice M Kirby at the University of Buckingham;

‘More's impetuous future son-in-law, Roper has attacked More's legalism and in exasperation shouts: 'So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law'. More replies:

"Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the law being all flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - Man's laws not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."’

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_buck1.htm

As to your question regarding the driver of the Ferrari, it is unclear whether the loss of control was due to excessive speed, road or environmental conditions etc. However, it is unlikely that he would be charged with anything other than possibly dangerous driving causing death (if that), and this would be particularly difficult to prove, as presumably there is no witnesses?

Please make an effort to research;

Anti Death Penalty Links
http://www.derechos.org/dp/

Pro Death Penalty Links
http://www.dpinfo.com/

Thanks Aaron - People can disagree without resorting to insults.

Yes. I thought the Ferrari analogy was too tortured for comment.

These are good points (beginning of thread) in favour of my argument.

"Laws protecting human rights, in my opinion, supersede national laws." - AndrewH

"Following your logic(?) we should not have intervened in Germany during WW2. Some basic understanding of the totalitarian government in Singapore would immediately signal to the most ordinary of Australians that an international expression of decency is required -especially where domestic populations are gagged under fascist rule.

That he appears to be guilty of a criminal offence does not mean his citizenship in this country and his rights as a human being are cashed in. You have a very bloody minded sense of democracy and civil society." - Rainier

Rainier's 'tone' is not directed at you :-)

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal."

- Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

Congratulations Hellothere on your well thought out and touching post.

An important, if not critical element of the Western system of justice is that a victim, or family and friends of a victim, are prevented from judging or sitting on juries in a defendant's trial.

The reason is very obvious. The victim and/or parties associated with the victim, will not be able to objectively or rationally consider all the evidence in a trial.

An example would be where your child was injured or killed by a driver of a car. If you are like me, you will, at least initially, feel a terrible pain that you will want to alleviate by taking counter-measures proportionate with your loss or pain - and not proportionate with the crime.

It is only by objectively examining the relative harm that drugs, alcohol and tobacco cause, that we can properly assess the response we take to their production, trafficking and use.

It is easy to say that if its legal its OK. But legal behaviour that causes great harm should perhaps be more controlled and illegal behaviour that causes less harm (such as drug trafficking and use) perhaps should be considered for less control.

If the harm a behaviour causes is not the measure of our response to the behaviour, what is?

Andrew

Lets hang lesbian whales in old growth forest.
I guess Mr Nguyen shouldn't have stuck his neck out. There is absolutely no truth in the rumour that he has had fan mail from lipton jigglers. Some people would describe his treatment as a brown collar crime. But these comments make me ropeable. Frankly, it is the best bit of noose I have heard in a while. And that is not stretching the truth. I suppose we can all now appreciate the gravity of his crime. And it just goes to show that you can never get the drop on the hangman.

See it soon on a soap opera near you, "The life of Troung". Cheer up Troung, its not so bad, always look on the brighter side of death, (da da, dada dada dada) before you draw your last terminal breath (da da, dada dada dada). As Ned Kelly said, "such is life". But gosh, gotta go now, do drop in some time.

A compliance of a particular national legislation with international requirements is one story.

Another story is picturing a convicted drug trafficker having intentionally participated in an illegal international business, which is the drug dealing, being a victim of a bad law.

Duralex rex est rex- Bad law is a law anyway.

To Space Cadet.

Sneaky Peter based his argument upon a statistic which was clearly wrong. I suggest that whoever gave you your statistic knew that he was preaching to the converted and that you would not bother to verify if it was true.

To Crocodile. I was once a Soldier (trooper,actually) in the Australian Army. I was taught how to kill people who were the enemies of my country. I do not make much distinction between internal enemies or external ones, other than I might have a lot more respect for external ones. If I had been unlucky enough to be called to the colours in wartime, I suggest that my chances of getting killed on behalf of my community to be very high. I consider that the chances of myself, or a family member, being wrongly charged with abduction / murder or Heroin trafficking to be non existent. To combat the crime wave that is gouging $32 billion dollars from the Australian community every year, I would consider such a negligible risk to be well worth it.

