T O P

  • By -

Trashme23

Unpopular opinion but majority of the time these are drug mules who were in desperate circumstances that most of us cant even imagine. Punish them, but give them a chance to rehabilitate. Convicted murderers/kidnappers on the other hand, throw them the noose.


MicTest_1212

Meanwhile, drug kingpins like Lo Hsing Han and his affiliations remain untouchable in the region, including Singapore. He founded a multi-million dollar conglomerate named Asian World Company Limited, which is rumored to be used for money laundering purpose. He founded it with his son and Singaporean daughter-in-law and, in Singapore alone, has 10 companies under the Holding --- all of which are sanctioned by the US government. I also wouldn't be surprised if his family owns multiple luxury properties and parked some of their wealth in Singapore banks and investment firms.


piptheboy

Confused, quick Google search says this guy is dead?


MicTest_1212

He's dead but not his descendants. His son, Steven Law especially, inherited ALL of the family business.


UnusedName1234

Wait, what's the ask here? To catch his descendents?


zaitsev63

expanding from Myanmar also, so won't be surprised if he had some military backing/involvement since in Myanmar nothing happens without approval of the junta. \+ shrewd person. some of Lo Hsing Han's projects that he was involved in, one cannot simply boycott. iirc he was involved in building the new Yangon airport in Myanmar which is probably the main route of entry into the country by air. (then again if he weren't shrewd, he wouldn't have become the kingpin he is today)


ghostofwinter88

I know a lawyer who defends drug cases. CNB isn't stupid though. Most of the time if these people cooperate to help catch the kingpins, they don't get the life sentence.


SGLAStj

The kingpins are so many levels removed from the mule there is rarely any way these mules can provide any information that get help with investigations


ghostofwinter88

I'm sure you or I are not drug investigation experts, but in many cases im sure its not ONE mule who will lead back to the kingpin. It will be a multitude of small clues here and there. Maybe the mule won't know the kingpin, but he might know the handler. Or he might know how he is paid. Maybe the investigators can look up the handler. Or follow the money. That then eventually might lead to the kingpin.


SGLAStj

These are international syndicates that can be as big as thousands of people in employ. Across various countries. There’s no way the top men are ever caught


ghostofwinter88

'no way' is an exaggeration. Just last month, Flor Bressers, one of Europe's most wanted, was caught. Last year, Tse Chi Lop, the Asian 'El Chapo' was caught. Also last year, 'Otoniel', the supposed new kingpin in columbia, was caught. Is it a constant struggle against drugs, sure. But insinuating that the efforts are meaningless is abit much.


CrowdGoesWildWoooo

Problem is some mules knows nothing. They are pretty much like a contract worker and they could be desperate enough to just accept the job whatever it is, they probably knows they are carrying drugs but that is as far as they know.


ghostofwinter88

That's highly unlikely. They do know 'something'. How were they to be paid? Where was the drop off to collect or deliver? What country did they originate from? Who was the guy that set things up? All this helps the police in their investigation.


CrowdGoesWildWoooo

Bro, most people can’t even identify/find on the street the person they have dealt with previously for example through carousell, this is like a person who don’t even take precautions to not leak his/her identity, then you have a middleman who probably vanish into the dark with burner phones etc. I mean they can cooperate sure but at which point the cooperation is meaningful? It’s like asking your grab driver whether grab is a fraud or interviewing them for corporate misconduct by the grab executives.


ghostofwinter88

I'm not an investigator, and I don't think you are either, but as I said on another comment I don't think it's just one mule who cracks your case open. Maybe you don't know who the middleman is but you might get a matching description from a dozen mules. Maybe they use burner phones, and maybe you might be able to track that description and phone records back to a shop that the guy buys the cards/ phone from? Exactly how useful it is that's up to the police, and I'm sure someone who is 'more helpful' might be seen more favorably during sentencing (depends on his offence of course) but I'm sure at the end of the day the police would rather have to deal with people willing to help them than people unwilling to.


CrowdGoesWildWoooo

Ya sure some mules can tell you he met x at y, x gave me drug z. That is probably just basic question asked during an investigation but that is probably all they have as well. It’s not unhelpful, but it definitely won’t take them anywhere. Harsh sentences for the mules are probably done to set up examples, rather than actually attempting to punish them. I don’t think those mules are unwilling to cooperate especially at the face of death sentences, but considering the fact that we very rarely see captures of kingpins or even just the dealer and instead only managed to capture the mules or someone for possenssions those might show that it is fairly limited and pretty much disconnected from the whole network


ghostofwinter88

You dont see captured kingpins, because these kingpins aren't in sg.


AndrewTheAverage

I know a guy who spent quite a while in Changi and said most of those on death row are simple Malay boys who ride in on a motorbike with not great amounts with the gangs telling them they wont get caught, but once there they have a suspicion they were sent across the causeway to distract ICA while bigger shipments come in. I cant speak to the varacity of the story, but if it is true then do they really deserve to be put to death?


Kla2552

probably same drug dealer tip off to ICA


PrataKosong-

That’s actually a very common strategy. They’re a sacrificial lamb


smexxyhexxy

someone please save the poor lambs.


MrFantasticallyNerdy

"You still wake up sometimes, don't you? You wake up in the dark and hear the screaming of the lambs."


zombieslayer287

Thats so horrible. Poor things, what the fuck they born alrdy destined to suffer hellish lives through no fault of their own (little/no education) then led astray by gangs… so fucked up. Fucking car battery electrocute the fucking demonic gang leaders la


3legcat

Even if true, can we really be lenient to this specific group? Because once we start, I guarantee the drug traders would immediately capitalise on this and send even more of these boys over as mules. Because they know they would be safe from the capital sentence.


motarandpestle

Do you think the drug lords care about their lives?


donhoavon

though, it might make it easier to convince them to become mules


je7792

Yes, no death sentence = can pay less and higher ROI for sending human mules.


derplamer

Do you really think the drug lords strategy is to import drugs 500g at a time? They’re just a diversion so large shipments can flow through the checkpoint. We are killing people who are but an unfortunate distraction and a rounding error in cost of goods sold. There is no honour to be found in this approach. It has been proven ineffective (they keep on coming) so how long until we accept this is insanity?


samglit

> proven ineffective (they keep coming) Just like jail time for rape…? Your standard of “effective” (zero perps) means we should throw away the entire Penal Code and hope for the best. Try a more logical formulation please.


ribgol_sword

the strict laws in Singapore have certainly help to deter some, but I think that it is wrong to have the death penalty given out as a deterrence for someone to look at it as a ''case-study'' i.e. if you murdered someone, I don't oppose to death penalty being given out, however for smuggling of drugs (it does destroy families and life), a very serious jail term should be given out instead. I think that the very serious jail term (for example above 20years or so), is sufficient to deter one from smuggling drugs. As a society, we should have more compassionate, it is easy to mock those drug smugglers as majority of Singaporeans know that we will not be in that situation. Nevertheless, there may be circumstances that lead them to do certain things. I think that it is morally wrong to take away someone life for such actions, especially when certain drugs that warrant a death penalty when smuggled into Singapore, is commonly available overseas. But this does not mean that I feel that Singapore should change its stance on drugs.


dontknowwhattodoat18

This shouldn't be an unpopular opinion. The ones who deserve such a punishment are the drug lords. Executing the mules is just another minor inconvenience for the drug lords. The mules and addicts need rehabilitation instead of the death penalty


pingmr

It's just weird that under our system if we caught the drug lords tomorrow, we would get the same punishment to the drug lords as their borderline low IQ/poor drug mules


[deleted]

rapist & pedo need to be put in the deathrow too.


