Death penalty for Australian Man carrying 16 ounces of heroin in Singapore

[Patek23]

but thats not an option, maybe I'm reading the question's context wrong. But I take it to mean, do you feel that torturing enemies to find out information is worth it if the opposing side will beign to do it as well?

[moon]

I think that it is justified for me or my enemy to use torture to find out information, but from a personal view would prefer if the enemy did not as I would prefer that my allies not be submitted to torture. However, I do not think that it is necessarily wrong. Also, I don't believe that the enemy (i.e. Terrorists, Islamic Fundamentalists) are often right when they choose who is an enemy.

[Footscray]

The death penalty is for savages (no i'm not using savage in a racist way).

[Hack&Lube]

The hanged the guy, Australia fought all the way but Singapore never relented. The Australian PM even fought to let Singapore allow his mother to hug him but they didn't even allow that!!!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

but thats not an option, maybe I'm reading the question's context wrong. But I take it to mean, do you feel that torturing enemies to find out information is worth it if the opposing side will beign to do it as well?

Totally ethical. What if you had in your custody a known terrorist who had knowledge of a massive biological attack that would kill 1000s of people.?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Totally ethical. What if you had in your custody a known terrorist who had knowledge of a massive biological attack that would kill 1000s of people.?

Ah yes, the James Bond argument.

I'll tell you what... if ever there is a scenario where they have some guy in their clutches and they know he knows about a massive biological attack but he's not telling, they can call me up and I'll hook the guy up to the car battery myself, anti-torture laws be damned.

Since the odds of such a thing happening are about as good as me running into Honey Ryder tonight, I feel pretty confident about my end of the bargain.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ah yes, the James Bond argument.

I'll tell you what... if ever there is a scenario where they have some guy in their clutches and they know he knows about a massive biological attack but he's not telling, they can call me up and I'll hook the guy up to the car battery myself, anti-torture laws be damned.

Since the odds of such a thing happening are about as good as me running into Honey Ryder tonight, I feel pretty confident about my end of the bargain.

The James Bond arguement yes... but the only good arguement for torture. You would be kidding yourself if you said that this would never happen.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by peter12

Totally ethical. What if you had in your custody a known terrorist who had knowledge of a massive biological attack that would kill 1000s of people.?

I am all for torture to gain info, and I also except that the same tactics might be performed on us.

So to answer your question, I'd be having that sucker roasting on some barbeque until he was begging us to kill him.

[calgaryred]

Sell and buy drugs pay the price, I think who these drugs are going to be sold too? Criminals, Kids, Teens? Drug addiction has a rippling affect on others who don't even use the stuff, families, children of addicts I don't have sympathy for drug dealers, rapists and murders. If you go into a country that has the death penalty for drug possession and you get caught than your stupid.

[ricosuave]

exactly, i dont have any issues with things like this

i think that we are way way to leniant on crminals in general.

eye for an eye, i say.

or, as quoted from the simpsons, "hang em all and let god sort them out"

rico

[icarus]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

eye for an eye, i say.

Well in that case execution for a drug offence would be superfluous, wouldn't it?

[CaptainCrunch]

I have very little sympathy for people that deal drugs since for the most part they end up in the hands of kids or teenagers, I have very little sympathy for people that make money on human misery. I have very little sympathy for people that help drug dealers in thier quest for getting thier hands on product to sell. Hang them, shoot them lethally inject them, I don't care, just don't ask me to shed a tear when they leave this mortal coil.

I have all kinds of sympathy for people that get hooked on this garbage and ask for help, do whatever it takes to get them off of drugs.

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by icarus

Well in that case execution for a drug offence would be superfluous, wouldn't it?

it would. if you were so damn literal.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have very little sympathy for people that deal drugs since for the most part they end up in the hands of kids or teenagers,

That's a cliché I've never quite understood. I'd gamble that the vast majority of heroin users in Canada are over the age of 18.

How many children under 12 or 13 (which is what I assume you mean by the term "kids") use heroin?

I'd also bet that nearly all, probably 99%, of illegal drugs used in Canada are used by adults.

[CaptainCrunch]

Ok, let me remove the cliche, anyone that deals drugs, I have no sympathy for because thier parisites that enjoy making money off of human misery, they try to addict thier clients to thier product, and they don't care about the lives that they destroy. Heroin is one of the worst drugs because it destroys lives completely, whether the users are young and old.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ok, let me remove the cliche, anyone that deals drugs, I have no sympathy for because thier parisites that enjoy making money off of human misery, they try to addict thier clients to thier product, and they don't care about the lives that they destroy. Heroin is one of the worst drugs because it destroys lives completely, whether the users are young and old.

I disagree. The only people at fault are drug users. They started using drugs, it was their choice and they will bear the consequences. It is ridiculous to blame drug dealers, when it is junkies fault their lives are miserable. That is like blaming liquor stores for alcoholics faults. It is ridiculous that the government spends money to fight drug trade and wastes money on drug addicts when it is their own damn fault their lives are messed up. And it is a tragedy that a guy having that stuff in his bag is killed in the name of justice. It shows that places like Singapore are still stuck in dark middle ages, no matter how many skycrapers or hi-tech companies are located there.

[Agamemnon]

As long as there is insatiable demand for drugs, they'll be bought and sold. Dealers are not 'creating the market', it usually _always_ exists. I prefer Chris Rock's take on drug dealers; dealers don't sell crack, crack sells crack. You can bust 10,000 petty drug dealers a year, and yet the drug remains prevalent on every street corner.

Sooo... maybe the solution of busting the **** out of every drug dealer in sight isn't going to get drugs off the streets. It certainly fills the prisons, but arrest one dealer, and another is ready to take is place, ad nauseum.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I disagree. The only people at fault are drug users. They started using drugs, it was their choice and they will bear the consequences. It is ridiculous to blame drug dealers, when it is junkies fault their lives are miserable. That is like blaming liquor stores for alcoholics faults. It is ridiculous that the government spends money to fight drug trade and wastes money on drug addicts when it is their own damn fault their lives are messed up. And it is a tragedy that a guy having that stuff in his bag is killed in the name of justice. It shows that places like Singapore are still stuck in dark middle ages, no matter how many skycrapers or hi-tech companies are located there.

Uh oh... when I start agreeing with FoL, I've got to take another look at the side I've chosen

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

As long as there is insatiable demand for drugs, they'll be bought and sold. Dealers are not 'creating the market', it usually _always_ exists. I prefer Chris Rock's take on drug dealers; dealers don't sell crack, crack sells crack. You can bust 10,000 petty drug dealers a year, and yet the drug remains prevalent on every street corner.

Sooo... maybe the solution of busting the **** out of every drug dealer in sight isn't going to get drugs off the streets. It certainly fills the prisons, but arrest one dealer, and another is ready to take is place, ad nauseum.

Shock horror, I have to agree with this! You can never cut demand by cutting supply. The only result will be - a higher price. Therefore, junkies will not able to afford their drug, so they will start robbing people. So at the end of the day, you didnt solve drug usage and you have created another problem. For example, cigarettes can be considered drugs, but because they are legal and cheap, cigarette smokers hardly ever stab people just to get enough money to buy their thing. Last but not least, need I remind you prohibition? The single biggest reason organized crime in the US is as strong as it is. The same thing is happening today, thanks to the fact that drugs arent legal, innocent people are put into jail or killed, and real violent criminals are lining up their pockets.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

it would. if you were so damn literal.

Just applying the maxim you used.

Perhaps 'a head for an eye' would be better.