To Hellothere.

The logic of your argument indicates to me that you are either dishonest or desperate. Smoking has been fashionable and acceptable for 500 years so simply banning tobacco is not an option. Most smokers begin as adolescents. A 14 year old girl does not smoke her first cigarette then overdose on nicotine and then die on the spot. But this can, and does, happen with 14 year old girls trying their first hit of heroin. 14 year old girls are not noted for prostituting themselves for cigarettes or for committing serious crimes of theft to support their habits.

The responsible adults who make up the majority of the Australian electorate do not consider tobacco as being any where near as bad as heroin. We the responsible see it as our duty to support laws that protect both our children and our less intellectually endowed adults from the consequences of their own youth and stupidity, which we the responsible usually end up paying for anyway

Who were the enemies of your country, Trooper Redneck?

Pariah,

The reason I support the idea that an individual is subject to the law of the country they are in is quite simple.

If our citizens (presumably included those with multiple nationalities) remain subject to our law, regardless of where they are caught for offending against our law, then so do the citizens of other nations.

This would have serious consequences for those entering this country as refugees for instance. As in order to qualify for 'refugee status' most must demonstrate that they are persecuted in their country of origin, this demonstrably translates into the situation that whilst a citizen of their original country, they did offend that countries law. Do you suggest therefore that they should be transported back to their original country to face that nations version of justice?

additionally, in some nations it is quite legal to perform female genital mutilation (circumcision), or alternately to kill females for resons of honour. Do you suggest that dual nationals or visitiors with appropriate nationality should not be punished if they commit these acts in Australia? Should citizens of some nations be sentenced under sharia law for offences in Australia, should Australia deport people to face torture or death?

Whilst I do not support Capital Punishment per se (because of the inevitable miscarriages of justice that could/would occur)your suggested extension of law to cover a nations citizens in other nations is a two edged sword, a solution that may indeed pose greater danger than the problem it solves.

>>Duralex rex est rex- Bad law is a law anyway.<<

Not trying to be picky, but I hate to see a latin tag mangled.

The phrase you are looking for MichaelK is "dura lex est lex" - a hard law is still a law.

I think you'll find "Duralex rex est rex" is more likely to translate as "a king in a tin of paint is still a king"

Redneck,

"I suggest that whoever gave you your statistic knew that he was preaching to the converted and that you would not bother to verify if it was true."

Quite possibly. I've done a lot of looking into it since this Nguyen business and it's impossible to get anything solid for many reasons. I just don't think we've hit a point yet in society where we need to start looking at capital punishment but that opinion can be relative on many different levels.

After reading a lot of your posts, I'm starting to see your roots lie and where your opinions come from. I see now where you get these sorts of opinions and I'm sure I'd see the world very similar way in your situation. So I guess were down to opinion based on upbringing and culture.

You see capital punishment as worth it; I see it as out-dated, uncivilised and not worth it despite the costs of prisoners.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Anybody from a non allied Army who's uniform was a different colour to mine, Mr Hedgehog.

Redneck, i am a 50 year old Australian, i ask you again---Who was that enemy threatening our country? PS: Its Ms Hedgehog, Trooper.
YOU were not really in an army were you?

--- Who were the enemies of your country, Trooper Redneck?
Posted by hedgehog, Monday, 5 December 2005 4:25:26 PM ---

Everyone who has a slightly different opinion. Especially, among those non-England-natives linked who do not assume themselves being a lower race because of not being Britain-related.

--- >>Duralex rex est rex- Bad law is a law anyway.<<Not trying to be picky, but I hate to see a latin tag mangled.The phrase you are looking for MichaelK is "dura lex est lex" - a hard law is still a law.I think you'll find "Duralex rex est rex" is more likely to translate as "a king in a tin of paint is still a king" Posted by Pericles, Monday, 5 December 2005 4:53:41 PM ---

Does it change a core of an issue?
Prensa Latina est no penis honina.