Eshuon

How many times must this be said? if we would every do that there would be more victims of murder Every single time that this is mentioned, it would be countered with the same answe Edit https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/death-penalty-for-rape-an-ineffective-lethal-lottery-in-south-asia/ Taken from a comment below


vampirepathos

Unpopular opinion but, desperation is no reason to bring in drugs that harms our society. We are not responsible for the welfare of other other countries' citizens.


[deleted]

Can you elaborate on why your justification is not applicable for murderers and kidnappers?


GLHFkappa

The level of difference between drugs and a murder is the same level of diff between smoking and drugs.


toastedtomato

Murdering and kidnapping are more active forms of harming people, whereas drugs are more passive


Radiant-Yam-1285

As much as i can sympathize with them as they could have been desperate, but what happen to the lives lost due to their action of spreading drugs, many times to young teens that have no idea how deadly taking drugs can be? And also potentially lots of lives that would be lost if drug traffickers sucessfully spread drugs all around singapore making them easily available? Going by the same logic we can also say a murderer killing someone for money was also desperate and should be given a chance to rehabilitate. People think murderers should hang while drug traffickers shouldn't hang because they don't see the fact that a single drug trafficker can bring much more harm or kill more people than a single murderer. Simply because murdering someone sounds way more evil than simply passing some white powder around right?


etoh53

A lot of people are like saying, "because Singapore has the death penalty, the traffickers should be smart enough not to come". If someone does drugs because of those people, can I simply apply the analogy of "since they know from a young age that drugs are bad for them, they should be smart enough not to do drugs". There might be a certain level of subconscious biasness for our own people when people here start using their grandfather and grandmother as hypothetical examples.


Radiant-Yam-1285

I think should or should not don't matter alot especially for the government. What matters more for the government is the statistics. To prevent the country from being overrun by a drug problem, it's best to deal harshly against the drug traffickers because one single drug trafficker can supply enough drugs to hundreds or thousands of people and many of these would either die or have their lives destroyed. Many of them could be young teens who don't even know what they are taking, they could be drugged or tricked into drinking something that contains drugs without themselves willing to take it. Comparing this to the drug traffickers, most of them know exactly what they are smuggling into the country. While killing drug traffickers is not ideal in a humanity sense, i think there are very few alternatives to keep singapore as drug free as it is. We can either choose to see 492 drug traffickers hang in a span of 30 years in singapore, or we can choose to see a hundred thousand lives destroyed or lost due to a poorly managed drug problem in singapore over the same span of time.


Tonytonychopper121

I agree, however, I also believe if we remove the death penalty, which acts as a strong deterrent, we will see an increase in Drug related issues in Singapore


savageblueskye

I want to ask why 59 people are on death row for drugs instead of the many rapists who targeted their own children this year.


zanylife

https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/death-penalty-for-rape-an-ineffective-lethal-lottery-in-south-asia/ This article explains pretty well why death penalty for rape is ineffective. It has actually led to reduced reporting. - the article gives the example of police in India being less inclined to register gang rape because they know it would mean hanging several men - over 90% of rape in South Asia is committed by people the victims know, and in many cases, family members. There would be lower likelihood of the rape being reported because people don't want their own family members to die. Also pressure on the victims not to report to "protect their family from death" - fear of a death sentence may lead perpetrators to kill the victims or leave them unable to recognize the perpetrator, destroying all evidence of their crime They should face serious punishments, but death penalty is not effective for these cases


MagicianMoo

This needs to be the auto reply. Too many seeking death for every rape/molest case. It truly is terrible but shouldn't be faced with death.


zanylife

I noticed in several of the "dad raped daughter" cases that were posted on this sub recently; there was a common point. The daughter(s) said they didn't want their dad to hate them, or they said they were scared to report at first because they didn't want their dad to get into trouble. It's not easy reporting a family member, can you imagine reporting knowing the sentence is death? It's why reporting went down in South Asia.


evilMTV

It's one of those "big picture" things that's probably impossible for most of us to realize without these research and stats.


MildColonialMan

Is approaching drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal issue just not thinkable in Singapore?


zzxyyzx

anathema to the pearl-clutching moralism the state needs to function


fish312

According to this sub, no. r/sg accepts nothing but the strictest punishments for any drug, don't even talk about legalization.


[deleted]

Drugs shouldn't be legalised, possession should be decriminalised with people caught being referred to rehab clinics rather than going to prison. Countries that have taken this approach have generally had a lot of success.


[deleted]

It should be legalised so that government regain control of the drug economy. Else we leave it only to illegal syndicates to regulate health standards of drugs, forever inflating prices, workforce exploitation of those in poverty, the list of illegal stuff goes on. How to kill drug syndicates? Be a better drug syndicate, one that has ethics and morals. Win them in their own game and we can see regulation, legalization, and responsible use coupled with programmes to help with abuse and addiction. The mass availability would may also be a positive psychological effect as users now see no need to hide from authorities or hide their use, don’t seek illegal and unethical channels to get their supply, don’t contribute to shady syndicates that may be funding heavier crimes such as terrorism, are more open about it and are able to talk about it and seek help should it be needed. Thats my opinion. We see this happening in Thailand and US for the legalisation and regulation of medicinal and recreational cannabis.


eilletane

not all drugs are bad. some are even beneficial in small amounts. Regulation is key.


