<p>I’d posit that there isn’t necessarily a logical contradiction in being pro-choice, and opposed to the death penalty, or conversely in being in favor of the death penalty, and opposed to legalized abortion.</p>
<p>“And vice versa to be fair.” Indeed, and I will not go into the “legal” differences of when life begins, etc, as it is ever-evolving and besides the point. A will just say, that “choice” is an individual decision, made by the individual. It is not the State taking an affirmative action.</p>
<p>Aries: As I know you know from reading cases in law school, D.P. cases are unlike any other case that comes before the Court – their words – not mine. “Imperfections” in ordinances and statues my harm you to some degree, but none as likely to kill you as the administration of the death penalty.</p>
<p>Greybeard: My fellow Ca. Counselor, as we both know, we have that pesky little thing called the Constitution and the 8th Amend. (and its CA. analog) that prevents us (much as some politicians would like), from applying the D.P. to drug trafficking cases! Although, executing Rush L. could perhaps have me re-think the whole debate! LOL</p>
<p>The traditional justifications for punishment of crime fall into three categories: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. (It’s fashionable in jurisprudential circles to belittle the third as mere “revenge,” and to dismiss it as “discredited.” I’m a dissenter to that view: I’m convinced that retribution is deeply rooted, psychologically, in our very notion of what justice is.)</p>
<p>The “penitentiary” was an American invention, originally designed to replace prisons, which merely punished, with an institution where miscreants could reflect on their misdeeds, repent (etymologically related to the term “penitentiary”), and be rehabilitated. It shows little evidence of having achieved these ends.</p>
<p>Singapore’s death penalty for drug trafficking was enacted to serve the third aim of punishment, deterrence. Heroin smuggling is not a crime of punishment. Singapore is not trying to rehabilitate the young man who is scheduled to be executed even as I type this message. They’re trying to deter other drug traffickers from plying their trade here.</p>
<p>Unlike the US penal system, Singapore’s death penalty for drug trafficking seems closely tied to the goal the government was trying to achieve by enacting it. It doesn’t deter everyone, of course, as evidenced by today’s scheduled execution, but it appears to deter many. I’ll confess to feeling inifinitely safer walking the streets of Singapore than I feel walking the streets of San Francisco. (I’m not suggesting that the relationship between street crime and drug addiction is completely responsible for the difference, but I would be surprised if it’s not largely responsible for the difference.)</p>
<p>Ultimately, my opposition to the death penalty for such crimes is rooted in my notion of justice: that retribution, rightly understood, requires a balance between the severity of the crime and the severity of the punishment.</p>
<p>“Ultimately, my opposition to the death penalty for such crimes is rooted in my notion of justice: that retribution, rightly understood, requires a balance between the severity of the crime and the severity of the punishment.”</p>
<p>Precisely the focus of the 8th Amend. – proportionality</p>
<p>Concerneddad,</p>
<p>Rush’s past pronouncements about appropriate punishment for drug users, and his attitude toward the use of “legal loopholes,” make his current predicament too much for mere words. Somebody should write an opera.</p>
<p>Wanna collaborate?</p>
<p>I’ve already penned the overture: “The Opera Ain’t Over 'Till the Fat Man Sings.”</p>
<p>(Not wanting to get too off-track with my last question, but here goes):</p>
<p>The converse is logical. You can oppose the killing of innocent life (pro-life) but not the ending of guilty life (pro-death penalty). Pro-choice and pro-death penalty is logical - you see it as a choice to end another’s life. Pro-life, anti-death penalty: value of human life.</p>
<p>Pro-choice and anti-death penalty (and, for that matter, pro euthanasia) is justifying killing innocent life, but not guilty life, because that guilty life might be innocent. Logically inconsistent, esp. considering that many abortions are coerced (and 15% of assisted suicide patients were never consulted about the decision). IMO, the “individual choice” thing doesn’t really cut it - theoretically, murder is an individual choice, but we outlaw that. It is precisely the state oversight that, IMO, makes the death penalty more sensical than abortion - the person about to be killed at least got a jury trial and representation. </p>
<p>We did read cases where, in the 60s, someone could get the death penalty for armed robbery. </p>
<p>CD: True, but a miscarriage of justice in a murder trial can result in life in prison - which is more than a mere administrative inconvenience. </p>
<p>Carry on, carry on. 
