Comments on: The long drop and the hangman’s ritual http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/ a community of Singaporeans Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:19:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: WithMuchSarcasm http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-173498 WithMuchSarcasm Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:37:07 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-173498 Lets impose a mandatory death penalty for all offences more serious than a minor traffic violation. If the death penalty is such a great deterrent to murder and drug offences, it should be an even greater deterrent to such heinous crimes as petty shoplifting, writing a check which bounces, or disorderly conduct, since the penalty is so disproportionate to the crime. Lets have it for the English Drop! Lets impose a mandatory death penalty for all offences more serious than a minor traffic violation. If the death
penalty is such a great deterrent to murder and drug offences, it should be
an even greater deterrent to such heinous crimes as petty shoplifting,
writing a check which bounces, or
disorderly conduct, since the penalty
is so disproportionate to the crime.
Lets have it for the English Drop!

]]> By: lobo76 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131780 lobo76 Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:21:15 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131780 <strong>gemami Feb 26, 2010 14:35</strong> <strong>At what point does one deem a life so worthless that it is more worthwhile to end it – that is the question lah.</strong> hmm... that seems more to be a question regarding MDP itself, not whether we should have a moratorium.   gemami
Feb 26, 2010 14:35
At what point does one deem a life so worthless that it is more worthwhile to end it – that is the question lah.
hmm… that seems more to be a question regarding MDP itself, not whether we should have a moratorium.
 

]]> By: la nausée http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131677 la nausée Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:00:59 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131677 I think the 'moratorium' argument runs like this. A law is valid only if it is made with the 'consent of the governed'. With most laws, it's sufficient for this 'consent' that the People's representatives have voted by majority to enact it -- the People's acquiescence is enough. If they don't like it, they can reflect that disagreement through the ballot box (if it's significant enough an issue to affect their ultimate vote).   But the MDP is different, because it threatens a fundamental liberty. So we demand a greater degree of 'consent', <em>i.e.</em> that MPs only vote in favour of it on the back of informed public opinion by the People in support. Otherwise, such a law is invalid. The argument then concludes by insisting that there was never such 'informed consent' in favour of the MDP to begin with, so it must be suspended (and repealed) unless the public supports it after an open, robust debate.   This of course begs two questions. First, when does a law 'threaten a fundamental liberty', and thus require this heightened standard of consent? Lots of laws may threaten basic constitutional/human rights (freedom of speech, equality, religion, movement <em>etc.</em>) -- do we therefore say they are all illegitimate until a 'robust' debate has taken place? Or else how do we identify which laws are 'special'... just something that a minority disagrees strongly with? Is that not then simply a way to overturn democracy?   And secondly, what precisely do we mean by an informed consensus or consent? Presumably, a referendum on the issue need not necessarily reflect an informed consensus. But then how do we determine whose views we should listen to? "Only legal specialists and parliamentarians are counted."? "Only people who agree with us."? I think the ‘moratorium’ argument runs like this. A law is valid only if it is made with the ‘consent of the governed’. With most laws, it’s sufficient for this ‘consent’ that the People’s representatives have voted by majority to enact it — the People’s acquiescence is enough. If they don’t like it, they can reflect that disagreement through the ballot box (if it’s significant enough an issue to affect their ultimate vote).
 
But the MDP is different, because it threatens a fundamental liberty. So we demand a greater degree of ‘consent’, i.e. that MPs only vote in favour of it on the back of informed public opinion by the People in support. Otherwise, such a law is invalid. The argument then concludes by insisting that there was never such ‘informed consent’ in favour of the MDP to begin with, so it must be suspended (and repealed) unless the public supports it after an open, robust debate.
 
This of course begs two questions. First, when does a law ‘threaten a fundamental liberty’, and thus require this heightened standard of consent? Lots of laws may threaten basic constitutional/human rights (freedom of speech, equality, religion, movement etc.) — do we therefore say they are all illegitimate until a ‘robust’ debate has taken place? Or else how do we identify which laws are ‘special’… just something that a minority disagrees strongly with? Is that not then simply a way to overturn democracy?
 
And secondly, what precisely do we mean by an informed consensus or consent? Presumably, a referendum on the issue need not necessarily reflect an informed consensus. But then how do we determine whose views we should listen to? “Only legal specialists and parliamentarians are counted.”? “Only people who agree with us.”?