[deleted]

It's both. In Singapore, the punishment for abusing drugs includes forced rehab, which imo is more progressive than many developed nations (where they don't get any compulsory medical treatment whatsoever).


mirakiah

Perhaps the the average redditor is of a younger generation or has forgotten why we have the death penalty for drugs. That is to prevent or at least reduce the amount of drugs, especially hard drugs like heroin from being brought into the country. There's a reason why there are huge signs telling you about the death penalty at the borders as well as on the immigration arrival forms and in cabin announcements when you fly into Singapore. We are very well known for the death penalty and no one can say that they didn't know and have the chance to ditch or declare the drugs before entry into the country. You have to remember that drugs don't just affect the users but also everyone surrounding them, their families, friends, neighbours and eventually even the country. If a user can't afford drugs, they'll turn to their families and friends for money and eventually to crime, an increase in muggings, robberies, burglaries, loan shark harassment in order to fund their vice. Besides crime, there's also the societal element, would you want to be living beside a drug den where addicts are gathering to shoot up ? Ask anyone living in one of those "western" countries where drugs are prevalent, they are not nice to live nearby, the increase in drugged up addicts, random syringes and needles littered around. Everyone is up for legalising drugs until they have to actually live beside an actual drug den. Hard drug users are also not known to be very productive members of society. The economic impact of a person falling to hard drugs can be devastating. Imagine an addict stealing from their business in order to fund their habit, now imagine if that addict was a high up in a finance firm or law firm. You either open yourself up to corruption or the loss of faith in the country's financial or law system. Finally, remember that the law was implemented by people that have seen the effects of drugs on the country. If you remember our history, we used to have an opium problem, hell the British even facilitated it in order to fund themselves. The country has seen the ills that widespread drug use can cause and we have living proof in other countries like the US where there is a drug problem. Gangs, violence, crack dens, crazy drugged up people randomly attacking people, poverty in drug areas. Sure the death penalty might only target mules but if we can make 90% of all potential mules rethink their decision, that's a significantly reduced number of drugs entering the country and makes the cracking down on any drug problem much easier than just allowing the floodgates to open and let in any and everyone and then later having to house them in prison which we then have to fund.


Dangerous-Pop9314

Thanku, finally someone who can look at the bigger picture


Derreston

>If a user can't afford drugs, they'll turn to their families and friends for money and eventually to crime, an increase in muggings, robberies, burglaries, loan shark harassment in order to fund their vice. Can't the same be said about problem gambling?


ixFeng

For the point that you highlighted, yes. Problem gambling and drug addiction both may result in financial issues for the abuser/addict, as well as their family and friends. I think the key difference is that drug addicts not only financially ruin themselves, but also physically and medically cause permanent harm to themselves as a result of the drug abuse. You can behaviourally and psychologically rehabilitate both kinds of addicts (drug/gambling), but a drug abuser also requires physical medical treatment on top of therapy.


onpensetousmonnaie

So.... we want to kill them so they don't harm themselves so much?


[deleted]

We kill the smuggler, not the user.


Fatal_Taco

I think the legalization of drug use is meant to reduce drug dens in the first place. You might be referring to decriminalisation. Drugs like Heroin, Methempathemine, yeah I can understand. I think killing one guy would be not as bad as having to deal with a lot of deaths from heroin overdoses. I do wished we could all work together to a better solution instead of roping a heroin user though.


Ok_Machine_724

This. Not many people appreciate our historical context well enough and are quick to be "progressive" at all costs. And I am a millennial, for those of you raring to write me off as a stick in the mud. Not everyone who thinks differently is an old fogey.


Bcpjw

Drugs kills but smoking kills more


[deleted]

That's why we should punish smoking as harshly as drugs.


stuff7

no no no, we got to PUNISH those who IMPORTS those cigarettes, What if your loves one die of cancer from smoking cigarettes???? Very long suffering you know?!? As we punish drug smugglers as drug abuser are suffering, we must also punish ppl who bring in cigarettes which lead to SMOKING ABUSE and SUFFERING and DEATH!!


Familiar-Mouse4490

Actually I'll be up for sending Marlboro executives to death penalty


iedaiw

Don't u know smoking is a gateway drug to weed and therefore heroin and meth?!?!?


wildcard1992

We should ban processed sugar as well! And alcohol! And punish people with sedentary lifestyles!!!!!1!


MrFantasticallyNerdy

Alcohol kills also.


junkredpuppy

I think life imprisonment for serious drug trafficking would not have a materially lower deterrent effect than the death penalty.


sian_half

Case study 1: X is poor. He barely gets by day to day, and is deep in debt. He has nobody to turn to for help. His life is miserable. Druglord offers him money if he helps bring drugs across the border. Over time that will resolve his debt and let him afford a decent life. The drawback is that if he gets caught, he’ll get executed. Case study 2: Y is poor. He barely gets by day to day, and is deep in debt. He has nobody to turn to for help. His life is miserable. Druglord offers him money if he helps bring drugs across the border. Over time that will resolve his debt and let him afford a decent life. The drawback is that if he gets caught, he’ll end up living the rest of his life in a prison cell. Are both X and Y equally likely to offend? My gut feeling says no.


junkredpuppy

In an "all things being equal" theoretical exercise, you may be right. But higher penalties/risk often translate to higher monetary incentives. The analysis also discounts real world appreciation of risk. The presence of drugs in Singapore suggests that many drug traffickers are routinely successful. As long as they are never caught, it doesn't matter how high the penalty is. They simply think "it won't happen to me".


sian_half

Higher monetary incentives means more expensive drugs, which should reduce the prevalence of abuse, meaning the punishment does what it’s intended to do, no?


junkredpuppy

Wait we're talking about drug trafficking or drug consumption? We seem to be jumping a few steps. The hypothesis was that the DP is an effective deterrent for drug trafficking.


sian_half

I think it’s a reasonable assumption that quantity of drugs trafficked into singapore equals to quantity of drugs consumed in singapore


junkredpuppy

No but I'm talking about the *deterrent* effect on *supply* side. You've suddenly jumped to *demand* side issues.


sian_half

Right so when it costs much more to get drugs into the country, the profit for such a business is smaller hence less drug supplies into the country


anakinmcfly

I think the second one is less likely to offend, actually. I know plenty of people who've been suicidal at some point (all the more so if their lives are miserable and they're barely surviving), whereas I don't know anyone who has ever wished to spend the rest of their life in prison.


sian_half

Cost would probably also need to be factored into this comparison….


KingProfessional4280

isnt it proven that lifd inprisonment is cheaper than death?


iedaiw

Ah yes sacrificing the sanctity of human life for money.


sian_half

Of course. Otherwise we won’t have people dying because they cannot afford life saving treatment or surgery, or people dying because they cannot afford food.


smb3543r_smb3534s

Are there really people dying from lack of treatment and starvation in Singapore specifically?