So Redneck (hello again!),
Just as an intellectual exercise, what would you say being wrongly on death row?

I must take issue with a comment you made though. The “immeasurably small risk that an innocent might get executed by mistake.” Can you expand on this? Given there have been a number of cases (even recently) where people have been found to be wrongly convicted, can you state your position if it were that the death penalty had been imposed and innocence found after the fact? What is your recourse? What is to be done? I ask only to get another view. No insult intended.

I also ask have you ever met a drug user or a drug trafficker. Do you know what motivates them? Have you talked to them about their problem/trade?

Arron,
I agree with your summation on international law. Any attempt to circumvent the ‘sovereign state’ position of a country can only lead to confusion and a loss of respect between states. Until the world truly unites (if ever) we will have to accept that different parts of the world operate differently. Right or wrong. This does not mean other countries and peoples cannot campaign to change another – just that it must be done within the law.

AndrewH – I’m going to remember that quote: “If the harm a behaviour causes is not the measure of our response to the behaviour, what is?”
...very nice indeed.

Perseus,
LOL, I got tied up counting down! Can you drop a hint as to how many? I might have slipped in that knotted bunch!

People who haven't read the court proceeding should not post comments, as they are unsufficiently informed about the facts of the case.
http://www.geocities.com/law4u2003/nguyentuongyan.htm

LET OUR JUDGEMENT NOT BE TAINTED BY THE FOLLOWING FACTS:
1. The drug wasn't destined for Singapore: it doesn't matter where it was destined for, drugs are drugs.
2. I'm a humanitarian: but others are not!
3. There's a lot of media attention on his case: innocent people die everyday!
4. Van is young and has potential: Van is an adult and aware of his action and consequences.
5. Crime rates around the world: what the hell does that have to do with this.
6. Governments intervention: governments are about politics, politicians care less about some traveller's life.
7. Singapore laws are strict: it's unfortunate that its law is strict, but what are laws if they can be bent. Laws shall be changed by the people, so if the penalty is to be abolished, let the people decide. If the country is totalitarian, too bad we'll have to wait.

So if your mind is not bent by any of the above facts, let's discuss whether Van deserve to die:

400mg of heroin, that's a lot of drugs. Undoubtedly, the courrier of this heroin does deserve a very SEVERE punishment. But how severe?

- People who know well the harm drug-trafficking cause but driven by financial gain incentive, definitely has to suffer the death penalty. These people has disregard for other's life and well-being.

- People who has no intention to do harm, but driven by personal financial gain incentives, are also punishable by death. As they clearly ignore the life of others.

- People who has no intention to do harm, knowing the consequences of his action, but not driven by personal financial gain incentives but some dire circumstance, deserve a smallest mercy, compared to the two above, don't you agree.

Van's dire need to help his family is NOT an excuse to traffic drug, it is a horrible choice, horrible judgement. But it is a fault of judgement, not of intent.

I think life with no possiblity of parole is the fit penalty here. Who should deserve to die, "Sun" and "Tan" (only if Tan knew what he led his friend into) and those drug traffickers. What are they doing? they're having a blast of beers on some beach in Thailand, miles away from ordinary. Even I don't have chance to do that, working my ass off in a cubical.

Pericles,

Obviously you suggest the maxim could be construed as being based upon Dulux paint.

However, the spelling of 'Duralex rex est rex' could possibly be a mispelling of 'Durex rex est rex', which if nothing else could be a particularly erudite slogan for the safe sex campaign.

The added benefit of which is that our children could assert that they were semi-literate in at least two languages? It certainly is no worse than the recent spate of 'six-month Anniversaries' (rather oxymoronic).

Redneck did not say anything about Armored regiments, Trooper is also the rank and title of a SAS soldier, all of which regardless of rank that enter become Trooper, so Redneck is not alone: Moochers.And you should fear their presents.
It is a pity, the enemy within is the 5th column army, about 60,000 times the number of our actual defence Force. It consists of foreign Occupation and Elite Looters on Government Pay roll, Our defence force charter would be to repel any that threatens our society, well not much left of our society to defend, it has been Looted and trashed.Some of the Commentry above obviusly not enough. So, police and Armed Forces soon will, well they become the 6th column.

