by frog
Keith and other Greens are this morning going to protest outside the Singapore High Commission at the time Nguyen Tuong Van is due to be executed at Changi Prison.
Also sometime today, the US will kill convicted murderer Robin Lovitt, marking the point when the US carries out its 1000th execution since the death penalty was reintroduced there in 1976. Someone on Morning Report just now was saying only a few US states, mostly in the south, are still killing, but the federal government doesn’t stop them, so I still hold the central authority primarily responsible.
Killing is very wrong. The logic that says that the best way to punish someone for doing something very wrong is to inflict the same wrong on them is beyond me. State-sanctioned executions send the message that there are times when killing is legitimate, so are totally counterproductive in enshrining the sanctity of human life. If you don’t want people to kill, either directly through murder or indirectly through helping to supply hard drugs, then killing hardly seems the way to achieve that.
The state is not so legitimate it can kill people. If there’s anything more barbaric than an individual killing another individual, it is a society and / or a state killing an individual. The death penalty makes every citizen of a country complicit in murder. Thanks to the international media, everyone who is aware of the killings of Nguyen Tuong Van and Robin Lovitt before they happen are complicit in murder.
How do we sanction the countries that still execute people so that we can mitigate our complicity in their crimes against humanity? Personally I’d like to see New Zealand being rude all the time to countries that execute. Ideally that would include diplomatic, trade and cultural sanctions, though I suspect most Kiwis would oppose that as they tend to put their own comfort ahead of such a principle.
What do you reckon? How can NZ put serious pressure on rogue states such as Singapore and the US to stop this barbarism?
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Fri, December 2nd, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I’ve flown Singapore Airways in the past.
But I won’t in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I doubt anyone can put pressure on the US to do anything. You can only really hope to influence the citizenry who might eventually soften their attitudes, but I really don’t see sanctions working in any direction except against us.
I’m undecided on capital punishment, leaning towards not having it. The main problem is that it’s irreversible, ruling out future appeals or new evidence, or a future change of the rules. And those are probably the main arguments in it’s favour from people who like it – they want to hamstring the future, particularly in the case of political executions.
But I can see some crimes are heinous enough that the aspect of societal retribution becomes very important. I wouldn’t be particularly sorry to see Saddam Hussein face a firing squad. But I wouldn’t advise it either. He may be useful in future. I think someone like that rotting in jail forever as a showpiece for the rest of us is a good thing. One day he may renounce his evil ways and do something good, like write a book explaining himself and how he got to his position, or telling us where all the WMDs are
.
I do feel sorry for Nguyen and his family. What he did was wrong, but the punishment is not in proportion, or the least bit helpful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Thanks to the international media, everyone who is aware of the killings of Nguyen Tuong Van and Robin Lovitt before they happen are complicit in murder.”
How on earth do you come to this conclusion? I’m not particularly happy about being accused of complicity in murder on the grounds that somebody has told me about it. Why then, do you calll for action against Singaporean and the US goverrnments if it’s everyone’s fault?
Personally, I wouldn’t lose any sleep if someone from the communities Saddam attacked, say a Kurd or a Midan, decided to kill the bastard. I’d be bothered that a government claimed the moral right to kill, supposedly on other people’s behalf.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As an American who has lived in New Zealand, one of the most stark social contrasts I noted was the difference in the perception of criminals. New Zealand regards it’s prisoners and ex-cons with much more compassion, and sees them simply as men and women who have made mistakes, not as sub-human monsters. Of course, not all people think this in America, but it seems to be a popular sentiment.
I presently live in Delaware, which still has the death penalty and is generally considered quite liberal. I am against the death penalty, and in the debates I have had the best arguement I have heard for capital punishment is about the cost of keeping a man in jail for life. Admittedly, it is expensive, but it is shocking to me that cost is more important than the life of what could be an innocent man, as well as the other implications of state sanctioned murder listed above. The other arguments I’ve heard is that they “deserve to die”, but obviously that is a very shallow arguement.
