Unusual to see such a spirited defense of Sharia Law. Congrats on your open mindedness.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Unusual to see such a spirited defense of Sharia Law. Congrats on your open mindedness.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Cheers. Never let it be said that opiates aren't a powerful motivator.
Firstly I'd like to point out that your post ignores the many problems with the Indonesian legal system and its application to this case and others like it. Secondly, I'd like to ask what point your point is (other than something about how being aware of consequences somehow justifies them) and how it relates to my post about rehabilitation because it's eluding me. "It is what it is," isn't much of an argument.
Certainly there's respect to be held for sovereignty and the rights of states to decide their own forms of justice and what is valued and punished and to what extent of course. But it's not an absolute respect and saying 'we should accept their decision and move on' is tantamount to saying that all law anywhere in any country should be respected - such as the law of the DPRK or other things where the punishment doesn't fit the crime, or where many of us don't even think there is a crime at all.
Candescence
Member
Really, the death penalty for drugs is beyond excessive. Hell, the entire war on drugs, worldwide, is a complete and total failure, it's a big part of why Mexico is a complete mess right now. Did people not learn from the Prohibition? It only created a sizable black market and made drugs lucrative for organized crime.
Kill the prohibition and regulate the drugs instead, with a focus on rehab rather than incarceration. Because, you know, the countries that are actually trying that particular strategy are finding that it's actually working. Do what we're doing with cigarettes, stuff like plain-packaging with warning labels. Besides, weed is not really any worse than alcohol, it's the worse drugs that we should be looking out for, but less harmful ingredients might actually help in that regard, because stuff like meth and ice are being cooked up in some makeshift laboratory with all kinds of questionable chemicals, usually by someone who has no idea what the fuck they actually do.
Kill the prohibition and regulate the drugs instead, with a focus on rehab rather than incarceration. Because, you know, the countries that are actually trying that particular strategy are finding that it's actually working. Do what we're doing with cigarettes, stuff like plain-packaging with warning labels. Besides, weed is not really any worse than alcohol, it's the worse drugs that we should be looking out for, but less harmful ingredients might actually help in that regard, because stuff like meth and ice are being cooked up in some makeshift laboratory with all kinds of questionable chemicals, usually by someone who has no idea what the fuck they actually do.
Elaugaufein
Member
The problem with drug wars is pretty simple: demand is inelastic because addictive drugs are addictive, surprisingly enough. Reducing supply increases cost but that doesn't reduce demand (it does make for nice press though because it creates a pretty much infinite chain of largest drug busts ever by street value).
If you want to successfully kill the trade in a drug you need to avoid people becoming addicted and provide rehabilitation for those who are. But that's harder and not "tough on crime".
If you want to successfully kill the trade in a drug you need to avoid people becoming addicted and provide rehabilitation for those who are. But that's harder and not "tough on crime".
PhantomZone
Member
It's true though, you or I cannot tell them how to run their country. You can go on and continue to be disgusted by it. Two rule breakers lost their lives over something easily avoidable.
They were not murdered in cold blood as some news services have put it, they were executed in accordance with Indonesian law.
Lined up and tied to a post to be shot is murder in cold blood. No amount of legal paperwork can state otherwise.
I can tell anyone how to run their country. Whether they listen is another matter entirely.
But they are still wrong. Any country executing people is morally wrong. They violate human rights, they are barbaric and uncivilised. Be it texas or north korea or China or Iran it's still fucked.
Apologising on their behalf strikes me as odd, as is the defence of them being based on the specious reasoning of 'well, it's their right to make dumb laws'.
What do you think about tribal laws on witchcraft in PNG out of interest?
PhantomZone
Member
Clearly they are not going to listen to you and they are quite happy to run the show how they see fit to do so. You must enjoy protesting every single death penalty case currently occurring in the world.
I couldn't really care about tribal laws on witchcraft in PNG, it's not happening in my backyard so they can do whatever they please.
Meanwhile a natural disaster has occurred in Nepal and that has had stuff all attention in comparison against two convicted drug traffickers.
ConstructMe
Banned
I agree with you mate, not worth giving a second thought to, and trust me most people in the real world do too.
That's an incredibly selective perspective to have on humanity. Nepal has attracted significant attention. The government has pleged money, ABC is gathering donations.
If you care for other humans, it would extend beyond natural disasters to the barbaric acts committed by governments against their citizens.
Don't know what media you've been watching/reading/listening to.
In fact, the Nepal stuff has been getting all the more attention if anything over this Bali Nine business since so many are suggesting we axe our aid to Indonesia and give it to Nepal for earthquake relief.
PhantomZone
Member
And you sir can keep up fighting the good fight on behalf of all bleeding hearts and crocodile tear supporters
Not when they are convicted criminals thanks.
And that's the right thing to do in this instance. The focus should rightly switch back to the Nepal disaster (not just just a 30 second - 2 minute update either), The medias thirst for bloodlust can cease until the next hot topic appears.
