I think we're overlooking one important fact here, which is that we are looking at the situation from a Western, (nore-or-less) Christian aspect, whereas the majority of the societies which have the death penalty do not share that belief system. They place greater value on society as a whole, rather than on individuals within that society, as we have come to do. Perhaps we should also recognise that our viewpoint is not universal; that we are a distinct minority, in world terms. Christianity, after all, ranks only third in terms of adherence to a major religion. Can we be certain that we are "right" and the majority of the world is "wrong"? Our moral values are instilled in us from birth by the society in which we live and grow, but so are those of the non-Christianised countries. And if we demand respect for our views, surely we should grant respect for those who differ from them.

what it actually does is makes it right in the eyes of the law. so why would there be any penalty?

and, fwiw, if singapore had the death penalty for possession of tobacco, then if someone who knew this tried to traffic tobacco through singapore, then i would not expect anyone to try and get them off, as they knew what they were doing, and the risks.

I understand what you are saying, but I am not looking at this from a western Christian aspect. I am looking at this from a human perspective.

Very good post though

but who says that *your* version of human perpective is better than singapores??

It's ridiculous personalising this type of thing. The argument "What would you do if your family member had been killed/abused" etc etc is a no brainer.

Of course most people would like revenge but this is exactly why families don't sit on the juries when they are personally affected. Or indeed why families don't pass sentences. How can anyone in such an emotional state think rationally?

I don't recall saying my perspective was better.

Not forgetting that the largest Western, christian country also supports the death penalty

In no way am I a Christian or indeed any other religion. I simply believe in doing the right thing and standing by those beliefs. If we all accepted that every other culture may be right because they're different then torture and human rights abuse would rule.

Paul.

I think this could be discussed for years and probably will be (Bali 9 will cop it soon ) but isnt the answer quite clear, if you dont want to die dont smuggle drugs.

Read a countries laws before you go there, if you dont like them dont go. Isnt that what australia says to terrorists etc respect our laws or leave, fair go then lets respect their laws too.

Besides if you peddle drugs you obviously dont mind killing a few people yourself!!

Actually I'm not Christian and Singapore's primary "religion", or rather belief system is Buddhist. I think that the religious aspect of this should perhaps be put back in the box. The matter of execution has little in my mind to do with ones religion and more to do with culture, politics, history and more politics. A complicated mix of all of them to boot.

Maybe if the UK had more stringent penalties for those who break the laws, instead of harsher penalties against those who defend their property/life and end up 'hurting' the poor criminal, then there might not be as many people leaving the place. I support the fact that a Country has a law and it is sticking with it. Makes a change from slimy lawyers (ok for any lawyers reading it I know you aren't ALL slimy) manipulating a weak system to get people off on 'technicalities', which makes a farce of the whole thing anyway. The old - 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' thing springs to mind. What about the rights of the innocent to live a life free of crime/drugs/violence etc. The reason WHY this guy was smuggling it in is inconsequential - the fact that he DID smuggle it, which is against the law, is.

When the Bali 9 first hit the news, I looked up the Indonesians record for the death penalty on Females, They have only executed one women (according to my browsing) in the last 20 years or so, that was a Vietnamese national with 30 kilos of heroin.

I'm summising from that, that Renee Lawrance may not get shot after all.

Looking at the inequality in the severity of sentances of these kind of matters makes me wonder what the World court is all about.

At one stage of my life here, I was a Gas Meter reader which necessitated me, and with full legal jurisdiction to walk around the back of peoples houses unannounced, to read their meters. There are some legal reasons as to why some people can enter your property. If we had carte Blanche to shoot the perceived trespasser, there would be a lot of unnecessary fatalities.


Apologies for the digression.

I think most reasonable minded people can tell the difference between the meter reader, the postman etc and someone who is intending to do harm. Carte blanche to shoot people wasn't mentioned - the right to defend your property was the issue

Some people used to like to have a go at the "meter reader" giving them the "right to protect one's property excuse" is not one i would have relished at the time. I can think of quite of few reasons why people may want to enter someones property, from cops chasing crims, fireman fighting next doors fire, to drunks wandering in disorintated, or quite simply the kid next door getting his ball.

Only reason I think this way, is because I've been in the situation of people coming at me with bits of wood etc. Thank god the law was on my side.