]]> By: gemami http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131665 gemami Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:35:06 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131665 Aiyah! <strong>lobo76 - </strong>When you argue like this how to answer back except to try and impressed on you that there is a vast difference between taking a life and selecting a bunch of people to cause chaos. At what point does one deem a life so worthless that it is more worthwhile to end it - that is the question lah. Aiyah! lobo76 – When you argue like this how to answer back except to try and impressed on you that there is a vast difference between taking a life and selecting a bunch of people to cause chaos.

At what point does one deem a life so worthless that it is more worthwhile to end it – that is the question lah.

]]> By: lobo76 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131655 lobo76 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:59:05 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131655 <strong>gemami Feb 26, 2010 13:49 Does self-defense gives one the immediate right to kill and offender? For example, when an enemy comes at you with a knife, do you immediately think of killing him in self-defense or would you rather disarm him if you can?</strong> Interesting point to say the least ... do you remember the case where the police shot dead the 'assailant' (who just stabbed someone in a nearby coffeeshop) in the MRT station? His defence was exactly this.. that he was in danger and the 'policy' (taught in his training) was to shoot.   One might say, that Singapore is quite consistent in this respect.   As some have argued, it is precisely because society’s views were never sought that there ought to be an immediate moratorium to cease all killings. Many things have not been 'discussed' and were implemented. I could certainly say that society's views on election were not properly sought, and GRCs were implemented, electoral office came under the PM, etc. Should elections be put on hold while we discuss this for the next 10 years? PAP certainly won't mind.   gemami
Feb 26, 2010 13:49
Does self-defense gives one the immediate right to kill and offender? For example, when an enemy comes at you with a knife, do you immediately think of killing him in self-defense or would you rather disarm him if you can?
Interesting point to say the least
… do you remember the case where the police shot dead the ‘assailant’ (who just stabbed someone in a nearby coffeeshop) in the MRT station? His defence was exactly this.. that he was in danger and the ‘policy’ (taught in his training) was to shoot.
 
One might say, that Singapore is quite consistent in this respect.
 
As some have argued, it is precisely because society’s views were never sought that there ought to be an immediate moratorium to cease all killings.
Many things have not been ‘discussed’ and were implemented. I could certainly say that society’s views on election were not properly sought, and GRCs were implemented, electoral office came under the PM, etc. Should elections be put on hold while we discuss this for the next 10 years? PAP certainly won’t mind.
 

]]> By: gemami http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131650 gemami Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:49:29 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131650 Alpha Tango,   I like your line of argument, very convincing and straight to the point. I concede that, apart from one contentious issue, most of your assertions are valid and I may have to relook my position.   The contentious issue lies in this statement: “…<em>the right of society to self defense and to punish its offending members</em>…”   Does self-defense gives one the immediate right to kill and offender? For example, when an enemy comes at you with a knife, do you immediately think of killing him in self-defense or would you rather disarm him if you can?   One can be excuse in such a situation if he thinks of killing the other to save himself, especially when it happens quite suddenly and there is no time to think. But surely, to catch him and then deliberate to sentence him to death is just unfathomable for a civilized society.   The other question is this: “In its right to protect itself, who in society decides how the protection is to be carried out and the punishment that goes with it?”   Whoever it is, it must be a party that speaks the collective agreement of society isn’t it? In this regard, has society’s views been sought on this?   As some have argued, it is precisely because society’s views were never sought that there ought to be an immediate moratorium to cease all killings. Until such time that there is adequate discussion and exchange of views, and a set of ‘self-defense’ and ‘punishment’ agreement is arrived at, we cannot claim to be speaking and acting on society’s behalf. Alpha Tango,
 
I like your line of argument, very convincing and straight to the point. I concede that, apart from one contentious issue, most of your assertions are valid and I may have to relook my position.
 
The contentious issue lies in this statement: “…the right of society to self defense and to punish its offending members…”
 
Does self-defense gives one the immediate right to kill and offender? For example, when an enemy comes at you with a knife, do you immediately think of killing him in self-defense or would you rather disarm him if you can?
 
One can be excuse in such a situation if he thinks of killing the other to save himself, especially when it happens quite suddenly and there is no time to think. But surely, to catch him and then deliberate to sentence him to death is just unfathomable for a civilized society.
 
The other question is this: “In its right to protect itself, who in society decides how the protection is to be carried out and the punishment that goes with it?”
 