Elaugaufein
Member
So um what's with this invocation of real people/real world when discussing punitive measures ? Because this is pretty much exactly what my mother said from a sample of 3 people (in areas that are known for their conservative slant at that).
Am I not a real person ? Do I not exist in the real world ?
ETA: Indonesia is probably not a country you want to invoke the convicted criminal thing on. Indonesia has vast amounts of corruption that make a rule of law/justice argument shaky at best.
Am I not a real person ? Do I not exist in the real world ?
ETA: Indonesia is probably not a country you want to invoke the convicted criminal thing on. Indonesia has vast amounts of corruption that make a rule of law/justice argument shaky at best.
Obviously anyone who cares enough to discuss the issue and have an opposing viewpoint doesn't actually exist and is merely a figment of your imagination
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Probably about as much as you enjoy going out of your way to tell people not to care about it.
That old chestnut. How do we know you're real and not some drug induced collective delusion?
The media and the public are capable of focusing on two things at once, as my example already demonstrates. At the very least, this incident is going to shape our relationship with a neighbouring country for the immediate future.
Why this constant insistence to "move on" from this topic, and why is the standard on this conversation we should all just shut up since our expression cannot have any impact (which incidentally hasn't been proven one way or another). We'd have very few conversations in general if that were the standard for discussion, on NeoGaf or otherwise.
And you sir can keep up fighting the good fight on behalf of all bleeding hearts and crocodile tear supporters
Not when they are convicted criminals thanks.
And that's the right thing to do in this instance. The focus should rightly switch back to the Nepal disaster (not just just a 30 second - 2 minute update either), The medias thirst for bloodlust can cease until the next hot topic appears.
Ironic given the blood lust is from the people who support the death penalty.
Justifying callousness by saying 'bu bu bu other natural disasters' as if more than one issue at a time is too much to discuss.
That is faux humanitarianism, just like the argument for stopping the boats being to save lives at sea.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Actually, death by firing squad is pretty fucking metal.
It's this view which is sadly the majority. I'm sure if surveys were done now there would be a majority both supporting the death penalty in Indonesian and it's reintroduction in Australia. No doubt this same majority would be the ones who on the ANU poll from earlier this week supported harsher treatment against 'illegals'.
PhantomZone
Member
Well gee a life or death struggle with people in need after a natural disaster or the plight of CONVICTED DRUG TRAFFICKERS - which is more important ? Clearly Nepal should take precedent,.
It is actually possible to care about two things at once.
PhantomZone
Member
Tell us more Mr Humanity :
This issue is history now, at least until the next idiot traveler does the wrong thing. They too will get no sympathy for breaking an easy to follow law.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
PhantomZone has a point. Since we seem to have a limited amount of fucks to give, sports broadcasts and bulletins should be abolished so there's more time to cover important news.
cosigned
How did you manage to type this out whilst paralysed with concern about Nepal?
PhantomZone
Member
It's hard work I tells ya :-D
Wouldn't object to that, there's more to life than sport.
It's a waste of a life to go around smuggling drugs though!
PhantomZone
Member
Cor 'Strya mate, that's a funny one.Oh no crime of the century, may as well execute me
PhantomZone
Member
I'll be here all week, try the veal
Elaugaufein
Member
Well there's the argument for deterrent effect though conclusive and undisputed studies in this area are approximately 0. They are also largely conducted in the US because its pretty much the only place that both has the death penalty and a chance of the production of accurate figures on both crime (sadly for academic purposes there's not a great overlap between states with the death penalty and states with low corruption and reasonable transparency) and use of the death penalty.
As such they don't necessarily transfer since the death penalty in the states is basically only applied to crimes that almost by definition are never performed by people with reasonably normal mental health in normal circumstances (murder is almost always either a crime of passion (i.e punishment is not considered) or mental illness (i.e the mental process doesn't value punishment the same for one reason or another). So they really don't apply to potential deterrent effects on crimes that are entered into on a rational basis (like voluntarily selling drugs for economic gain). So yeah, there's not only no data in this context and there's extremely unlikely to be. The US legal system negates an economic rationale for execution for drug smuggling (due to the appeals process death sentences are more expensive than life imprisonment) and it's not likely to pass both popular and judicial muster on other grounds. And other regimes with it aren't likely to start providing transparent access to criminal and judicial data any time soon for the purposes of analysis.
There's also the containment of harm argument, but short of overturning the current legal system, the death penalty will always cost the state more than life imprisonment in the case of Australia. But it may well may be a more cost efficient way of containing harm in circumstances where the scrutiny for the death penalty is low. It should be noted that this will definitely come with what is likely to be a pretty horrifying false positive rate. The rate of false or faulty convictions in the US is pretty disturbing given the scrutiny applied (unfortunately crimes that carry the death penalty don't tend to be the ones that cause either investigative officers or juries to behave in an appropriately impartial manner).
Oh man there was a debate and I didn't even get an invite...Since no one wanted to hear my opinion, I'm just going to give it anyway just to spite everyone.
Sigh.