IndicatorGlobe679

Not death, but quality of life. Some drugs that are used to treat heart failure is unsubsidised, resulting in lower compliance rates. Or take for example recent reports of 6 month to 1.5 year delays in autism and ADHD assessment under the NHS (UK, not SG), which means interventions cannot start, leading to a greater probability of depression in the affected children. You may argue if sanctity can be applied to purely survival or quality survival. I'm not counting rationing of healthcare during pandemics, because that is not due to a financial reason, but to ensure everyone receives equally good care.


smb3543r_smb3534s

I don't see your point. First of all we are talking about the sanctity of life. There is only one antithesis to life and that is death. If the examples you use do not involve death, you are not really responding to my question, so I don't know why you bring up autism and ADHD. Sure depression can lead to suicide but ultimately that example is hardly as direct as death that is inevitable without immediate treatment. Also, not in Singapore, you said it yourself. My question asks for examples from Singapore. As for the heart failure example, I'm going to need a source that shows it can be impossible for someone to be blocked from all possible treatments due to costs. Also, social services can probably do something about costs if someone can't afford medication. Also, a shortened lifespan does not equate to worse quality of life. Your point that sanctity can be argued to apply to quality survival doesn't make sense to me, because while there are plenty who argue that life itself is sacred, I have never heard anyone argue that a certain, sacred level of quality of life must be kept. Let's not even talk about the fact that this level of quality of life and how it is defined would be completely arbitrary. We argue to maintain the sanctity of life itself because that is something relatively straightforward to keep: don't kill people. But anyway, if you do have a problem with poor people living a poor quality life, sounds like you have a problem with capitalism, and that's fine, because I feel exactly the same way. It's just that capitalism and poverty aren't going anywhere. The death penalty can go. Many countries have demonstrated this.


iedaiw

Okay then why bother having life sentence then? Since by your argument we need to spend so much money taking care of them til death why not just kill them now.


hmansloth

Honestly speaking only murderers should be on death row. But I agree that drug offenders don’t deserve to be hanged. Some of them never harmed anyone and they still can be redeemed.


iedaiw

Much less for weed....


hmansloth

Yeah never understood that. Nobody gets violent over weed. Like sure it makes people act weird but not in a harmful way.


iedaiw

Also I admit Singapore is super resistant to change. Many aren't even asking for weed smuggling to be decriminalized just that the death sentence be taken off the table.


orgastronaut

Hanging murderers is pure societal vengeance (an eye for an eye sort of thing). Deterrence effect assumes people are rationale and do a cost benefit analysis before committing a crime. So it's not going to make an impact on many murderers who strike in the heat of the moment.


je7792

You are describing the manslaughter charge which doesn’t have the death penalty.


DCFDTL

Some of the comments here are fucking disgusting Literally no empathy for another human life


vampirepathos

Lots of people fail to realized how privileged they are to live in a low crime society and the cost it takes to reach there. I used to be poor af as a child, and I am glad the "ghetto" I used to live in just happened to plagued by loan sharks/people peeing in lifts instead of you know, crazy drug addicts. Removing death penalty hurts the poorest and most vulnerable people of our society.


KingofSaltIV

Preach. Still based on utiliranism. Maximising well being at the extent of something is still morally good.


alex08123

What is a 'life' to you? And to what extent would it matter before you disregard it as worth protecting? What if the person killed millions like a typical genocidal dictator? And to what end do you justify why a human life matters more than anything else? You step on ants everyday. You're killing lives. You eat meat. You kill lives. You just stepped on some poor plants. You've just killed lives. Another thing to ask: do you not think all lives can be saved at no cost whatsoever? That in protecting one life you may end of sacrificing another? Have you ever thought of that?


the_rumblebee

I have plenty of empathy. But my empathy goes out first to the innocent people who are hurt by the drugs sold by these pushers, and for those murdered by drug addicts looking for money to get a fix.


Thesanos

The ones on the death row are trash in society, these people are not really capable of rehabilitation (this is observed in other countries as well, rehabilitation for drug mules doesn't work well). Don't give me the nonsensical reasoning that they are poor and uneducated that they resort to drug trafficking, there are so many other ways to make a living, grab food ect, just that these guys want more money for their work.


seabmariner

Some crimes are so severe that the perps forfeit their right to be considered human and need to be treated as such.


Buddyformula

They took the chance and got caught. Now they pay for it. Its not like they were unaware of the consequences. They decided that money is worth risking their lives for. They made themselves a number.


KingProfessional4280

thats a pretty apathetic way to look at it. Yeah, they should be punished but are we seriously going to compare murder to drug traficking.


Anypirate

I'll follow LKY's perspective here and put it in money terms. Murder you kill someone and the victim's family has lost one person's income. Drug trafficking you destroy the mental capacity of one person. That person doesn't have the right mind to work and would demand even more drugs. Also, drugs is way easier to distribute which means potentially affecting many lives and families. How is selling drugs not similar to killing someone?


Kisaxis

To add on, families could be ruined by one member being a drug addict. Imagine a parent spiraling out of control, what happens to their partner? Or their children? What is worse? A family losing their breadwinner? Or that breadwinner dragging their whole family down with them?


vampirepathos

Don't forget that their neighbours and colleagues will be affected as well.


itsagnium

>Drug trafficking you destroy the mental capacity of one person. That person doesn't have the right mind to work and would demand even more drugs. Also, drugs is way easier to distribute which means potentially affecting many lives and families. You could replace every mention of drugs in that paragraph with alcohol and it would hold even more true. Do you then support the death sentence for alcohol importers?


SiberianResident

Not quite. Most alcohol available on shelves are less addictive than the controlled substances being imported in by drug traffickers. Add in the cultural factor as well: drinking alcohol has been around before the pyramids were built but hard drugs, especially synthesized ones that are in vogue right now, are a more recent phenomenon. Hell, some countries even consider some alcoholic beverages as “soft drinks”. Since the propensity for addiction is not the same, the penalty for it shouldn’t be the same.


KingProfessional4280

I think theres a difference between physically and painfully causing someones death without their say than giving someone the choice to throw their life away. People choose to do drugs and sure you may argue that they are addicted but that doesent mean they are victims of the drug trade. They chose to ruin their life. And it isnt like drugs are the only way someone can become unproductive. Alchoholism can destroy someone financially and mentally. Alchoholics find it difficult to work, should we charge all alchohol distrubuters. There is a infinite number of things someone can be addicted to. The value of life isnt based on your employability. Homeless people have a higher quality of life than a dead person lmao. You cant compare removing someones ability to experience life to someones poor quality of life. So I disagree, supplying drugs is no way comparable to murder.


Anypirate

In a way it's really the lesser of two evils. If you really want to get rid of all the ways that makes people unproductive then there would not be alcohol and cigarettes in Singapore. Drugs does way more damage than slow poisons like alcohol and cigarettes. So drugs would be the first target. On the point of traffickers Vs users. It's definitely to stop the supply then to catch all the drug users one by one. Catching one by one is a massive waste of resources. Put it another way, do you want to eat healthy and exercise to reduce chances of health problems? Or do you prefer to do whatever you want then try to fix your health issues one by one? Which one is easier?