Good discussion.</p>
<p>AA,</p>
<p>I suppose there are pro-choice people whose reason for opposing the death penalty consists of nothing more than the argument that “it’s wrong to kill.” </p>
<p>My own views are a bit more nuanced than that. I don’t believe it’s inherently morally wrong to execute criminals. I think it is morally wrong to apply it arbitrarily, or inconsistently, or sloppily, or to apply it to black people accused of killing white people at several times the rate we apply it to white people accused of killing black people. </p>
<p>I don’t have time for a detailed statement of my position on the prohibition of abortion, but will point out in closing that there’s a rational basis in the ordinance that prohibits me from cutting down a mature oak tree without a hearing, but permits me to uproot a fertilized acorn with impunity.</p>
<p>We build prison to shield society from criminals who are out to harm us. We feel safer going out at night or anytime for that matter knowing some at least some of the hardened criminals are put away. Lets not lose that focus and shift attention wrongly to rehabilitation. If there is any prospect of rehabilitation, it should take place after the criminals who did wrong have repaid their debts. You dont go straight from criminal to target of receiving help. It is not wrong to exact penalty. A crime was committed. Something was lose to us. A promising young woman killed in murder-rape, an honest neighborhood store keeper shot during robbery. Properties were taken, precious lives were lost. Having said that,I think criminals serving their non-death penalty terms should be released in stages. The first is penalty for the crime committed. Having served that, they are released to half-way houses and gradually assimilated back to society so they don’t just go right back to only life they knew.</p>
<p>Death penalty is a joke? Take that away and see how much more capital crimes will be committed. Just while writing this reply the TV news showed a 14 yr being led to county jail for shooting his girlfriends parents (both dead). Should we try to rehabilitate the “boy” and minimize his crime? Know liberal judges he will probably be released to his parents. How many more innocent lives will be lost if we don’t even make people think twice before committing a crime?</p>
<p>Putting aside the death penalty debate…</p>
<p>Forewarned is forearmed. (is that right? looks strange in print)</p>
<p>Singapore’s policy is well known: Death penalty for drug smugglers.</p>
<p>Very similar to the warning signs: Trespassers will be shot.</p>
<p>Is death a justifiable penalty for trespassing?</p>
<p>Edvest,</p>
<p>By definition, if you take away the death penalty, no more capital crimes will be committed: capital crimes are crimes punishable by death.</p>
<p>“We build prisons to shield society from criminals who are out to harm us.” Actually, we build prisons for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is ipolitical pressure from the unions that represent prison guards. (I assure you that I am not joking about this.)</p>
<p>For a significant number of today’s prison inmates, the precipitating offense was possession of marijuana, or a urine test ordered by a probation officer that showed the presence of marijuana.</p>
<p>Your argument about liberal judges wanting to release 14-year-old murderers to the custody of parents is a classic straw man. The fact that you’re capable of imagining the existence of such judges demonstrates nothing; I’ve been in dozens of courtrooms, in such liberal hotbeds as Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz, and I never have encountered a liberal judge of the type you’re describing. I’d estimate that 90% of them are former D.A.'s.</p>
<p>There have been 999 executions in the US since 1977. There have been approximately 500,000 murders in that same period. The odds are low that any given murder will result in an execution; if it does, it’s likely to take place 10 or 20 years after the crime. That doesn’t make for much of a deterrent. </p>
<p>To be an effective deterrent, punishment needs to be reasonably likely, an reasonably swift. If either factor is missing, you won’t have an effective deterrent. That’s precisely why telling young cigarette smokers that they’re increasing their risk of lung cancer and emphysema a couple of decades down the road prompts so few of them to quit smoking. The likelihood of these consequences is high, but remote in time.</p>
<p>There are many aspects of life in Singapore that a non-Singaporean might find extreme. There is a t-shirt widely sold that says, “Singapore- A FINE City” (the meaning of fine being financial penalty for actions). Gum chewing in public places, in fact the sale of chewing gum, are prohibited for example. Other elements of life there might also seem to trample on 'simple liberties."</p>
<p>I live in an adjacent country where recently an Australian ‘actress’ was given an extraordinarily light sentence for carrying ecstasy (for personal use, presumably)- since she had reformed her ways and become Muslim while in jail and then probably bribed the right person. She surely was not dressed in Muslim garb when she made her triumphant walk from the courtroom in her designer sunglasses, body hugging, sleeveless shirt and mini. </p>
<p>I do not wish to argue the merits of life sentences versus the death penalty as a deterrant. I simply want to say that coming from a country well known for KKN (korupsi, kolusi, nepotisi)- Singapore with it’s rigid adherence to policy is a complete breath of fresh air.</p>
<p>The US is not an island country surrounded by less affluent and sometimes hostile neighbors. The US is not a new country with a constitution born of the 20th century. The US is a more liberal society in general.</p>
<p>The US does not have the same profound committment to multi-culturalism as Singapore. The US does not have TV cooks educating their audiences with discussions including a description of ‘surface tension’ (compelling, truthfully- to be in a country where the assumption is that the average person watching a cooking show is well educated enough to understand that concept…). The US does not have taxi drivers swelling with pride as they describe the contents of their prime minister’s erudite and comprehensive disclosure of the real issues his country faces on the previous night’s television broadcast. The US has TV announcers who spin and reduce the news to little more than entertainment for the masses- and a President hard pressed to speak in complete sentences. </p>
<p>I have flown into Singapore approximately 150 times over the past 13 years. On every flight that I have taken the same announcement is made, “passengers arriving in Singapore are reminded of the severe penalties for drug offenses.” It is black and white, it is real, it is enforced. </p>
<p>A few years ago folks in the US were up in arms about the caning of a US citizen (teenager) in Singapore. My mother-in-law, entrenched ‘inside the beltway’ for her entire life, found herself arguing the merits of this action with her family, friends and neighbors. She had recently returned from a visit from Singapore and liked everything about it except for the incredibly fast moving escalators! </p>
<p>No fan of corporal punishment, her argument was simply that Singapore works. It is a country where hard choices are made, where people work hard, where buy in to the challenge of making a better life for yourself is very high, where children are well educated, where health care is outstanding. It is an island of 4,000,000- not the US. Comparisons are odious. The Australians seem to be at the pinnacle of ‘idle threat making’ behavior. It seems to be their only means of imposing their will on many neighboring countries. I doubt PM Lee is quivering at their statements. </p>
<p>Singapore is a sovereign nation with the capacity to manage its own affairs. The decisions made by its judiciary are consistent and no one arriving in Singapore is unaware of the consequences of their behavior. </p>
<p>It is very easy to avoid the death penalty in Singapore if you are not in favor of it. Not bringing in drugs is a good way to start.</p>
<p>Robyrm,</p>
<p>a very thought prokoking post.</p>
<p>Has Tookie paid his debt to society?