Whoever it is, it must be a party that speaks the collective agreement of society isn’t it? In this regard, has society’s views been sought on this?
 
As some have argued, it is precisely because society’s views were never sought that there ought to be an immediate moratorium to cease all killings. Until such time that there is adequate discussion and exchange of views, and a set of ‘self-defense’ and ‘punishment’ agreement is arrived at, we cannot claim to be speaking and acting on society’s behalf.

]]> By: la nausée http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131644 la nausée Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:21:15 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131644 The article states: "<em>The loss of consciousness and instantaneous death cannot be equated as the same sort of effect</em>. Continued beating of the heart and complete death can take up to twenty minutes, during which<em> the prisoner may still feel sensation from the skin above the dislocated neck</em>." I understand that loss of consciousness and death are not the same thing -- although one would expect 'brain death' (which is, by most accounts, equivalent to 'death': see the <em>Interpretation Act</em>, s. 2A) to follow very soon after the snapping of the neck, even if the heart continues beating. <strong>But how can one ''lose consciousness' yet 'feel sensation'?</strong> This seems like unscientific melodrama: if you're unconscious, then you're unable to feel pain, and <em>vice versa</em>. The article states: “The loss of consciousness and instantaneous death cannot be equated as the same sort of effect. Continued beating of the heart and complete death can take up to twenty minutes, during which the prisoner may still feel sensation from the skin above the dislocated neck.”
I understand that loss of consciousness and death are not the same thing — although one would expect ‘brain death’ (which is, by most accounts, equivalent to ‘death’: see the Interpretation Act, s. 2A) to follow very soon after the snapping of the neck, even if the heart continues beating. But how can one ”lose consciousness’ yet ‘feel sensation’? This seems like unscientific melodrama: if you’re unconscious, then you’re unable to feel pain, and vice versa.

]]> By: ayoungsingaporean http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131642 ayoungsingaporean Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:16:09 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131642 I apologize for the very strange formatting. It seems my cutting and pasting from MS Word might be the culprit. If it's possible for the moderators to remove the gibberish before my actual post, I'll greatly appreciate it. :) I apologize for the very strange formatting. It seems my cutting and pasting from MS Word might be the culprit. If it’s possible for the moderators to remove the gibberish before my actual post, I’ll greatly appreciate it. :)

]]> By: ayoungsingaporean http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131640 ayoungsingaporean Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:13:32 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131640 The narrow mindedness and sheer ignorance of some people regarding the significance of the death penalty and the motivations of those that do not support it is indeed very frightening.   Didn't any of you watch the videos by TOC where people on the street were interviewed regarding their views in just that? It doesn't matter whether we are religious or atheists, left wing or right wing or even good old law-abiding citizens. The point is that we should put more thought and effort into determining WHY someone needs to die a deliberately inflicted death. Whether it is our own relative or son or daughter that is convicted of the crime is not anywhere related to the point, it is just an attempt to humanize the problem for most of us that will never be in that situation.   The death penalty should be abolished for all crimes except where keeping the person alive would be pointless because that person will continue to be a danger in society at large. A drug lord who is proven to have been coordinating the smuggling of massive quantities of drugs into Singapore would fit this bill. He/she is deliberately profiting from the destruction of lives repeatedly. If is difficult to make a career out of drugs without knowing the harm it causes to society at large. A drug mule is not a drug lord. Similarly, if someone brutally killed another human being and there is ample evidence that the crime was committed by him, not from a forced confession or any sort of confession, but by transparent evidence properly collected and presented to an independent third party (judge or jury), the death penalty might be appropriate.   Many of us in Singapore have so fully bought into the idea that the death penalty is completely and unquestionably useful to maintain a safe society and we generally don't care why someone is being hanged because the MSM immediately puts many criminal suspects to shame. Giant mug shots in the papers together with slightly biased angling of stories about crimes. Most of us ‘good’ people would immediately get judgemental and go “that is a very bad person” when we read a crime story here.   Abolitionists of the MDP do not all believe that life is sacred because God gave us life. Calling us religious is a blatant attempt at discrediting our ideas. We believe that human beings have progressed far enough throughout history to appreciate that people are NOT animals, but complex biological beings capable of very deep motivations for their behaviour. Simple having an MDC for any crime denies this very fact. There is a LOT of gray in this world and nothing is as clear as black and white.  Nothing at all. For those of you who say "if you don't commit the crime you're safe" or "it’s an effective deterrent" are plain ignorant (or in denial) of the reasons why people can be driven to a particular behaviour and the inherent complexity of the human being. I'm sure most of us have chosen to do something against your better judgement at least once in your lives because it 'seemed like a good idea' at the moment. I shall spare you guys the lecture on human vices.   A person can think complex thoughts, feel deep emotions and make decisions based on a combination of those thought and emotions. We should not summarily brand people who commit offenses as evil by nature and also take into account the motivations for those actions. Abolishing the MDC but still maintaining a death penalty for criminals that have directly taken lives and will remain extremely dangerous after their release from prison is the next best ideal to a complete abolition of penalty. This is not as easy to determine as having a predetermined quantity of drugs obviously, but it respects the importance of human life. The government owes this to its citizens after almost 35 years of implementing a policy that was never fully opened for a thorough public discourse. The narrow mindedness and sheer ignorance of some people regarding the significance of the death penalty and the motivations of those that do not support it is indeed very frightening.
 