Americans feel this way about criminals because of fear. If you have noticed, crime dramas are heavily exported to NZ from the USA. They are extremely popular here, and I even enjoy them myself, but I can look at them objectively, which I am sure some people cannot. The ones that take place in New York City would lead to you to believe women and children are being raped and murdered every five minutes, which is not the case. America’s show “Cops” is also very different than “NZ Motorway Patrol”. The criminal is presented as a threat to each individual family. Any culture of fear needs a scapegoat, and in the US it is the criminal – the moral deviant, from the drug user to the serial killer. And the death penalty has been portrayed as the ultimate form of justice, even though it is faster and more painless than a life in a cell, oddly enough.
In order to change the American (and I assume also that of Singapore’s) use of the death penalty, something must be changed at the core of society. People in America live in fear of eachother. I am not an expert on Singapore by any means, but I assume that if someone can get the death penalty for a drug offense, they live in fear as well. It is fear that leads to hatred, and hatred makes capital punishment permissable, even desirable. A culture of fear is a breeding ground for injustice.
I’m afraid New Zealand is virtually powerless in changing this policy in the United States and Singapore, I regret to say it must be changed from within.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good on Singapore. NZ could take a leaf from its book on how to adress crime. Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates anywhere, and one has to ask the question why. If you want to see something really barbaric, take a look around the back streets of St Kilda or South Sydney and it becoimes apparent that heroin is not just another lifestyle choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengage..very commendable….i hope..in the interests of consistancy…that you will also boycott all american airlines…and the airlines of any other country that executes prisoners..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
norasb, the cost of keeping someone in prison for life is a common argument used in support of the death penalty, but it an extremely contentious and not very well supported argument.
See: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
Basically, in the United States, the cost of executing someone is almost definitely higher than incarcerating them. I guess you could make it cheaper by limiting appeals and so on, but that would make the risk of executing the innocent that much higher.
antihippy, oh yeah, there’s a great correlation between total crime and average sentence length: http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/cri_tot_cri_cap/cri_sen_len/flag and an equally good one between the date of last use of the death penalty and total crime. If one has to ask the question why, one should ask it with an open mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oops, correlation between last use of the death penalty and total crime at: http://www.nationmaster.com/plot/cri_tot_cri_cap/cri_dea_pen_las_exe/flag.
And yes, I know these are also simplistic and debatable, but at least there is something here to debate, rather than a knee jerk, hang ‘em high mentality without a shred of evidence or argument to back up the wilingness to kill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was travelling in a car with an 80 year old women the day of the London tube and bus bombings. She was adamant that bringing back the death penalty was the solution to terrorism. The death penalty as a deterrant for suicide bombers!!!??? Yeah that’ll work. IMHO, people who argue that the death penalty is a solution for any sort of crime are displaying a similar lack of intellectual rigour.
Meanwhile, frog, it would have been good if you had posted this earlier when people could still have done something about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I certainly support Keith making a protest against the death penalty. I agree with frog that it is immoral to take a life, even for a life, and certainly for a relatively minor first offence. But I think we need to make it very clear what Keith and the others are protesting for. Some people object to this particular killing because it is an Australian being executed, but show no concern over the hundreds of Sinaporeans being executed. I am not for one moment saying that Keith thinks this, but just that there may be a perception he does.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Agree with Kiore1. Apparently Australians are a higher form of life than local Singaporeans, who can be executed for lesser offences with no one threatening to never fly Air Singapore, and without silent vigils being held. (Though at least Nguyen was anAsian-Australian male – imagine the fuss if Michelle Corby had caught the penalty).