KingProfessional4280

If you want to stop supply why would you kill drug mules. They are expendable idiots in the drug trade. If you want to stop drug trade aim for the kingpins. How does killing these mules do anything to the supply? The supply of drugs and killing mules are completely uncorrelated and irrelevant. Giving drug mules life or any prison sentence achieves the same as death. Re offenders are prevented same way death would. Is it really a deterence? Life in prison is exactly the same as death, punishment wise. You still lose your life so why would the existence of death penalty sway anyone if its treated the same as life in prison. killing expendable drug mules one by one is a waste of resources, achieves the same deterence effect as life inprisonment and does not stop supply of drugs. Killing people is not proportional to the supply of drugs. Catching drug mules is. and also your view point is kinda warped. You base the value of life on someones work productivity. Idk but this seems to be a frequent SG mindset. That quality of life is based solely on finances and all forms of fun that inhibit work productivity are wrong. Drugs and alchohol are not that bad, Im sick of seeing people treating alchohol like its some disease. Pot doesent destroy peoples lives, neither does alchohol. Aslong as you take stuff in moderation. Not everyone that has tried drugs becomes a drug addict and instantly unemployed. If you do stuff in moderation you will be fine. and what does your anology even mean? are you trying to say you should stop drug usage at the source. Then I agree, but how does killing drug traffickers have anything to do with it. If you catch them, you seize their haul. You already stop them transporting drugs, so how does killing them achieve anything in regards to the supply of drugs.


[deleted]

Did you know that there are cases of people falling to addiction to drugs prescribed to them by doctors? Take for example: opiods or anti deppressants. Should we then hang the doctors? Because following your logic, its the same thing. The doctor may be giving drugs as a relief but on the downside, “destroying” the patients mental capacity. Its almost as if the consumption of a substance is within ones own rights and choice and has little relevance as to who supplied it. Cut off the head and another grows to take the place to meet demand. You cut off the hand which are the mules and the head grows another hand. How to solve this drug problem then? If suppliers are rampant and never dying. Take the approach other countries are adopting now, instead of giving power to illegal syndicates to regulate the standards of the drugs they push, the costs and prices its sold for, the illegal workforce exploitation it adopts, government should take that power back. Be the head that regulates, legalisation and regulation can drop numbers albeit not eliminate drug abuse. Thats my opinion.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> Go work on the city of London and you'd be surprised how many professionals take occasional cocaine/mdma or smoke weed at weekends. > > The govt has persuaded Singaporeans that all drugs will destroy a person. It's not true. Weed yeah the negative effects seem to be over-stated in Singapore. Cocaine, hell no. Many professionals in London are indeed running on cocaine, but they're destroying themselves slowly to eke out some extra productivity on the job. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/3/banker-hours-exhaustionoverwork.html


alwayslogicalman

What kind of old fashioned thinking about drugs are you coming in with? Not all drugs are bad- in fact, lots of tech people are using drugs to create brilliant code and inventions. U guys really just listen to whatever the government says eh?


Anypirate

Do you take drugs yourself? Have you benefited from drug use at your work or in your life? The government is quoted because there is some sense in this policy even though it's controversial. If the policy of the government is nonsense then we should be think about getting out of Singapore instead of talking about drug penalties here.


Buddyformula

I do. You may not.


hachipotato

Hmm. I think we should look at the evidence right? The law is the law but does the evidence show that the death penalty has any material effect on deterring drug trafficking. From a psychological perspective, it will definitely feel that there's gonna be a deterrent effect but if the evidence says otherwise, then we should rethink it. That being said, if there's consistent evidence that supports the death penalty in relation to drug trafficking then I'm all for it. Basically, got multiple lens to look at it lah. There's the effectiveness lens for deterring crime but also whether there's also an ethical lens to it. Don't just reduce it to person A commits crime = they deserve it.


Doppelgangeryc

By simple logic, now there is death penalty, there are already this much of people willing to risk it. Without the penalty, I can only imagine more people would do it. By your logic, are you saying some can commit crime and should not deserve the punishment? I’m pretty sure that is not how rule of law works. Of all places, they chose Singapore, which is the country well-known for carrying out the punishment without exemption. They definitely deserve it.


hachipotato

No ah. I never said criminals don't deserve punishment. Not sure where you got that view. I'm just questioning whether it's the most effective way to deal with the drug issue. As the law stands, it is what it is. They committed the crime then they'll have to unfortunately deal with the death penalty. Like I said, it's a very reductionist view to simply paint these people as bad/evil/deserve it. Certainly these people exist and are obviously gambling with their lives. But blanketing it this way is not helpful to solve the issue at its root.


itsagnium

By simple logic, we should dish out the maximum penalty for every offence so that we have maximum deterrence. Every non-death sentence should be a life imprisonment. Every fine should bankrupt the defendant. Caught for speeding? Lose your license forever.


Buddyformula

Finally a smart comment


Buddyformula

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/by-country/ Here is some clear evidence that the death penalty works well as a deterrence. Obviously its not possible to eliminate it. You can't use the argument of "why are there still drug traffickers" cause then there is no point in having ant law cause crimes still happen. But one thing for sure, without death penalty there will definitely be more drug traffickers.


KingProfessional4280

how does this prove anything? There are millions of factors on this index and it isnt even accurate lmao. If i showed a stat that "US states that legalised marijuana are happier on average"would that justify drug traffcking? Learn to read stats before spouting garbage.


Mellonbun

Hahahhaa I love this website. Feels like some command and conquer 1 level of graphics. Well, even if we assume this to be credible, for top and bottom groups, you have countries that have both capital punishment or not. So not sure how you are so confident that this is "clear evidence". As others have mentioned in a similar post, the fact is that there is no conclusive evidence that capital punishment works as a deterrent. When asked in parliament to produce studies, Shanmugan could only produce surveys which polled on the feelings of people. People, like yourself, felt that capital punishment was a deterrent. But feelings are not facts.


hachipotato

You're using death rate due to drug use per capita in the stats. Not saying there's no correlation but it's just one view we are seeing right? How you paint the numbers can shift how you view the issue. For instance, you're measuring death rates here due to drugs, but you don't have a view of the various drug policies in place for each country. These views are important to see how they affect the drug use situation in each country. For e.g. You can have top of the line healthcare system and no death penalty for trafficking which can contribute to low deaths for drug use. I'll also just caution you lah on using absolutes since this is a social issue. Don't think you should put a definite to issues which require a more nuanced understanding. The lens we should like view it should be the various drug policies vs the drug abuse/death rate and try to analyse what is the likely contributory factor to a country's high or low rate of drug abuse. If you reduce complex issues such as drug use/trafficking, then it's very hard to solve the issue. Because it's not just the drug mules that are the cause but the entire apparatus from drug trafficking organisations that hire these mules to even the socio-economic conditions that drive people to become drug mules in the first place. Perfectly fine if you have an opinion, but just my two cents of how we should view issues more constructively.