Well you certainly caught me out redders; but maybe I was leaving a cunning trap to get you to demonstrate your propensity for gloating. I am certainly not keeping score here.

I am not overly concerned about a making few errors in this sideshow - some of my comments like so many others are some what seat of the pants observations - some are more considered - I really dont care who takes me seriously or not - unlike so many pedants here who get miffed when some ones "refutes" - what a pompous word - their assertions without some form of lengthy bibliography and attendant references;

This aint my lifes work - if there are those that wish to make it theirs go for it I say but dont apply some silly set of arbitrary rules of debate.

As for the death penalty I see no honest argument other than revenge or blood lust neither of which I approve and neither of which justify the act of state endorsed murder - it is that simple - it fails to deter - it gains us nothing - and it kills the innocent; for me the debate ceases at that point - there are no more issues on which it turns.

AND I may be on unsound ground here - heaven knows it will be pointed out to me if I am - a recent poll saw a 50-50 split or close enuff - as I am fast and loose with data - maybe a few more punters wanted to see Nguyen hang than didnt - but a few years ago I thought those in favor of capitol punishment here were far greater than that.

Even if everyone else thought it to be right I would not: there is often a great deal of stupidity resident in the collective mind of the majority.

To Ms Hedgehog. Internal enemies? Serial killers, terrorists, mass murderers, hired murderers, abduction/ rapist/ murderers and professional criminals. I know that girls are squeamish about killing people, Ms Hedgehog, that’s why boys are in the army. Don’t ask me why girls are now in the army. My unit was the 1/15th Lancers, a reserve unit at Parramatta. (spot on “ALL” it was an armoured unit.)

To Mr. Reason. If you go back through this topic you will see that I have the courtesy to write entire articles explaining my position to my opponents. I resent people who are unable to formulate a reasoned argument to support their erroneous views simply asking me a series of questions without submitting anything themselves. This is a debate, not an Inquisition, and you are not my Inquistor. I will be happy to answer your questions when you have the decency to stick your neck out and say something which you are prepared to defend.

I am not gloating over your mistake, Sneaky Peter, not am I accusing you of submitting fabricating figures which you knew was wrong. What I am saying is that the people who are providing you with these figures and arguments are being economical with the truth. You did not know that Kenneth Boyd strangled a six year old girl, did you? And you did not know that Norman Mailer has already made an idiot of himself over defending vicious criminals either. Correct? Whoever told you that Flint, Michigan was primarily a white city was lying to you. Your opinions on these subjects are based upon a false premises.

Redneck, your response didn't answer the question I put to you. Your ability to accept risk was not in question. What I actually asked was if this risk did in fact eventuate and you found your brother, son or self sitting on death row and quite possibly due to a judicial error, would you then simply shrug your shoulders and say "no problem, it's for the good of the community".

There is a difference.

As one of “non-sufficient” I eventually omitted an official request for extradition – and not so much was said of but personal plees.

Any attending by EXPERTS to this postage?

For heaven's sake, Crocodile. I do not go around organising my life based upon worst case scenarios. I would hate to get killed driving my car, and I would opine that my chances of dying in a motor vehicle accident is a damned site higher than my chances of being executed for abduction/rape/murder. But that does not mean that I would avoid driving because I am terrified of the chance of getting killed. Especially since I am not really into serial killing, abducting, raping and murdering girls, strangling children, putting bombs in trains, or selling heroin.

I consider that your premise is laughable.

In times of war we as a nation order our innocent young men to die for us for the good of the community. And die they do, in the tens of thousands. But in times of peace, when we are beset by internal enemies who are mass killing our people and looting our treasury, we balk at the thought of killing dangerous criminals because they might be innocent.

When men who might be relied upon to fight to keep this nation independent realise that people like you consider the lives of criminals to be more worthy of preservation than the lives of soldiers, don't be surprised if they won't heed the clarion call to arms anymore.