While I am against the death penalty, the fact that Nguyen’s offence was not minor, that he realised the risks, went ahead, and came up craps makes me uneasy about his present sanctification
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
” We take care of our own” is a perfectly rational attitude for a nation or a society. I care about the Singaporeans executed as well, but I do not notice them as much as I notice someone who comes from my own society… that’s just human nature, just going to always be true and I find it hard to accept the idea that it is wrong to bond with your own society… or species for that matter. So I feel no unease over what brought it to our attention, but would feel uneasy if we let it go and forgot about it in a month’s time. To the extent possible we have to make them recognize our discomfort with their policy every day. They have to learn that it is a matter of deep importance in their relations with NZ, Australia and the rest of the civilized world despite the lack of importance they place on it.
That Singaporeans continue to do this is at least partially in the more implicit understanding that “life is cheap” that comes with having so many lives in your care. There is no lack of people. There is a glut, and it is very clearly a glut in Singapore. NZ is almost uniquely underpopulated with respect to the rest of the planet. We value individual lives differently than they do in China and Bangla-Desh and Singapore… but that doesn’t mean that execution is right anywhere.
My problem is that the solution chosen is final and the people choosing it are fallible. If I could INFALLIBLY know that some person did murder and might do it again I might consider it feasible to have a death penalty, but such certitude is impossible. A temporal viewer allowing me to examine the history of a location to know what ACTUALLY happened there and then, but even so I would be reluctant to allow the state such a final solution.
As for the cost of keeping them for life I think the cost to society in terms of civilization and moral authority, of executing them, is higher all by itself.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think we are better off leading by example than trying to force our will on others.
As for drug trafficking, you would have to be pretty stupid to take drugs into a country with a known death penalty. Sounds like Darwinism to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A little humility is in order, I think. As several commenters have noted, we don’t have the population pressures or entrenched drug usage networks to have to deal with. It’s too easy to pontificate.
So really, we don’t know what the hell we are suggesting, except communicating a general unease and squeamishness. Which is Ok as a personal whim, but cannot be a serious foreign policy position.
Which would, in any case, have to be communicated to the hapless Singaporeans by none other than Winston P. Hands up everyone who thinks that’s a great idea…. After all, has anyone recently asked the man what he thinks of the penalty in question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I used to support the death penalty, but came round when I realised that no system could ever guarantee that an innocent person wouldn’t die at the hands of the state. I thought about a different standard of evidence to secure a sentence, maybe ‘beyond all doubt’, but conversations and debate pointed out that this was essentially unworkable.
So my primary objection to the death penalty is that some innocent people will inevitably be caught and killed. The arguement that the state should not kill it’s citizens is not quite so strong, because the state does reserve that right in certain circumstances, usually martial law and civil emergencies or during police callouts for armed and dangerous offenders. Of course, an execution is a cold-blooded affair, done after the heat of the moment has faded, but it is still state killing, exactly the same as if a cop shoots someone on the street in the course of a shootout. I do understand though that the state should not seek to kill people, and accept this as an arguement against execution.
If we aren’t going to execute, I believe that we do need an alternative. Life imprisonment for certain crimes, and I mean life, is not such a bad idea. If someone is proven innocent, they can be released (and compensated), which is hard to do when they’ve got a broken neck. And if someone has commited a deserving crime, then I don’t see why they should ever be let out into the community. Most criminals have a chance of redemption. Some do not, and those that commit certain crimes have surrendered their right to freedom and liberty. They can have their life, but not their right to live in the community.
As for telling Singapore what to do, well we can try, but they are a sovereign nation and people, with their own parliament and their own values. They may change, but this will be their decision. Apply pressure if you want, it might work. But we should respect their right to make their own laws, even if we find them abhorrent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Of course, an execution is a cold-blooded affair, done after the heat of the moment has faded, but it is still state killing, exactly the same as if a cop shoots someone on the street in the course of a shootout.”
No it isn’t. In theory, at least, a cop is allowed to shoot somebody as an act of collective self-defence, when other means have been exhausted. Executing a prisoner is in no way self-defence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wait a minute, Frog, before we start handing out plaudits to the international media perhaps you’d like to work up a comparison of the length and placement of coverage of the trials of two Australian citizens and alleged drug mules?