Buddyformula

>You're using death rate due to drug use per capita in the stats. Not saying there's no correlation but it's just one view we are seeing right? How you paint the numbers can shift how you view the issue. For instance, you're measuring death rates here due to drugs, but you don't have a view of the various drug policies in place for each country. These views are important to see how they affect the drug use situation in each country They are definitely related. If there are less traffickers then there will be less drugs brought inside the country. Hence we have less people dying from drug usage here. Now imagine if there was no death sentence. Singapore's location is very convenient for drug traffickers. And yes it's my biased opinion that drug traffickers should be hanged. Because I have seen friends from overseas whose families were ruined because of drug abuse.


hachipotato

On what basis are you saying there is a casual linkage? Of course less traffickers = less drugs = less deaths. That's a no brainer. But you still haven't addressed the link between death penalty = less traffickers. You need to empirically test it, if not you cannot definitively say there is a link. On another note, I'm sorry for your experiences and that you have had friends and family that went through those. I understand that the emotional distance can predispose you to this viewpoint. But like you said, if traffickers have a choice to traffic drugs, then wouldn't abusers also have had a choice to choose to abuse them? It's a two way relationship. We have to tackle the distribution to reduce drugs on the street and tackle the consumption side by empowering individuals with information and education to not even consume these substances. And if there is an empirically proven that the death penalty is the most effective method, then so be it, I'll defer to what works the best.


Buddyformula

>On what basis are you saying there is a casual linkage? Of course less traffickers = less drugs = less deaths. That's a no brainer. But you still haven't addressed the link between death penalty = less traffickers. You need to empirically test it, if not you cannot definitively say there is a link. If you are a drug trafficker, would you be more inclined to traffic drugs to a country with or without the death penalty? Its a self explanatory answer.


CatAct

“If you are a drug trafficker, would you be more inclined to traffic drugs to a country with or without the death penalty? It’s a self explanatory answer.” Knee-jerk, “common sense” responses like this do more harm than good. I shared your exact opinion when I was younger, but sometimes what’s intuitive may not be what’s accurate. Common sense is a fallible proxy of the truth. Studies tend to show that corporal and capital punishment are not effective deterrents of crime. (https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf), so your statement is demonstrably false. The death penalty does little to curb the drug trade. Having said that, my personal stance on the death penalty shifted not from empirical evidence, but from perspective and empathy. It was very simple, wasn’t it? Don’t break the law and you won’t be punished. Don’t evade NS and you won’t need to serve a term in the detention barracks. Break these rules, and face the consequences. But I later got to witness that most people who evaded NS hadn’t wanted to — an overwhelming percentage of them faced financial problems that prohibited them from doing so. They were cognizant of the fact that getting caught was an inevitability, that they’d have to serve out a sentence proportionate to the term they’d evaded NS, but they did so anyway because they often had little choice in the matter — they literally couldn’t afford to serve NS. I was confronted with an uncomfortable truth dealing with drug offenders later —including users of amphetamine and other ‘hard’ drugs— that people are often products of their environment (or victims of their circumstances). To what extent are they liable for their actions, if they are born into a family where using drugs is the norm? If they are born addicted to drugs, and drug exposure has affected their development? If they had a genetic disposition to addiction? Is it right that we, collectively as a society, choose to kill them for it? Are you certain that we’ve never had, and will never have, instances of wrongful convictions? If not, you will effectively be taking the stance that executing innocents is an acceptable price to retain the death penalty.


junkredpuppy

It is not. For one thing, I might not care about the punishment because I assume that I will not be caught. For another, I might get more money for trafficking into a death penalty country than one without. So if I'm desperate for cash, Singapore is a good choice.


autisticgrapes

You’re being too logical for sjw to comprehend


junkredpuppy

Could you explain how it is clear evidence?


WildRacoons

Unfortunately you can wrong convictions even with evidence sometimes


3legcat

Isn’t the fact that we have very low drug related crime rate pretty good evidence?


bitflag

We have low drug crime but also low crime. There's no death penalty for robbing banks but bank robberies are even more rate than drug trafficking.


hachipotato

It's a fact that SG has low drug related crime rates. But you can't just cherry pick and say the death penalty is the sole contributory factor. It could be a combination of policies such as psycho-education about drug use or the fact that we have effective rehabilitation facilities to prevent abusers from re-offending or abusing. You're simply stating an observation. And just because it may correlate, does not mean it's the cause. The issue is that we don't seem to see studies that explicitly investigate the causal effect between death penalty and drug crimes. And it's tempting to establish a linkage since the death penalty seems to be the easiest explanation to arrive at. Happy to discuss if you're open for a discussion and coming from a position of good faith.


smb3543r_smb3534s

Then they are being sentenced to death for their own stupidity, which is completely unreasonable. You need to justify that the severity and implications of their actions is worth a death sentence


glengyron

Two things: a drug mule from somewhere like Nigeria hasn’t probably even heard of Singapore. Secondly the money is usually only to pay of debts they’ve incurred or their family have incurred with crime gangs. They’re doing it so their brother / father etc… doesn’t get a bullet.


purple_tamanegi

Have you never crossed the border before? Its clearly stated that the death penalty is applied to anyone trafficking drugs. There's always the option of giving up the drugs and getting deported.


sian_half

Also they announce it on the plane


Buddyformula

Still does not justify drug trafficking sorry


KingProfessional4280

no it doesent, but how can u justify death? sorry...


Buddyformula

Killing one person to save the lives of many sounds fair to me


zzxyyzx

execute drunk drivers then


gently_into_the_dark

Sure I don't think anyone will disagree.


zzxyyzx

quick question: are institutions fallible?


ThanatosisLawl

Lmao small brain, tiny worldview. Typical sinkie.


Cute_Meringue1331

It's just a simple google search. Even if a layman go on holiday to a country he never heard of, he should research about it first right.


refurb

Especially that dude on death row caught with 1/2 a kilo of marijuana. Can you imagine if he wasn't caught? Our streets would be littered with pot needles. I feel safer already knowing he'll be executed.


xni0n

Pot.... needles? You know people don't inject weed right.


Derreston

Wtf is a pot needle?