Is this a deterrent, or is rehabilitation, in this case, a significant and worthy factor? </p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/opinion/02essig.html?th&emc=th[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/opinion/02essig.html?th&emc=th</a></p>
<p>“We build prisons to shield society from criminals who are out to harm us.” Actually, we build prisons for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is ipolitical pressure from the unions that represent prison guards. (I assure you that I am not joking about this.)</p>
<p>For a significant number of today’s prison inmates, the precipitating offense was possession of marijuana, or a urine test ordered by a probation officer that showed the presence of marijuana.</p>
<p>Your argument about liberal judges wanting to release 14-year-old murderers to the custody of parents is a classic straw man. The fact that you’re capable of imagining the existence of such judges demonstrates nothing; I’ve been in dozens of courtrooms, in such liberal hotbeds as Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz, and I never have encountered a liberal judge of the type you’re describing. I’d estimate that 90% of them are former D.A.'s."</p>
<p>All of the above is true.
In addition, we are building prisons to provide jobs in rural areas of this country. Without those jobs, given the state of the US economy, some of those rural residents with few marketable skills would probably end up to turning to things like drug dealing to support themselves.</p>
<p>Only a small proportion of people in US prisons are violent offenders whom society needs to be protected from. </p>
<p>Most inmates will end up being released. Unless they get drug treatment, literacy education, marketable job training and other similar things, they will end up back in prison, drains on society because they lack the skills to function productively in society.</p>
<p>Even a “minor” crime like a home burglary or car breakin will leave the average person feeling angry, violated, and uncomfortable in their own home for some time. Many drug offenders are also involved in these types of activities.</p>
<p>“Even a “minor” crime like a home burglary or car breakin will leave the average person feeling angry, violated, and uncomfortable in their own home for some time. Many drug offenders are also involved in these types of activities.”</p>
<p>I am not disagreeing. What I am saying is that without rehabilitation – drug treatment, literacy education, etc. – drug and other offenders are likely to continue their crimes when released. </p>
<p>Thus, in most cases all that incarceration does is temporarily stop offenders from preying on the general public. Prison & rehabilitation (something that is very rare now) is likely to put the offender on a path that will not cause them to hurt other people.</p>
<p>It makes absolutely no sense to me that the government is willing to invest in building prisons, but not in rehabilitation. Things like drug treatment, literacy education, vocational training aren’t rewards or fluff: They are necessities – if we’re serious about stopping crime.</p>
<p>And what better place to make sure that criminals get the tools they need to live decent lives than in prison,where they are under supervision and have every incentive to get their lives on track?</p>
<p>Yes there is a hierarchy within each discipline. There are those recruits that the coach must have, and those they would like to have. Each file is notate , and in most cases, an </p>
<p>Very true barrons, but none of the above are classified as violent crimes. And none will get you the D.P. in the U.S.</p>
<p>The issues is not whether criminals should be required to pay a debt to society – of course they should. The issues are: 1) what is the commensurate punishment for the crime?; and 2) what do we, as a society intend to do with them while incarcerated?</p>
<p>As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, there are few if any states that now believe the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation. Unless, and until, that changes, the flavor of the day is to punish for as long and hard as the politicians can get away with. Like 25-to-life for stealing tow slices of pizza under the three strikes law.</p>
<p>Robyrm, thank you for your post and the examples of how Singapore deals with its issues. No system is perfect, but what locals have to give up in relative freedom seems to be well worth the price.</p>