I refer to Shapelle Corby and Van Nuygen. What was the difference – apart from the fact that Corby was a photogenic and articulate middle-class white woman? Seriously, who had any idea WTF Nuygen was a week ago?
BTW, Frog any particular reason why you didn’t mention China – where, according to Amnesty International estimates, 85% of the world’s state-sanctioned murders are conducted and twice as many people are executed EVERY YEAR as “barbaric” Texas has in 29?
Call me cynical, but could it be that there’s more political utility in Western politicians and media organisation ignoring the dragon in the middle of the room? FWIW, I oppose the judicial murder for any number of reasons. I’m just suggesting a little consistency and a lot of healthy scepticism is in order.
One more observation: Folks using the cost-benefit ratio argument in support of the death penalty should consider this. We’d also save hundreds of millions a year – if not billions – if we start getting into fiscal eugenics: euthanize the disabled and elderly, sterilize the poor, and make those suffering from ‘lifestyle diseases’ ineligible for any form of publicly-funded health care. And that’s just Vote Health!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would think there are a goodly number of people in Singapore who are opposed to the death penalty.
The Singaporean Government is not known to be particulartly democratic!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ben Wilson, “although undecided on capital punishment, leaning towards not having it” says: “I wouldn’t be particularly sorry to see Saddam Hussein face a firing squad”.
Using the same sort of argument, what about George Bush? He is technically a mass murderer on a grand scale.
We all can see both sides of the argument … but to say “I believe in the sanctity of human life and therefore I will kill you if you kill (or threaten to kill) another human” is, at the very least, not logical, and potentially never ending …
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m sure that 300 years ago some of the people writing here would have said that being hung for stealing a loaf of bread was justifiable: it certainly used to happen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
excellent post Tane
I’d just like to add that surely every country that is a member of the United Nations should stop using the death penalty, at least for mandatory sentences (where no shades of grey are possible). I refer to the April 2005 UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) resolution on the death penalty which includes “that the UNCHR has urged states which still maintain the death penalty not to impose it as a mandatory sentence, or for crimes without lethal or extremely grave consequences”.
I don’t agree that there is a lack of news coverage about Van as opposed to that given to Shapelle Corby or the Bali 9. There is certainly a huge amount of coverage at the moment, with the servers of news websites and amnesty aus suffering performance problems.
great comments from his lawyer in “Nguyen case ‘signpost for change’”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17435592-28101,00.html
great comments from readers too on the appropriateness of public tributes to a convicted criminal
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17435269-28101,00.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Spot on Craig. Don’t mention the dragon. We might have to work our principles a little harder.
Interesting point Stuey – that perhaps members of the U.N need to abide by their own rules rather than opting in when it suits. Could be the best thing that ever happened to the U.N, to lose several of its members – if not all, once we applied all of the various charters.
Personally, I do not agree with the death penalty. But I do agree with tougher sentencing provisions, particularly for crimes of brutality, and for repeat offenders.
On a more positive note, any-one see the film “The World’s Fastest Indian”? Great film. One element I enjoyed was the number of people Burt Munro met that had the potential to block him, but ended up helping him. What a great boost for having faith in our fellows. I recommend the film to all – every-one’s likely to take something worthwhile away from it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
huh waymad ? nuh , you should always voice opposition to the death penalty if that is your position . That Singapore has a high level of drug use or population density problems, and that it is very different culturally to New Zealand does not make it immune from receiving strong protest …some issues transend those differences .
Its just one of those cross the board things. How odd for the United States to bring back capital punishment in1976. Seems like a pretty barbaric backward move to me. And yep China does have an appalling state sanctioned number of executions. Oppostion with respect to all countiries who practise capital punishment should be registered regularly, and loudly if you ask me .