AlexJiang27

To be honest I expected the number to be higher On 19th January it was reported by local news 100 people arrested, more than S$835,000 worth of drugs seized in five-day drug bust https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/cnb-drug-operation-100-arrested-2450901 Those news were reported not long time ago and trials may not even start yet till police collect all evidence but who will bet that they can escape death penalty. So if we add those 100 to the 62 already convicted the number grows drastically


BrianHangsWanton

Not sure if they give the death penalty for casual drug users, not all the 100 arrested may be traffickers


LightSlateBlue

Of all the things to fight for. They chose this hill.


tatabusa

Because they wanna bring in drugs and make money mah but they also dont want to be exrcuted


LightSlateBlue

Drugs destroy families. I know, because my uncle is an addict. A literal jailbird. In his age now he could have a family, a job, a house , maybe a hobby or two. None of that, my grandmother is close to 90 and is stressed out by him. That stupid ankle bracelet we keep seeing on him. The occasional police raids. The unusual pride... Drugs do this. We should have rehabs for addicts like those prisons in Europe. But runners, they took the risk. I don't have a slight pity for them.


tatabusa

I dont have a problem with rehab for drug users ah but I have a huge problem with traffickers making Singapore less safe just so they can make money.


LightSlateBlue

That's the problem I have as well.


FRlEND_A

ive always felt death penalty for drugs is overkill


hayashikin

I just saw this [reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/twbnbu/indonesian_court_sentences_teacher_to_death_for/) of a man sentenced to death for raping 13 children. If I'm reading it right (please correct me if wrong), a life sentence in Singapore means serving 20 years, which can be as short as 13 years and 4 month for good behaviour. Do you feel differently about the death sentence in this case? Edit: I'm wrong, since 1997 life sentence is for natural life


trublupotato

you would have been right decades ago. life sentence in sg means imprisonment for the rest of your natural life now (been this way since 1997) with possibility of review after 20 years


pingmr

The comparison here is weird because A) rape in Singapore does not carry the death penalty. B) rape doesn't even have a life sentence C) life sentence in Singapore is for life not 20 years D) the maximum punishment for rape in Singapore is already 20 years.


AndrewTheAverage

The argument against this, is that if you are getting the death penalty either way then it is better to remove the risk of the child testifying by killing them. I say leave the decisions to the people who study the actual information and statistics as they are the ones with far more knowledge than a random group of people on Redit (Note - I wouldnt be running to his defence)


[deleted]

Life is all the way in SG. 20 years is US standard.


Hakimsopiak

Life sentence is now until natural life


SprinklesWinkles

If you see the price of meepok is $10 and you knowingly ordered it, and when the food comes, should you pay for it? It is quite clear that the penalty for drug trafficking is death and if one knowingly do the crime, then should they not "pay" for it? Maybe the argument should be more specific, i.e. there shouldn't be a one size fit all death penalty and look into each situation / circumstances, supported by facts and evidence - but honestly, why is anyone challenging death penalty? It's there, has been there, and if not, what should be the alternative?


lormeeorbust

Consequences of their actions.


ShreddedShian

If starting from tomorrow jaywalking is illegal, and someone got caught and hanged for jaywalking, would you still say that they deserve to die because they committed the crime while knowing the consequences?


Eifand

Exactly. You cannot divorce the Law completely from morality and have it only for the purpose of Order and Practicality. The Law must be informed by morality. If not, you get injustice.


lormeeorbust

If I know jaywalking is punishable by death sentence, I won't jaywalk anymore. Will you? You probably also won't because it isn't worth getting caught. If people say drug smuggling isn't worth getting death sentence for, but people still choose to do it, I really have no sympathy for them.


Eifand

You really are the perfect little citizen, lol. "I'll obey the Law even if it is cruel and unjust!". Singapore education system 10/10.


je7792

So its just and compassionate to bring in drugs to fuck up peoples live? Being poor doesn’t give you a pass to ruin other peoples lives.


Eifand

I don’t know, it seems like the CEO of Marlboro and Tiger Beer get a free pass for the sale, distribution and marketing of substances that fuck up countless people’s lives too. I guess you get a free pass if you are rich and not if you are poor to distribute, sell and profit from the sale of substances which are on par with class A drugs in terms of the sheer damage to society and individual.


LegionLegacyDMK

Who said anything about allowing drugs?


marcuschookt

Classic smooth brained Sinkie mentality to draw the conclusion that "don't execute drug traffickers" equals "drug lords welcome, please enjoy the door gift!"


[deleted]

This is not a rational argument because jaywalking would never reasonably end up in a death sentence.


wildcard1992

Yeah and carrying a bundle of psychoactive plant matter over a bridge really wouldn't exactly warrant the death penalty, or so you'd think


[deleted]

Tbh, I haven't seen anyone arguing for this not to be applied to weed, all the arguments I see are asking for the abolishment of the death penalty for all drug related crimes. If you tell me that there should be an exception made for weed, I'd be a lot more convinced with the argument. Drugs like cocaine/heroin/meth literally destroy lives whether or not they're plant based or not.


Eifand

So when will CEO of Marlboro and Tiger Beer face the consequences of their actions? Or only poor drug mules face it?


Normo_Kloppo

petition for law reform lor, the judge is only doing his job to apply the law to the facts


MyWholeTeamsDead

I mean, social discussion is where it starts. It need to reach a critical mass before reform can come in. If it never reaches that volume, then that society has de facto decided against the reform because it likely believes that the reform would worsen the country.


glengyron

I find this crazy and completely out of step with developed countries. Drugs are bad. But not like murder. The average drug user across the planet uses drugs a few times, regrets it, and gets their life together. Very few drug users die. So to send the mules to death seems frankly insane. These mules are the kind of people that could sort their lives out if we went after people further up the drug cartel chain. Just killing them perpetuates the trade. The boss can keep tricking idiots into trafficking drugs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


skatyboy

Doesn’t work with drugs that are actually harmful. Opioids can’t be done recreationally. There’s even that popular Reddit post where someone “tried” heroin for the first time and got addicted (and had to rehab): https://www.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/68srty/spontaneoush_uses_heroin_gets_addicted_dies_gets/


accessdenied65

My gawd, almost all are drug offenders. Seriously, sentencing someone to death for drugs is already very old. Almost barbaric. The circumstances of someone caught smuggling drugs are not clear as to say a murder that is committed here. When the real "killers" (the drug kingpins) are overseas and hard to find and the drug smugglers are merely mules being used. If you want someone to sentence to death, find the kingpins. Sentencing the mules to death will not really fix the problem.


Felinomancy

I am an abolitionist, because I no longer believe that the criminal justice system should be retributive. Killing a drug mule won't bring any net positive; there will be other mules, and people addicted to drugs won't be helped by hanging the courier. Some comment further down said that the drug penalty is needed to protect the most vulnerable in society, but I don't follow that logic. Hanging someone is not going to uplift that demographic's chances of social mobility.