Didn’t any of you watch the videos by TOC where people on the street were interviewed regarding their views in just that? It doesn’t matter whether we are religious or atheists, left wing or right wing or even good old law-abiding citizens. The point is that we should put more thought and effort into determining WHY someone needs to die a deliberately inflicted death. Whether it is our own relative or son or daughter that is convicted of the crime is not anywhere related to the point, it is just an attempt to humanize the problem for most of us that will never be in that situation.
 
The death penalty should be abolished for all crimes except where keeping the person alive would be pointless because that person will continue to be a danger in society at large. A drug lord who is proven to have been coordinating the smuggling of massive quantities of drugs into Singapore would fit this bill. He/she is deliberately profiting from the destruction of lives repeatedly. If is difficult to make a career out of drugs without knowing the harm it causes to society at large. A drug mule is not a drug lord. Similarly, if someone brutally killed another human being and there is ample evidence that the crime was committed by him, not from a forced confession or any sort of confession, but by transparent evidence properly collected and presented to an independent third party (judge or jury), the death penalty might be appropriate.
 
Many of us in Singapore have so fully bought into the idea that the death penalty is completely and unquestionably useful to maintain a safe society and we generally don’t care why someone is being hanged because the MSM immediately puts many criminal suspects to shame. Giant mug shots in the papers together with slightly biased angling of stories about crimes. Most of us ‘good’ people would immediately get judgemental and go “that is a very bad person” when we read a crime story here.
 
Abolitionists of the MDP do not all believe that life is sacred because God gave us life. Calling us religious is a blatant attempt at discrediting our ideas. We believe that human beings have progressed far enough throughout history to appreciate that people are NOT animals, but complex biological beings capable of very deep motivations for their behaviour. Simple having an MDC for any crime denies this very fact. There is a LOT of gray in this world and nothing is as clear as black and white.  Nothing at all. For those of you who say “if you don’t commit the crime you’re safe” or “it’s an effective deterrent” are plain ignorant (or in denial) of the reasons why people can be driven to a particular behaviour and the inherent complexity of the human being. I’m sure most of us have chosen to do something against your better judgement at least once in your lives because it ‘seemed like a good idea’ at the moment. I shall spare you guys the lecture on human vices.
 
A person can think complex thoughts, feel deep emotions and make decisions based on a combination of those thought and emotions. We should not summarily brand people who commit offenses as evil by nature and also take into account the motivations for those actions. Abolishing the MDC but still maintaining a death penalty for criminals that have directly taken lives and will remain extremely dangerous after their release from prison is the next best ideal to a complete abolition of penalty. This is not as easy to determine as having a predetermined quantity of drugs obviously, but it respects the importance of human life. The government owes this to its citizens after almost 35 years of implementing a policy that was never fully opened for a thorough public discourse.