Santions or other, frog ? you just gotta lead by example . I reckon thats a huge start .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is a damn tragedy that van is dead. He did it for his brother who was in debt.
Let us remind singapore which to the best of my knowlegde is very christian that when Cain killed his brother Abel, God did not kill him but he just cast him out.
Furthermore van did not rape or murder anyone he just trafficed drugs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think that frog was avoiding mentioning China, you know that the Greens are appalled at the humans rights abuses of that state as they are many of the Chinese social and environmental policies (400,000 people forcebly moved house to make way for the Olympics anyone???)
the Greens are of course anti a free-trade agreement with China, and if you have accusations about politicians not criticising Chinese practices (when they do criticise US or Zimbabwean ones) in order to not rock the free trade agreement boat then you should take up those concerns on the discussion forums of those parties! (except of course they don’t have discussion forums! Only the Greens and ACT are brave enough) or at least make clear which parties you are criticising – cos it ain’t us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen, that’s an argument I’d like to keep out of. I think you have a point though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I refer to the headline, I condemn all countries that use the death penalty. I’d like NZ to find a way to put effective pressure on China, Singapore, America and all the other countries that execute people.
And I don’t think I was *thanking* the media for making us complicit, I would rather the media gave the coverage they have to yesterday’s executions to every state-sanctioned killing everywhere, but then they probably wouldn’t have much room for anything else.
)
The media is parochial, not humanist, news for all humans is not what is being served up, just news for the local or national group or groups assumed to be paying attention. Thus an Australian getting executed gets the media in Australia in particular and the West in general worked up, while Singaporese get hung all the time hardly raises a whisper outside of Amnesty’s Freedom Letter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d like to point out that blame really does need to be put on the states, and not the federal government — mostly.
The Federal government does have some federal crimes for which the sentence can be death, but most crimes in the United States are actually crimes at the state level. When a murder case is determined it is not usually “U.S. v. Somebody” but “Texas v. Somebody” or something like that.
Each state has it’s own laws – some states have already abolished the death penalty. Others, like Texas, which is where I am (and trying to get out!) have installed express-appeals so that they can kill death row prisoners -faster.-
Texas and Florida, by the way, are the two states with the highest execution records. In 1999, the governor of Texas was George W. Bush. The Governor of Florida was Jeb Bush. I don’t consider this a coincidence.
Now, my personal feelings – if someone I loved was murdered, I’d want to pull the trigger myself. I am opposed to the death penalty on one basis and one basis only: We are not omniscient.
If a person is wrongly imprisoned, there is still time to sort it out with new technologies that may be invented over the course of their lifetime. DNA sampling, for example, was one example that is exonerating a number of people convicted of capital crimes… posthumously.
But if we knew with absolute certainty that the murder took place, then I have no -moral- qualms about the death penalty in theory. In practicality, we can’t know with absolute certainty any murder case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Brian Boyko said: “… if we knew with absolute certainty that the murder took place, then I have no -moral- qualms about the death penalty in theory.”
While I can understand the emotions leading to “an eye for an eye” thinking, there is a pertinent addition to that expression: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”.
So, Brian: How do you react (emotionally and physically) when your philosophy of vengance is applied (for example) by Iraqis to members of the American military in Iraq?
As a human, I was brought up to use my “big brain” to recognise and identify the emotional content of my thoughts before acting.
In our family we were taught to internalise the question “How would you like it if someone did that to you?” Thus, rationally, I cannot agree with murder under any guise!
I can understand how killing might happen in the heat of the moment, but never as a calculated act, especially the ritualised horror that death sentences tend to be. How many in favour of such killings stop and think about what is expected of the victim as he/she is made to enact this drawn out ritual.
(Mind you, I’m not too keen on killing other species either … spiders etc thrive in my place, and I apologise to those I accidentally maim or kill!)