The Australian Army today is having problems finding recruits and has asked the Australian government is they can recruit mercenaries. But as a former member of the reserve, I can tell you right now that the reserve has no trouble at all getting recruits. the problem the Reserve has is keeping recruits. Because our reserve is so woefully equipped that most recruits realise that the Reserve is a pretend army. Crime is costng this country twice the annual Defence budget, yet people like you would rather that your counry be defenceless than execute a single drug trafficker who complicit in murdering 1000 Australians a year.

Thanks for your reply Redneck, although I am neither dishonest or desparate. If you think there is dishonesty in my post, identify it.

With respect to your reply..
"Smoking has been fashionable and acceptable for 500 years so simply banning tobacco is not an option."

Why not? Surely if our rules are sufficiently harsh and we kill enough tobbacco pushing scum, people will learn to do what they are told. Or are you saying that use of deadly drugs is OK if they are accepted for a sufficient length of time?

"Most smokers begin as adolescents. A 14 year old girl does not smoke her first cigarette then overdose on nicotine and then die on the spot. But this can, and does, happen with 14 year old girls trying their first hit of heroin."

True, and a good point. So drugs should only be the subject of strict laws if they might kill young people suddenly. Alcohol is therefore out , marijhauna is OK.

14 year old girls are not noted for prostituting themselves for cigarettes or for committing serious crimes of theft to support their habits.

Is it the drug or the crime thats the problem?

"The responsible adults who make up the majority of the Australian electorate do not consider tobacco as being any where near as bad as heroin."

No, and I agree with them, but its still a deadly drug that kills more people every year than all the other drugs put together.

"We the responsible see it as our duty to support laws that protect both our children and our less intellectually endowed adults from the consequences of their own youth and stupidity, which we the responsible usually end up paying for anyway"

I agree, and would support severe sentences for anyone that provides dangerous drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) to children or intellectually disabled people. I don't however think that our current laws or a harsher version thereof are really doing a very good job of protecting the vulnerable though.

On this thread there has been a little diversion into drug use. I have been following the thread of Greg Barnes article

Nguyen Tuong Van's death is a wake up call: legalise illicit drugs.

There appears many inaccurate assertions re drug use and drug related deaths in Australia.

I'd simply suggest a reading from the Parliamentary Library.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bp/1996-97/97bp12.htm#DRUGS

Now I don't know how authoratitive the work but it does carry with it some impressive references.

I think most would be surprised at how small a percentage of the population actually abuse herion and other illicit drugs.

Actually we should decriminalise a lot of drugs, but have a set sentence that is double for someone that commits an offence whilst under the influence of drugs. That should go for those using tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs.

The most violent people are those that use tobacco and alcohol, if you work in hospitality you will know who causes the problems. It is normally those that are nicotine addicts and like a lot to drink, that have little control over their actions. Tobacco smokers will destroy their relationships, health, and jobs. They let their kids go without so that they can feed their habit. They block up hospitals, increase the cost of medical care to everyone else, with their self inflicted illnesses.

I agree, death to those that peddle the drugs that cause society the most problems. You ready reserve Redneck, to go and shoot those useless alcoholic cigarette addicts, or is suicide not an option for those of little knowledge and double standards.

The most appropriate conclusion is deriven from this discussion is “an intellectual wanking of rednecks”.

sneekeepete "Even if everyone else thought it to be right I would not: there is often a great deal of stupidity resident in the collective mind of the majority."

And believe it or not, those seen as "intellectually inferior" share one thing with those who measure themselves as "intellectually superior", that is both groups are in the "minority".

The question is, which group would the "majority" place sneekeepete in?.

Or would that majority consider such deliberation as pointless as sneekeepete?

Good ol FIGJAM Col!

Rainier "Good ol FIGJAM Col!"

Thankyou - it is very "Astute" of you to realise it, Rainier.

Obviously you are not as "obtuse" as some

You're welcome Col.