]]> By: wui http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131549 wui Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:59:35 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131549 I could never say this better... http://acgrayling.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3Athe-last-word&catid=34&Itemid=66 I could never say this better…
http://acgrayling.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3Athe-last-word&catid=34&Itemid=66

]]> By: Alpha Tango http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131547 Alpha Tango Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:49:31 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131547 gemami I agree that an individual will find it hard to make and discuss moral decisions without reference to his religious inclinations, but it is quite another to have secular societies making decisions based on religious morality. To a religious person, sanctity of life might well be an overwhelming principle that would call for the ban of the death penalty, regardless of the cost. The secular society he lives in might have another standard, such as deterrence (putting aside questions of effectiveness) or utilitarianism. That is why religious views will be of limited use in such debates in such societies, because they're not in sync with society in the first place. The same answer goes to your suggestion that we should imagine that convicts are our loved ones and decide if we will still want them to hang. Yes it sounds nice and compassionate, but it is not a sound ground to make high policy decisions. That necessarily requires a certain degree of detached macro-perspective and an objective weighing of costs and benefits. It simply would be impractical to consider every individual situation whenever a policy or law is made, policies and laws are blunt instruments designed to deal with generalities. In this case, the rights or humanity of the convict has to be balanced against the rights of the victim/the victim's family to revenge, the right of society to self defence and to punish its offending members. And, in my opinion, our society has rightfully placed the balance against the person who committed a wrong rather than the innocent victim or society. To weigh otherwise would be rather perverse. As for your argument that the convict should be given a chance to make amends, there is nothing wrong in principle, and I would support the abolishment of the death penalty if a scheme is worked out that will ensure that (1) adequate amends are made, and (2) he does not harm anyone else. That is too much left to chance for my liking. If nothing else, and I'm aware this probably sounds very cold, the death penalty offers the absolute certainty that there will be no re-offence. It removes the problem once and for all. Lastly, abolishment of the death penalty per se will not help the re-assimilation of the convict back to society in any way because the alternative punishment in Singapore is life imprisonment. The social cost to be measured is that of killing the convict vs keeping him alive for his natural life, rehabilitation does not come into the picture. To go down your line of argument, you would either have to suggest a way the convict can be useful in prison, or argue for the abolishment of life imprisonment as well. gemami

I agree that an individual will find it hard to make and discuss moral decisions without reference to his religious inclinations, but it is quite another to have secular societies making decisions based on religious morality. To a religious person, sanctity of life might well be an overwhelming principle that would call for the ban of the death penalty, regardless of the cost. The secular society he lives in might have another standard, such as deterrence (putting aside questions of effectiveness) or utilitarianism. That is why religious views will be of limited use in such debates in such societies, because they’re not in sync with society in the first place.

The same answer goes to your suggestion that we should imagine that convicts are our loved ones and decide if we will still want them to hang. Yes it sounds nice and compassionate, but it is not a sound ground to make high policy decisions. That necessarily requires a certain degree of detached macro-perspective and an objective weighing of costs and benefits. It simply would be impractical to consider every individual situation whenever a policy or law is made, policies and laws are blunt instruments designed to deal with generalities.

In this case, the rights or humanity of the convict has to be balanced against the rights of the victim/the victim’s family to revenge, the right of society to self defence and to punish its offending members. And, in my opinion, our society has rightfully placed the balance against the person who committed a wrong rather than the innocent victim or society. To weigh otherwise would be rather perverse.

As for your argument that the convict should be given a chance to make amends, there is nothing wrong in principle, and I would support the abolishment of the death penalty if a scheme is worked out that will ensure that (1) adequate amends are made, and (2) he does not harm anyone else. That is too much left to chance for my liking. If nothing else, and I’m aware this probably sounds very cold, the death penalty offers the absolute certainty that there will be no re-offence. It removes the problem once and for all.

Lastly, abolishment of the death penalty per se will not help the re-assimilation of the convict back to society in any way because the alternative punishment in Singapore is life imprisonment. The social cost to be measured is that of killing the convict vs keeping him alive for his natural life, rehabilitation does not come into the picture. To go down your line of argument, you would either have to suggest a way the convict can be useful in prison, or argue for the abolishment of life imprisonment as well.

]]> By: wui http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131539 wui Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:21:29 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131539 Goodness.. religious believers just can't help themselves can they? Just unable to DISCUSS many subjects using 'elementary ' knowledge or inquisition without evoking personal superstitions. There is an apple, we ask why the apple is red, we try to find out, through studies, experiments, thorough researches etc... But by saying,'Ah, my god did it' just kills off any genuine discussions. Please people, stay with the article, don't digress. Goodness.. religious believers just can’t help themselves can they? Just unable to DISCUSS many subjects using ‘elementary ‘ knowledge or inquisition without evoking personal superstitions. There is an apple, we ask why the apple is red, we try to find out, through studies, experiments, thorough researches etc… But by saying,’Ah, my god did it’ just kills off any genuine discussions. Please people, stay with the article, don’t digress.

