The Death Penalty Sux

[avidaloca]

There's been a lot of talk about the upcoming execution this Friday of Van Nguyen, a 25 year old Australian caught trying to board a plane to Australia from Singapore carrying 400gm of heroin.

All I can say is, the death penalty sucks big time. Abolish it. It's the mark of a society so steeped in its own ignorance it self-righteously murders people who aren't perfect enough for it. Singapore is supremely hypocritical, as they belittle themselves more than anyone by doing this. If anyone should be executed it should be the idiots who uphold this.

Singapore's policy on executions is to allow no physical contact between the prisoner and his family at any time. His mother will not even be able to touch her son before he is mercilessly hanged. However, they do offer the bizzare opportunity to prisoners on death row to be photographed in a new suit and tie two days before their execution.

"We are still pressing the argument that if Singapore wants to be a first world country it is going to have to adopt first world human rights stances and it is going to have to abolish mandatory death penalties."

[MKFaizi]

Second only to Texax, my state of Virginia executes more than any other US state.

I agree with you about the death penalty. It does nothing -- certainly does not deter murder.

I can say that many murderers deserve to be put to death. I can understand the psychological need that some people feel for that. If I found someone killing another person and I was able to to kill him in the act of killing, I would do that. But I do not believe in state sanctioned murder. It is a barbarous act that accomplishes nothing.

Yesterday, the governor of Virginia commuted a death row prisoner's sentence because a state clerk accidentally destroyed some DNA evidence.

That is some progress. The state also recently elected a new governor who is opposed to the death penalty.

A bit less ignorance is welcome here.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

I think ya'll should press the US on that score, too, if it wants to be a First World country. No government that calls istself civilized should be in the business of killing.

Faizi

[avidaloca]

After reading some of the history of hanging, you might want to reconsider your support of it if you believe in it:

Hanging was the ultimate punishment available in English law for men who had been convicted of High Treason. Women were burned at the stake instead, apparently for the sake of decency.

The full sentence passed upon those convicted of High Treason up to 1870 was as follows : “That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members shall be cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure.” So not for the fainthearted then!!

As you can see it should be called drawing, hanging and quartering as the condemned was drawn to the place of execution tied to a hurdle or sledge which was dragged by a horse. Drawing does not refer to the removal of the intestines in this context and remained part of the sentence for High Treason long after the disembowelling and dismemberment had ceased. The hurdle was similar to a piece of fencing made from thin branches interwoven to form a panel to which the prisoner was tied to be dragged behind a horse to the place of execution. Once there, the prisoner was hanged in the normal way (i.e. without a drop to ensure that the neck was not broken) but cut down whilst still conscious. The penis and testicles were cut off and the stomach was slit open. The intestines and heart were removed and burned before them. The other organs were torn out and finally the head was cut off and the body divided into four quarters. The head and quarters were parboiled to prevent them rotting too quickly and then displayed upon the city gates as a grim warning to all.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh well, he's dead. Is the world now a better and safer place as a result? The Singaporeans no doubt think so. Can't say that I feel better or safer myself.

Over 400 people hanged there between 1991 and 2003. Even George Dubya couldn't match a record like that.


Dan Rowden

[avidaloca]

Is murder right at any time?

Unless you have no other choice, such as in self-defence, I don't think it is.

John Howard, if it'd been your daughter would you have said that countries have a right to impose their own laws?

[Jamesh]

IMO, the death penalty (in non-dictatorial style countries where corruption florishes) is a religious issue.

People support it because they transfer the decision about one's afterlife, which is supposed to be forever, onto God. Let God judge they say to themselves, god decides when [people die in disasters - but if they realised that there is no afterlife I think they would start to reconsider as it would become more personal - they wouldn't be able to keep the emotionals distance.

I can understand the Asians feeling as if its reasonable, after all so much of their population has only been a generation or two outside of a primitive world view, but the US...nah. They should know better and the only reason they don't is becuase of religion.