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen
Brian has my side here… if someone does murder, particularly of someone I love, someone in my family, there is no place in my heart for mercy. This is the reason blood feud was so popular years ago. Still practiced in parts of the world and New Zealand is lucky that it has largely escaped this practice. Vengeance is the rock on which Justice stands and yet nobody has a right to revenge. The Religious folk have that “Vengeance is mine” riff which helps them recognize this. Me, I just mistrust the state with that sort of power and mistrust the justice system’s ability to identify the correct criminal. What happened in Singapore? A “Mandatory” death sentence when no one else had died. There is a Sci-Fi short story of a society in which the shortage of organ donors had led to a law that permitted the state to consider every criminal executed as a donor. The wealthy lived virtually forever but the poor found that the death penalty was the punishment of choice for jaywalking.
As for Bushco, I would pay good money to be permitted to participate. Close enough to spit on his face would be good.
The business of being certain however, has philosophical dimensions that cannot be denied or ignored. Can you accept our support (in being against the death penalty) without arguing about our reasons?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Craig
RE: media
for the record the lawyers for Nguyen deliberately kept a very low profile in Australia until 3 weeks before the case. It was a strategic move on their part rather than the media not being interested in an Asian-looking guy. They were hoping for clemency on the back of his confession and co-operative behaviour, and that tactic would have undoubtedly failed had Nguyen been front page news at the time – since he would have become a very public example of Singapore’s line.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting that our two American participants are the most vociferously pro-death…
Not trying to drive a wedge here. It’s a cultural thing I suppose
But something I always find surprising, especially among US “liberals”.
The tide has turned in the USA, if you look at the numbers : both sentencing and executions are on the decrease, about 200 death sentences passed and about 50 carried out, per year (there’s about a 30 year backlog, at current numbers, meaning, I suppose, that there will be more dying of natural causes than executed, and Death Row will look like a geriatric ward).
In spite of the Bushes, the US is coming back towards the light, it’s a long-term sociological trend. In a couple of decades, the US will rejoin the concert of civilised nations, and the Supreme Court will rule, as it has before, that execution is a “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj chip:
I have to say “spoken like a true American”!
… and one thing you said about vengance: “This is the reason blood feud was so popular years ago. Still practiced in parts of the world and New Zealand is lucky that it has largely escaped this practice.”
No, Aotearoa did not escape the concept of vengance.
Utu was a “big thing” in Maori culture and in 19th century British (and other European) cultures which were brought here.
But the people of this land decided to say “no more of that!”
That was not luck. It was a deliberate decision.
We all feel the emotions. It is how we decide to act on them that makes us who we are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair, Eredwen
Excuse me? I never said I supported the death penalty…. I am perhaps “relatively” less against it than some of you ?(though I doubt even that)… but my WORD how you like to argue about nothing much!
As for it being a deliberate decision, it is indeed that…. but you can’t deny human nature simply on the basis of a “deliberate decision”. There has to be a punishment (not necessarily death) meted out to a murderer, or people will ignore the law and blood feud or Utu will return to this society.
Since I agreed on the basis of my own imperfect knowledge of truth, and my own perfect mistrust of the state, with this deliberate decision you are apparently telling me that this basis is not sufficient? I have to aspire to some purer form of conscience? I scarcely credence that the majority of New Zealanders who are against the death penalty are doing it for reasons of such moral purity.
This “Holier than thou” stuff is just silly. Death Penalty = Wrong. You use your reasons, I will use mine. I can argue mine with far more clarity than I can even understand yours.
Alistair… I don’t know of ANY Liberals US or otherwise, who are “pro-death” so I really can’t understand your comment. Both Brian and I are against it, and he is dead right about this being at the door of the “State” governments, not the Federal government for the forseeable future. Given the stacking of the Supreme Court this will remain the case for at least 2 decades. “Pro-Death” ? I really don’t know where you get this.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you know there’s a death penalty for trafficing drugs in a country why would any sane person engage in this behaviour.
This is because the rewards $1 million dollars I believe lead this individual to take the risk with his live and he lost.