]]> By: LOL http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131537 LOL Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:14:20 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131537 I rather a lengthy and expensive process to prevent an innocent murdered rather than a mandatory one that gets a family agrieved over a wrong judgement. This is a basic human right I rather a lengthy and expensive process to prevent an innocent murdered rather than a mandatory one that gets a family agrieved over a wrong judgement. This is a basic human right

]]> By: thinktok http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131535 thinktok Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:56:32 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131535 The hanging procedure should be publicised to all.  This will act as a deterrent.  In life not everybody is imbued with ability to constraint ourselves such as hot temper, vengeful, greed etc Just look at Sadam's hanging.  It is frightening but how many are as strong and brave as Sadam. I am not sure we should execute people who have not killed another person.  The punishment of a tooth for a tooth is very practical.  The jealous boyfriend who blinded his girlfriend was in turn blinded by 20 drops of acid as punishment.  The girlfriend feeling is she wanted him to feel her pain. For those drug, possession of firarms etc where no killing took place maybe we can banish them to an island with no amenities and no parole.     The hanging procedure should be publicised to all.  This will act as a deterrent.  In life not everybody is imbued with ability to constraint ourselves such as hot temper, vengeful, greed etc

Just look at Sadam’s hanging.  It is frightening but how many are as strong and brave as Sadam.

I am not sure we should execute people who have not killed another person.  The punishment of a tooth for a tooth is very practical.  The jealous boyfriend who blinded his girlfriend was in turn blinded by 20 drops of acid as punishment.  The girlfriend feeling is she wanted him to feel her pain.

For those drug, possession of firarms etc where no killing took place maybe we can banish them to an island with no amenities and no parole. 
  

]]> By: Bernard http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131532 Bernard Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:14:25 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131532 Who ever you are, you are sheltered. You have not tasted what I did and what my wife and I went through. It was sheer hell. However, you may not believe in the Almighty  but He came to my rescue and thank God there are some good people out there who assisted me in my plight to get back what was due to me! He shows justice in this ever changing world! Who ever you are, you are sheltered. You have not tasted what I did and what my wife and I went through. It was sheer hell. However, you may not believe in the Almighty  but He came to my rescue and thank God there are some good people out there who assisted me in my plight to get back what was due to me!

He shows justice in this ever changing world!

]]> By: Bernard http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131528 Bernard Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:06:52 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131528 Don't always think things are fine here. When you get arrested for supposed to be affray, you are deemed guilty by the investigating officers and have to prove your innocence even though you are not the party who started the fight. It happenede to me. I was handcuffed, dumped into a cell with my hands handcuffed to a steel bar and all my belongings and shoes taken away from me. I had to walk barefooted along the walkways in the underground lockup and cell. My statement was wriiten for me and I had to sign it with my hands in cuffs. Call this justice! When you are in it than you understand what goes on behind the bars! Don’t always think things are fine here. When you get arrested for supposed to be affray, you are deemed guilty by the investigating officers and have to prove your innocence even though you are not the party who started the fight. It happenede to me. I was handcuffed, dumped into a cell with my hands handcuffed to a steel bar and all my belongings and shoes taken away from me. I had to walk barefooted along the walkways in the underground lockup and cell. My statement was wriiten for me and I had to sign it with my hands in cuffs.

Call this justice! When you are in it than you understand what goes on behind the bars!

]]> By: Steve http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131514 Steve Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:10:00 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131514 dear Old Guy, if you kill another person, in your opinion, you deserve the death penalty. So in fact, those people who kill in the name of the government als deserve this penalty as those who order it. In the end, who will survive? Everyone becomes guilty of the crime! dear Old Guy, if you kill another person, in your opinion, you deserve the death penalty. So in fact, those people who kill in the name of the government als deserve this penalty as those who order it. In the end, who will survive? Everyone becomes guilty of the crime!