The reason that this leaves such a bitter taste in everyone's mouth is because it flies in the face of everything we believe. We understand that the entire penal system was designed as a method for punishment of wrongs. We used to be pretty bad in the West, up until the enlightenment we used to execute criminals for committing any crime. Petty theft used to earn you the rope.
Needless to say that this didn't sit right with people during the enlightenment, who were so sick of pointless executions that it sparked a revolution in crime and punishment that has lasted until today. The penal system was designed with punishment in mind, and that is an inescapable part of the system, but we started thinking differently. If we could punish people for wrongdoing and rehabilitate them so they can re-enter society then we should. The great prison reform movement has lasted up until today largely intact in the UK and Australia.
I have absolutely zero love for drugs, and I have even less love for drug smugglers, what they did was utterly reprehensible. That being said, did they really deserve to die for what they did? I have no doubt that if they were not caught they would have gone on to smuggle again, but they were caught and after ten years and their entire ordeal, does anyone honestly believe that if these men were released they would re-offend? What more could one want from someone who's made a terrible mistake? Should we condemn everyone who makes a mistake in the same manner? What's the point in having sentencing, or even courts?
I know everyone who reads this (so basically no one) will be like "duh", but I still think it deserves being spelled out.
Sigh.
The reason that this leaves such a bitter taste in everyone's mouth is because it flies in the face of everything we believe. We understand that the entire penal system was designed as a method for punishment of wrongs. We used to be pretty bad in the West, up until the enlightenment we used to execute criminals for committing any crime. Petty theft used to earn you the rope.
Needless to say that this didn't sit right with people during the enlightenment, who were so sick of pointless executions that it sparked a revolution in crime and punishment that has lasted until today. The penal system was designed with punishment in mind, and that is an inescapable part of the system, but we started thinking differently. If we could punish people for wrongdoing and rehabilitate them so they can re-enter society then we should. The great prison reform movement has lasted up until today largely intact in the UK and Australia.
I have absolutely zero love for drugs, and I have even less love for drug smugglers, what they did was utterly reprehensible. That being said, did they really deserve to die for what they did? I have no doubt that if they were not caught they would have gone on to smuggle again, but they were caught and after ten years and their entire ordeal, does anyone honestly believe that if these men were released they would re-offend? What more could one want from someone who's made a terrible mistake? Should we condemn everyone who makes a mistake in the same manner? What's the point in having sentencing, or even courts?
I know everyone who reads this (so basically no one) will be like "duh", but I still think it deserves being spelled out.
Elaugaufein
Member
That would be what I'm calling containment of harm, since someone imprisoned for life isn't going to be committing a crime again either.
Though if you're making this argument as a general argument towards execution, there's the problem of encouraging the wrong behavior: if a crime less than murder results in the death penalty it creates a strong incentive to murder any witnesses or anyone trying to apprehend you, after all what are they going to do ? Kill you twice ?
Loitering
Elaugaufein
Member
I read it and I was like "duh" but yeah I agree that it did deserve being spelled out.
That's the deterrence argument in reverse.
Elaugaufein
Member
It is but the weightings different, normal people don't usually take a life for reasons subject to rational evaluation (which is probably what minimizes its deterrent effect for capital crimes). But it is rational to take life to preserve your own (we even enshrine such in our legal system to an extent*) and there's no greater punishment available to offset that rational decision at that point.
*And we apply it on a societal level in the maintenance of a military. Unlike law enforcement officers (in theory) the purpose of the military is explicitly the killing of hostile forces for the preservation of our lives.
The strongest hypothesis within criminology (IIRC) is that deterrence is a significant factor in affecting behaviour, but that the severity of the punishment doesn't factor heavily.
Elaugaufein
Member
Do you have any references or names for that ? Not because I'm doubting but because I'd certainly be interested in reading up on the approach in criminology. I did a quick check for academic papers on this, a while back when we were discussing capital punishment before for some reason and the general take away was basically that flaws had been found in methodology for papers that found a correlation but its of course impossible to absolutely prove no correlation (I think its safe to say that in the US context there's no negative correlation but that's about it) but the papers I read were sociological (they seem to top the academic search results, probably because sociology is a larger field in academia and thus more likely to get citations).
I'll see what I can find, but what you're talking about is marginal deterrence to a T.
Edit: That was quicker than expected, here.
Elaugaufein
Member
Thanks.
PhantomZone
Member
They certainly did deserve to die under Indonesian law. And it was a step to ensure they won't re-offend.
In these times everyone has to be painted with the same brush, look at what happens in our system (particularly Victoria in recent years seeing criminals with major issues offending again with worse crimes than before).
Why did they deserve to die under Indonesian law? The death penalty is not the only sentence that's possible given the crime, do you have a good argument as to why the harshest penalty available should have been used in this case? Do you think that the harshest penalty should be used in every case? Do you agree with mandatory sentencing, for example? It's certainly a valid position to take, I'm not sure if it is your position, which is why I'm asking.
Also, a life sentence which no one in the world would've given two shits about, would have also prevented these men from re-offending, could you give me a good reason as to why that would have been an inappropriate punishment in this case?
- Status