[Blair]

Hang all those drug dealing/trafficking/using pieces of shit by their testicles, and have dogs eat the entrails off the ground while they are still alive.

Fucking scum of the earth, drug addled motherfuckers. Let them eat it.

[Leyla Shen]

I think you raise a valid point, prince.

Van Nguyen claims to have been involved in this whole affair due to the fact of his brother being an addict and facing numerous debts and fines as a consequence of charges for violence.

Will there be an investigation into the people and claims he has made in this regard? Did he provide names and other details? If the answer is “yes” to both these questions, what is the purpose for this head-on-the-pike approach that Mr John Howard said he hoped would deter others from similar activities? Who will they deter in the absence of full exposure?

If the answer is no, why not?

If they are going to hang one, they should indeed hang all.

One human life is cheap compared to the cost and consequences of the real effort necessary to solve the problem.

I find it interesting that Van Nguyen should have acted to save his brother in the very manner that apparently had ruined him.

I am opposed to the death penalty, only because it is a barbaric mechanism for control -- and not a very effective one, at that.

[avidaloca]

One human life is cheap compared to the cost and consequences of the real effort necessary to solve the problem.

Precisely. That's why Singapore does it, instead of the real work of withdrawing its annual $650 billion investment in neighbouring Myanmar (formerly Burma), the world's greatest heroin grower. Almost all the money made by Burmese drug lords is channelled through Singapore's financial institutions, the only country that will allow it to be exchanged into US dollars. They only kill the small-time mules to placate their guilt.

Nguyen's knowledge of the Sydney syndicate with ties to heroin sources in Cambodia where he obtained 400gm was useful to fighting drugs through future prosecutions. His death eliminates that chance.

[MKFaizi]

I recently watched a televised sentencing of a man to death by the usual lethal injection.

Yes, he deserves to die. He raped and killed an eleven year old child. He is scum.

Then, I watched an interview with the child's mother. Such hate. Such want for revenge. Such bloodthirst. She said the killer could not be dead enough soon enough for her.

I understand that. I understand those feelings. I think they are the usual and expected feelings from a parent toward the killer of his/her child. I don't think those feelings are wrong.

But she expects the state to do her killing for her. I think that is wrong. Despite her posturing, I doubt that she would have the balls to kill him herself.

I try to put myself in her place. I don't think I would want him dead. I would want him to live. I would be more pleased thinking he was alive than dead. I would want to be able to visit him in prison. Not out of kindness. I would want to pick and probe him mentally in an unlimited fashion.

I would definitely want him to live.

Beyond that, I think it is barbaric for governments to execute. The death penalty does not deter violence. I think it promotes it.

I did hear on the radio that Singapore hung the dope dealer.

Faizi

[Blair]

I try to put myself in her place. I don't think I would want him dead. I would want him to live. I would be more pleased thinking he was alive than dead. I would want to be able to visit him in prison. Not out of kindness. I would want to pick and probe him mentally in an unlimited fashion.

I would definitely want him to live.

So in other words, you are equally as vindictive and twisted as her, you would just seek revenge in a different way. Pretty sad, seeing through your vicious eyes.

[MKFaizi]

Fuck you, Prince. You are an ass.

Yes, I would want him alive to suffer. I have suffered for the illogical and self indulgent things I have done. I was never so indulgent that I murdered or had the desire to murder. But I have paid and still pay for my lesser "sins."

I think that a murderer should suffer as well as anyone else.

Prod him and pick at him for revenge? I don't think so. It would be for my insatiable desire to understand why. I don't think that desire could ever be quenched.

I think executing Ted Bundy was a mistake. He should have lived in order to be probed.

Faizi

[Shardrol]

Hello, Faizi.

The way to understand people is to study the part of yourself that's the same as them. So if you want to understand Ted Bundy you have to find the 'serial killer within' (he's the one that got rid of that pesky inner child). The real live Ted Bundy is irrelevant to this process. He probably didn't understand himself anyway.