]]> By: gemami http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131493 gemami Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:08:27 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131493 Hi Alpha Tango,   I understand your point but it will be hard to argue it without making one’s religious inclination the underlying factor to what is right and what is wrong, or what is good against what is evil.   The ‘I right, you wrong’ refrain is not exclusive to religious and religion only but also embraced by a secular society as well. Ask yourself what is the basis for determining what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, what is ideal and what is not? It surpasses both the spiritual and the mortal world, so the intertwining cannot be help, and must be an inclusive part of determining what is right and what is wrong – even as we attempt to keep religion out of the way.   With regards to the ability to make amend. The fundamental point must be our treatment of our fellow humankind. To consider this, one must look at an offender as if the offender is none other that a father, a mother, a brother, a sister or one’s own child. Would you then say that your mother, or sister or son must die because society cannot be made to bear the cost of keeping them alive while they undergo rehabilitation and treatment for eventual assimilation into mainstream society? Hi Alpha Tango,
 
I understand your point but it will be hard to argue it without making one’s religious inclination the underlying factor to what is right and what is wrong, or what is good against what is evil.
 
The ‘I right, you wrong’ refrain is not exclusive to religious and religion only but also embraced by a secular society as well. Ask yourself what is the basis for determining what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, what is ideal and what is not? It surpasses both the spiritual and the mortal world, so the intertwining cannot be help, and must be an inclusive part of determining what is right and what is wrong – even as we attempt to keep religion out of the way.
 
With regards to the ability to make amend. The fundamental point must be our treatment of our fellow humankind. To consider this, one must look at an offender as if the offender is none other that a father, a mother, a brother, a sister or one’s own child. Would you then say that your mother, or sister or son must die because society cannot be made to bear the cost of keeping them alive while they undergo rehabilitation and treatment for eventual assimilation into mainstream society?

]]> By: Alpha Tango http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131488 Alpha Tango Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:38:02 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131488 gemami I don't think I can reply to the religious vs secular society part because religious debates tend to devolve into a matter of "I right you wrong" echoed across all the participants. It's quite pointless since the basis of argument is entirely different. Suffice to say that I think societies have a right to choose their own systems and Singapore has chosen secularism, as opposed to say, Christianity dominating USA and Islam dominating Iran. There is no right or wrong social system any more than there is a right or wrong religion. Let's not open the religious can of worms where it is not directly relevant in this article. With regard to the ability to make amends, yes the death penalty does take away the ability to make amends, but how would you hardwire the making of amends into the life imprisonment regime? Make the murderer a lifelong slave to the victim's family? Hard labour? Confiscate all his assets and divert it to the family? In other words, how to convert a convict's life imprisonment into a source of benefit for society/the victim's family? Don't say that there is no need to hardwire anything and to just let the convict make amends on his own goodwill. There will surely be situations of unrepentant criminals who are perfectly happy that they killed the guy, and don't mind sitting in jail their whole lives and eating free food. What do we do with them? It's very easy to preach mercy and sanctity of life, it is far harder to justify the costs associated with such an approach. gemami

I don’t think I can reply to the religious vs secular society part because religious debates tend to devolve into a matter of “I right you wrong” echoed across all the participants. It’s quite pointless since the basis of argument is entirely different. Suffice to say that I think societies have a right to choose their own systems and Singapore has chosen secularism, as opposed to say, Christianity dominating USA and Islam dominating Iran. There is no right or wrong social system any more than there is a right or wrong religion. Let’s not open the religious can of worms where it is not directly relevant in this article.

With regard to the ability to make amends, yes the death penalty does take away the ability to make amends, but how would you hardwire the making of amends into the life imprisonment regime? Make the murderer a lifelong slave to the victim’s family? Hard labour? Confiscate all his assets and divert it to the family? In other words, how to convert a convict’s life imprisonment into a source of benefit for society/the victim’s family?

Don’t say that there is no need to hardwire anything and to just let the convict make amends on his own goodwill. There will surely be situations of unrepentant criminals who are perfectly happy that they killed the guy, and don’t mind sitting in jail their whole lives and eating free food. What do we do with them? It’s very easy to preach mercy and sanctity of life, it is far harder to justify the costs associated with such an approach.

]]> By: Old Guy http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-long-drop-and-the-hangman%e2%80%99s-ritual/comment-page-1/#comment-131485 Old Guy Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:09:59 +0000 http://theonlinecitizen.com/?p=20329#comment-131485 if you do bad things worthy of death.. you should be killed... Why worry for the culprit? He/she deserves it..!! if you do bad things worthy of death..

you should be killed…

Why worry for the culprit?

He/she deserves it..!!

]]>