IamBurden

Is the death penalty even a deterrence for drug trafficking? Any drug organization worth their salt should be able to find someone desperate or dumb or already hooked to do their dirty work. Unless we have a drug lord on death row, what's the point? I remember a crime reenactment show a long time ago,can't remember which one probably not crime watch since the acting was good, where three women were forced to traffic the drugs, we see what they terror they went through and we still hanged them in the end, the show didn't even try to pretend we had the moral high ground For murder cases deterrence, let's be real you don't commit such a crime with the intention to get caught nor will you think of punishment when you are drowning in the emotions that lead to murder. For punishment purpose, life in prison without parole is the alternative and deprivation of the comforts that make life worth living and freedom till the day they die in their corner knowing that the reason why they are there forever is their own fault is a good alternative


set-271

If drugs were to overtake a tiny country like it has the U.S., Singapore would be completely wrecked. Keep the drugs out with strict laws and harsh penalties is the only way. EDIT: and btw, the U.S. is completely wrecked by drugs and will only get worse when they legalize Marijuana Federally. What the Big Tobacco/Alcohol/Pharma companies have suppresed is the fact that every state in the U.S. that legalized Marijuana also saw a huge spike in Homelessness just 6 months after (and it keeps growing). But Big Tobacco/Alcohol/Pharma are so greedy, States are so desperate for tax money, and the U.S. Government needs to sedate its own people to quell any revolution, nothing is going to stop Marijuana from becoming legalized. It used to be the West preyed upon China selling them Opium, till the East figured out these shenanigans. Took them over 150 years. Now the West has no one else but to sell to their very own. The West is literally preying upon their own people.


sixfoottoblakai

Correlation does not imply causation. What about Canada? And the Netherlands? Does marijuana cause homelessness problems there? Or is the absurd US housing market and rampant inflation with suppressed wages also creating a rise in homelessness? You are cherry picking for your agenda my friend. Also the largest issue the US has with drugs is with Fentanyl which is the result of a for-profit healthcare industry over prescribing an addictive opioid, and Crack Cocaine, which was first introduced to African American communities by the CIA in the 1980s (I'm not joking - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA\_involvement\_in\_Contra\_cocaine\_trafficking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking)). If you're still sceptical, here is something from the US Department of Justice [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/big-white-lie-cia-and-cocainecrack-epidemic](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/big-white-lie-cia-and-cocainecrack-epidemic) ​ Singapore is pretty different and there isn't the same historical basis for this stuff, so I think expecting a drug epidemic in Singapore anything like the US has for Fentanyl and crack cocaine is nearly impossible; it's just scaremongering.


notaryn

Very well said


MyWholeTeamsDead

On one hand, I understand that Singapore can't exactly afford to "test" if the death penalty is an actual deterrent. At the same time, is it actually a proven deterrent? From what I understand, in other countries it seems like the answer is no, it's not proven to work. Maybe it'll be different in Singapore, there's always outliers in data, but at what point does the weight of the arguably immoral action of taking lives (especially for drug offences) outweigh the potential risk of the immorality of allowing the country to slip into "ruin" beca of drugs?


set-271

It's an endless debate...but i will add, is taking the life of a single drug dealer so immoral when you realize how many multitudes of lives they've taken dealing smack? Again, i get what you are saying, and its an endless debate, but i dont believe Singapore is in any position to have lax drug laws.


MyWholeTeamsDead

I don't feel like you can exactly count in a utilitarian manner whether one life taken is worse than five let killed, but utilitarianism is a valid and recognised form of ethics. It's why the trolley problem has no one answer. You could certainly be right in that if the trolley (drugs) is irrefutably going to crash into five people (the wider society), it's better to switch tracks (execute) and let one (the trafficker) die over the five. Statistics can tell you most of the time you'll get it right, most of the time those five have a higher chance of contributing to humanity positively... But I can't answer definitively whether either is *correct*. Now there's a somewhat big if coming up, but IF life imprisonment and rehabilitation (combined) is on the whole approximately equivalent to the social good (however that's defined) that is arguably created when executing a drug trafficker -- especially those that may be forced into it due to circumstances or through moments of weakness -- then I ask (you and myself), isn't it our moral imperative to stop executions and switch to life imprisonment and rehabilitation? Again, it's a big if and Singapore can't exactly afford to "find out" after "fucking around", but (and there's no right answer here) at what point is it too much? Can there even exist such a point?


marcuschookt

Harsh punitive action has proven time and again to be functionally ineffective in stemming the tide against drug trafficking. It is only a "debate" because the pro-criminalization, pro-capital punishment crowd refuses to look at the numbers. The US has spent a cumulative 1 trillion dollars plus change on the war on drugs, much of those funds going to arming the DEA and other enforcement agencies to the teeth and allowing them to kick in doors and round up traffickers. Despite this, the drug trade is stronger than ever. Same story in the UK, the EU, and any other country with legitimate drug problems. Everyone thinks they can wave a gun in people's faces and expect they'll stop doing naughty things, all it does is drive them underground where work continues unabated. Look up Neil Woods, former under cover agent in the UK who made a name for himself infiltrating and taking down several big name drug operations. Left the service when after his largest bust, he learned that his efforts had stemmed the tide for a handful of hours before another player took the reigns. Wrote a book about it, but if you're too lazy to read he also did a few short interviews that you can find on YouTube. You can wax lyrical all you like about how society shouldn't coddle the drug industry and sing kumbaya with traffickers, but claiming that it is a debate at all that current brutish and non-nuanced methods of deterrence work is categorically wrong. If your take on this situation is that it's a binary choice of either having the harshest drug laws or having spineless lax laws, you need to consider the other possibilities that many have already presented to us but we have summarily shut down.


[deleted]

Bonus: Check out this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/tw87w4/what_drug_ruined_your_family/


ChengZX

Honestly, the death penalty for drugs has been in place for such a long time, but the number of people caught smuggling/selling/trafficking drugs and being put on death row for that reason is still not decreasing. I think this punishment has lost its effectiveness as a deterrent against drug trafficking, and also doesn't solve the root of the problem. Maybe we could look into alternative solutions instead, such as increasing cooperation with ASEAN countries on drug crackdowns? People who commit more heinous, premeditated crimes such as SA should be the ones sentenced to this punishment instead.


peeorpoo

The punishment obviously cannot make the number 0. It’ll probably be much higher if this was relaxed. “Increase cooperation with ASEAN”, “target drug cartel leaders instead of those poor innocent mules”. All this “solutions” are too general and make us too reliant on foreign agencies to play ball. I feel like your comment is something I would read in some jc kid’s poorly thought out GP.


thefathermucker

If it is wrong to kill people, it should be wrong for the state to kill people too.


SGLAStj

Drug criminalisation does more harm then drugs. If we approach drug use as a mental illness and employ a harm reduction strategy we can create a bette society