[Dan Rowden]

It would be a good thing is we were wiser. We are not. This thread doesn't add to that wisdom, as compelling as its content may seem.

All it does is remind me of one of the reasons I dropped out of mainstream society so many lifetimes ago..

Dan Rowden

[MKFaizi]

Well, you are probably right, Shardrol. But I don't think I have a serial killer within. I cannot imagine killing people -- especially for pleasure.

Good to see you around. I am currently more in the reading way than the writing way.

Faizi

[Kevin Solway]

I think executing Ted Bundy was a mistake. He should have lived in order to be probed.

We already know why people do violent things - because of the ego, delusion, a lack of enlightenment. The ego finds violent behaviour empowering. That's why there is so much violence on television.

Every unenlightened person is a serial killer, since they murder the truth every day. With a single thought they dismiss the truth when it appears before them. That is murder.

PS. I deleted the poll. A wise killing.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The ego finds violent behaviour empowering.

(...)

PS. I deleted the poll. A wise killing.

You mean your ego didn't find it empowering in any way?

[Jamesh]

Every unenlightened person is a serial killer, since they murder the truth every day

And an enlightened person could be a killer (as per David's idiotic baby fucking argument a while ago) if there were circumstances where truth would be handicapped in some fashion.

Not much is more religiously fundamental than that. What a load of shit a too strong attachment to truth can be. Moderation in everything is the way, not a complete concentration on truth.

[David Quinn]

The idiotic baby argument was actually Marsha's.

Not much is more religiously fundamental than that. What a load of shit a too strong attachment to truth can be. Moderation in everything is the way, not a complete concentration on truth.

Ah, the inspiring words of genius! Or, perhaps, the meek words of a public servant ..... Who can tell?

Moderation in everything - doesn't that equate to doing nothing significant at all? Is the highest type of human being a jack-of-all-trades and master of none?

-

[Jamesh]

Ah, the inspiring words of genius! Or, perhaps, the meek words of a public servant ..... Who can tell?

I’m no genius and I am a public servant (and hate it, but it allows me freedom). Sometimes I do get delusions of grandeur about certain philosophical issues, but hey I am human. I equate your love of truth as being caused by the same delusions of grandeur/nobility/worth.

Moderation in everything - doesn't that equate to doing nothing significant at all? Is the highest type of human being a jack-of-all-trades and master of none?

Our lives are complex, if you put one thing above everything else, so that everything else is more or less excluded or considered negative, then there is a much higher probability of failing in other areas. I am not saying that concentrating of matters of reality is wrong, but I am saying that doing so as if it was some form of ascetic necessity is wrong for nearly everyone.

IMO, there are no highest type of beings. Valuing anything is completely subjective to both the person and the circumstances of the environment the person lives in. A jack-of-all-trades would be valuable in some circumstances and an expert in another set of circumstances.

Seeing as I don’t believe in enlightenment as no one has ever convinced me of them completely knowing the reality of existence, then to be honest I would prefer to be a jack of SOME trades. If enlightenment was true then you would have no need to have to gather the philosophies of a number of dead people together to form your reality, surely a single human by now could have expressed everything that needs to be known to become enlightened. Are you not like a jack-of-all-truth-trades in a way in the manner that you have taken the works of others and put them together to make your own philosophy.

Those who seek Genius in one area do so because they get rewards that satisfy them, the satisfaction I get from trying to objectify truth is quite limited due to the extremely abstract nature of these truths, but nonetheless I must get some satisfaction as it is the hobby I spend most thinking time on. Moderation does not mean equality of effort put into all desires, but it does mean that we do not limit to a single desire (although we always have at least two desires - the survival desire comes before everything else)

[Blair]

then fuck off, douchebag, you are talking out of your ass.

[Kevin Solway]

Our lives are complex, if you put one thing above everything else, so that everything else is more or less excluded or considered negative

You are putting moderation above everything else.