He wasn’t a small time offender but engaged in trafficing a major amount of drugs to Australia. These drugs are then on sold which cause criminal activity in users to afford the drugs (robbery) or other crimes while on drugs.
The fact is these people who traffic drugs don’t care about the community but only about making money at the expense of other people’s misery.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip:
How about taking a really deep breath and actually read what I said ?
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen – Following Alistair’s poke at us (not under your control) and considering your response to Brian the inference I drew was far too easy to draw, not what you intended and given your response, certainly in error.
I apologize.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To answer Frog’s question – the only thing our governmentcould do is to recommend that our citizens do not travel to countries that have either judicial mechanisms different to our own, or whose judicial arrangements are broken, or that have sentencing systems that are very dissimilar to ours.
This is, of course, impossible, both politically, and logistically, as it would be a bit hard travel from NZ to most other places without transiting some country that would be on the suggested list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The death penalty is something I find hard to support, even on a purely utilitarian basis. (Game theory applies to justice and sentencing, and the most versatile and effective theory BASICALLY says “an eye for an eye.” It also says, however, that you should do good back when good is done to you, and that you should give people a chance to show good character. The death penalty rules out both those options, even if we assume a case of absolute certainty of guilt, there’s still some doubt about it)
Question: Does New Zealand currently extradite prisoners to countries with the death penalty? If so, that’s one of the first ways to show the fact that we don’t support the crime.
This just motivates me to get onboard with Amnesty sometime soon. Anyone know good sites for action against the death penalty?
Oh, and if someone wants to debate the specifics of death penalty morality, I’m not averse to going into it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
errr, by “the crime” I meant the death penalty. Getting a bit befuddled here, although I would certainly REGARD sentencing someone to death as a crime, if we had any working sort of international court
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj : you said :
“If I could INFALLIBLY know that some person did murder and might do it again I might consider it feasible to have a death penalty, but such certitude is impossible.”
OK, you said “might”… so I’m overstating the case in calling you “pro-death”… my apologies.
Brian is in that category, however :
“I am opposed to the death penalty on one basis and one basis only: We are not omniscient.”
i.e. both of you are against the death penalty because innocent people get killed.
i.e. neither of you appear to be opposed, on principle, to executing murderers.
i.e. you and I are on opposite sides of the issue, if I’ve got that last point right.
There is a huge moral gulf between your position and mine (which is pure mysticism, if you will : killing people is wrong! Hard to understand eh?)
I fully understand the human desire for revenge. I utterly reject the idea that it should form the basis for a justice system.
BJ : “I don’t know of ANY Liberals US or otherwise, who are “pro-death? so I really can’t understand your comment.”
I have argued the point many times on line, primarily with liberals, and I’m always astonished at the number who are pro-death, in terms much stronger than you are.
And I also happen to think you and Brian are both wrong about it being purely a state’s prerogative. Since the Civil War, you know that there are overriding freedoms which are protected by the federal government, and which state governments may not take away. The abolition of slavery, and more recently, of Jim Crow laws, are examples of that. The right to life would be an appropriate addition to that list. There is no constitutional obstacle to abolition of the death penalty on a federal level, it’s simply a question of the political will to do it. It was “abolished” in the 70s, federally, by judicial activism, whereas it’s clearly a legislative issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair –
If you take what my preconditions are seriously you recognize that they require is basically omniscience. Then I require the state and justice system to be trusted. Then I have to know that I know those things and am not kidding myself that I and/or the state possesses these qualities… a sanity clause in the whole thing. The society has to earn its right to survive as well, by administering justice with fairness.
Practically those requirements mean ALMOST the same thing as your absolute… but without creating or espousing an absolute “killing people is wrong” rule that could tie our hands when it comes to protecting ourselves, our society or our species.
Maybe your way is easier… but I like being able to trace the reasons the right thing to do (not executing people) IS the right thing to do.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)