<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051123/wl_asia_afp/australiasingaporecrimedrugs[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051123/wl_asia_afp/australiasingaporecrimedrugs</a></p>
<p>One one hand, the crime is smuggling 400 grams of heroin. On the other hand, there is a life. </p>
<p>Lengthy terms in prison for drug smugglers does not seem to accomplish much in curbing the availability of drugs. Would this work in the United States?</p>
<p>xiggi, the debate on the D.P. as a deterrent is dead! The only justification for the D.P. – and a poor one in my opinion – is revenge.</p>
<p>FYI, read former Cal. Gov. Edmund Brown’s book for some interesting anecdotes, such as the electrician-prisoner who helped re-design the prison’s electric chair, only to be fried in the same after he was released from prison and killed his wife’s lover in a rage.</p>
<p>Sweet! Killed by the chair you designed!</p>
<p>joev, how does your comment add to the debate?</p>
<p>It doesn’t really. I just thought it was pretty cool. I am with you, the death penalty is absurd in today’s America. Singapore and drugs is like the Old South during the '50s and racism, not a good idea at all to copy about things to do. If you ask me, they should just legalize all these drugs then tax the crap out of it.</p>
<p>Ok, joev, an honest answer that I can respect. Please be aware that sometimes humor and sarcasm can be lost in the written word without some clue as to your intent.</p>
<p>Many could say prison as a deterrent is also ineffective. A prison penalty for causing harm to others is justified on its own merits and therefore a death penalty for causing death is not a problem to me.</p>
<p>No, it is not justified nor is the death penalty justified anywhere, including in the U.S.</p>
<p>I wish that instead of building more prisons and killing mor eprisoners we’d devote much more resources and research to rehabilitation. </p>
<p>Seems to me that the most fitting consequence for doing a crime such as taking a life would be spending the rest of one’s life doing some kind of mandatory service to society. Prisoners being executed or sitting blankly in their cells or lifting weights to get buff are not experiencing consequences that serve as reparation for the actions they took that harmed society.</p>
<p>Northstarmom: I agree with completely. However, many states in the few decades have made it statutorily explicit that the purpose of incarceration is punishment not rehabilitation. Therefore, the legislative mandate is to build prison, not prison system to rehabilitate.</p>
<p>Wrong-headed in my view, but it will take a lot to change the current status quo.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with NSM, as well–at least the third paragraph–but chain gangs and really tough lifer prisons like Angola,LA fell out of national favor a long time ago.</p>
<p>As for rehabilitation, I don’t know. How do you rehabilitate someone who has it in them to chain someone to the back of a truck and drag them to death? Someone who kidnaps and rapes children, and then kills them to cover up the crime? I’ve never liked the terms death “penalty” or capital “punishment,” because I don’t think the state should exact death as a penalty, or kill someone for punishment. I do think that some people are too dangerous to remain alive, however, and I do support execution in certain circumstances as a means of self-defense.</p>
<p>“execution in certain circumstances as a means of self-defense.” </p>
<p>I am not sure whether or not you are talking about individual action, or state action.</p>
<p>If you are talking about individual action, that is called vigilantism, and I could not buy into that.</p>
<p>If you are talking about state action, just that is a distinction without a difference.</p>
<p>Oh please. No, I am not advocating vigilantism. I think that society has a right, through the judicial process, to find a person guilty of a crime, and to determine, in certain circumstances, that the crime is heinous enough, and the criminal is dangerous enough, that a collective right of self-defense through legal execution may be warranted. It’s ridiculous to compare that to vigilantism, or to say that it’s a distinction without a difference.</p>
<p>the distinction without a difference refers to the state killing in self-defense. You do not define it, nor explain how that is different than the current practice in this country. It is fine if you are in favor of the D.P., just don’t try to clean up the “act of state killing” by calling it “self-defense.”</p>
<p>So how exactly do you then agree with NSM’s post?</p>
<p>CD,
I think I answered it all in #10, but here goes:
NSM said
I completely agree with that, and pointed out:
Translation: If you want to do away with the DP for the really bad guys, put them all in a place like Angola, where they’ll never get out, and will spend the rest of their lives making reparations for the actions they took that harmed society. Bring back chain gangs. Don’t give prisoners weight rooms. Let them get their exercise serving society.</p>
<p>And and then, you, CD, said this:
Which implies that I was playing a semantic game…I was not. I’m fine with state executions under certain circumstances. I don’t think the state should execute people for (A) punishment, or (B) retribution…although I understand that members of society–particularly victims–may feel those goals met. Providing those ancillary “benefits” shouldn’t be the state’s goal or role, in executing dangerous criminals. That should be self-defense, reserved for the most egregious and dangerous offenders. That’s my position, and there’s a lot more to it than trying “to clean up the ‘act of state killing’ by calling it ‘self defense.’”</p>
<p>So. How do you rehabilitate the guys that chained up James Byrd and then dragged him around over rock for half an hour? It was quite a “mistake” on their part, wasn’t it?</p>
<p>I do not believe you can rehabilitate everyone; that is what life without possibility of parole is for. Nor do I believe that the state should be in the business of killing – for any reason.</p>
<p>Simple enough, really, And, consistent with the practices of the VAST majority of states around the world.</p>
<p>I guess it was my mistake, I did not realize that you only argeed with a portion of NSM’s post. Especially since NSM began: “No, it is not justified nor is the death penalty justified anywhere, including in the U.S.”</p>
<p>“That should be self-defense, reserved for the most egregious and dangerous offenders” is EXACTLY what the proponents of the D.P. advocate now. So again, other than trying to redefine labels, what is you test for self-defense?</p>
<p>A double homicide?</p>
<p>Killing a child?</p>
<p>Lying in wait?</p>
<p>Murder in the course of a robbery or other felony, like a hate crime?</p>
<p>If that is what you mean, they are all covered by the “special circumstances” that already make certain crimes capital crimes in most states.</p>
<p>So, again, how would YOU fairly administrate you D.P. in the State of Driver?</p>
<p>Concerneddad,</p>
<p>I’m no fan of the death penalty, but I wouldn’t be so quick to pronounce the debate over its deterrent effect as dead. Sure, the death penalty as applied in the US (inconsistently, and typically after a delay of a decade or two, applied largely to crimes of passion) seems to show little more deterrent effect than long prison sentences.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I suspect Singapore’s death penalty for trafficking (scheduled to be applied next in three hours a few miles from where I sit to a young man arrested in 2002) has a profound deterrent effect.</p>
<p>I, for one, am darn happy that Timothy McVeigh is no longer with us. </p>
<p>CD: you should know that imperfections in administration of any law does not negate the value of that law. All laws, statutes, and neighbourhood ordinances are (occasionally, maybe frequently), applied unfairly. Doesn’t mean we should resort to anarachy. Just means that we should do all that is possible to remove bias from the system.</p>
<p>(In truth, though, I had a phenomenal professor who discussed the problems of how first-degree v. second-degree murder is defined. This also applies to non-death cases, btw. He mentioned the hypothetical son who poisons his father, upon the father’s request, to end his suffering. Contrast with someone who walks along a pier, sees a small child sitting on it, and spontaneously decides to push the child into the water to drown. The former is eligible for 1st degree murder: premeditation and deliberation, while the second did not form an intent to kill until immediately prior to the killing and thus is a second-degree murder case. Our gut instinct is to not like that result.)</p>
<p>IMO, there is a fundamental difference between certain types of criminals, and that isn’t adequately represented in our legal system. There are those who will kill once in self-defense; those that would kill once in anger; and those that kill because it’s fun or they can or it’s a challenge… or they just don’t place any value on human life. Rehabilitation for those types is useless. </p>
<p>It’s cheaper to do life in prison than the death penalty.</p>
<p>I do think a lot of pro-death people fear an arbitrary result of an appeal. They also fear early parole for good behaviour. I would love it if our system could come up with a way to eliminate the latter entirely. </p>
<p>As it stands now, I think the largest justification for the death penalty is that it encourages guilty people to plead guilty to life in prison - there is a worse alternative available. I guess I don’t see the death penalty as the problem so much as the symptom of much larger societal problems: inadequate admnistration of justice; overburdened police (in a general way) forces, such that there is not enough time or resources to do a completely thorough investigative job; judges who are elected and loathe to appear soft on crime; racism, classism, and other issues. I’ve said that the only thing I could do, as a young, white, educated female, to get the death penalty is to kill my kids. The same is not true of a black man. Doesn’t mean that the death penalty is bad - just that it isn’t being reserved for the few horrible crimes that make people want it - such as kidnapping, raping, and murdering children, or blowing up buildings with a kindergarten in it, or staging an attack on DC and taking pot shots at whomever is unlucky enough to be around. </p>
<p>How many of you who are against the death penalty are pro-choice?</p>
<p>“How many of you who are against the death penalty are pro-choice?”</p>
<p>Most I’d guess. And vice versa to be fair.</p>