[David Quinn]

James,

DQ: Ah, the inspiring words of genius! Or, perhaps, the meek words of a public servant ..... Who can tell?

J: I’m no genius

You don't think there is a connection between this and your praising of moderation?

DQ: Moderation in everything - doesn't that equate to doing nothing significant at all? Is the highest type of human being a jack-of-all-trades and master of none?

J: Our lives are complex, if you put one thing above everything else, so that everything else is more or less excluded or considered negative, then there is a much higher probability of failing in other areas. I am not saying that concentrating of matters of reality is wrong, but I am saying that doing so as if it was some form of ascetic necessity is wrong for nearly everyone.

You will never achieve enlightenment with this attitude, James.

The search for enlightenment is indeed a risk. It does require you to put all your eggs in one basket. Failure is a very real possibility. Not only will you be a failure in other areas of life, but you could easily be a failure in the spiritual realm as well.

And yet .... the sheer intensity of purpose which this dynamic creates is vital. It is everything.

If enlightenment was true then you would have no need to have to gather the philosophies of a number of dead people together to form your reality, surely a single human by now could have expressed everything that needs to be known to become enlightened.

A number of people already have, but you are currently too blind to see it.

I'm sorry if that is blunt, but it's the truth. Your attachment to moderation is limiting your perceptiveness in these matters.

The reason why I have gathered the writings of these past wise men has nothing to do with what you suggest. I personally have no need of these men as far as my own understanding is concerned. My wisdom does not depend on them in any way.

However, what is valuable about them is that they each express the truth in a different way.

Some of them write in riddles, or in an aphoristic manner, while others use long-winded prose. Some try to force the listener's mind into enlightenment by using Zennish shock tactics, while others like to lay down intellectual pathways which can gently guide people along to the very edge of Truth. Some like to concentrate purely on metaphysical analysis of the nature of Reality, while others prefer to use religious and psychological concepts to try and stimulate intuitive insight. Some like to use moralistic discourse, while others like to use humour, satire and irony. And so on.

All of these appoaches have their place. They appeal to different kinds of people, and to different moods within the same person. One day, an individual might find the lengthy prose of Kierkegaard stimulating to read; the next, Huang Po or Lao Tzu might be all he wants.

Are you not like a jack-of-all-truth-trades in a way in the manner that you have taken the works of others and put them together to make your own philosophy.

It's the complete opposite. I'm the master of one thing - namely, knowledge and consciousness of Reality. It is the only thing I'm good at. But I am good at it.

Those who seek Genius in one area do so because they get rewards that satisfy them, the satisfaction I get from trying to objectify truth is quite limited due to the extremely abstract nature of these truths, but nonetheless I must get some satisfaction as it is the hobby I spend most thinking time on. Moderation does not mean equality of effort put into all desires, but it does mean that we do not limit to a single desire (although we always have at least two desires - the survival desire comes before everything else)

One of Kierkegaard's books is entitled, "Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing". He despised the "many-sided nature" of the people around him. He recognized that it was precisely this which was stopping them from entering the Kingdom of God - or worse, from recognizing that this Kingdom is even a reality.

Entering the Kingdom of God is like trying to thread a needle. You have to make the thread pointed and remove all the extraneous fibres. You can't be many-sided and hope to share in God's treasure. That is an impossible ask. God does not allow many-sided people in.

This is why Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Each person has to choose - moderation or God.

-

[Sapka]

Death penalty is cool. Who kills, dies. Murderers must die, even if that does not deter murder (and who can say that or the opposite?)
Death penalty for drug trafficking seems to me a bit too heavy, unless the dealers sell heroin or crack to teenagers. Heroin and crack destroy souls, careers, families, lives. Dealers never think of that, they just want easy money, and fast.
Let us talk about liberties, unemployment, poverty, aids, organized crime, political corruption in Singapore, OK?