If his execution has gone as planned, Nguyen Tuong Van will be dead by now. So how did he die? Bluntly, they broke his neck, then watched while he strangled. Singapore uses long-drop hanging, in which the drop height is carefully controlled to instantly break the neck and knock the victim unconscious. Actual death occurs by asphyxiation, and typically takes between three and twenty-five minutes. Needless to say, someone who did this without colour of law (by, say, using a hammer and leaving their victim to die on the floor, rather than dangling from a rope) would be regarded as a particularly soulless sort of murderer, who revelled in inflicting a slow death. And I don't see why we should regard a government which does the same as being morally any different.
14 comments:
Good job. How many 1000's of lives would his drug destoyed.
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 01:39:00 PM
ummm... if his neck is broken and he is unconcious, I can't see the harm in taking a few minutes for his heart to stop beating.
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 01:47:00 PM
The point is that Nguyen Tuong Van was just a mule. Executing him does virtually nothing to the drug runners - they just find another mule, and there are obviously plenty out there, people who are either stupid or with nothing to lose, or under duress. All it does is allow the Singaporean govt to claim to be tough on drugs at the same time as they are heavily invested in laundering golden triangle drug money (to the hilt, apparently).
Posted by Weekend_Viking : 12/02/2005 02:34:00 PM
Although he was just a mule, it's slightly more complex than that. He made a conscious decision to try to get his brother out of financial difficulty by importing ~400g of heroin to Australia. He must have known that he was rolling the dice and what the consequences were of rolling a 1 (it's not like Singapore hides the fact that it executes drug smugglers).
He also made a conscious decision to put the lives of the people who would be affected by that heroin below that of his brother.
My fundamental objection to the death penalty is the frequency that the law courts get it wrong (i.e. the number of innocents executed, and the inconstant manner of its application). I think in this case it's fairly certain that Nguyen Tuong Van actually did what they are accusing him of.
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 02:47:00 PM
Nicely put I/S,
Anonymous - stop being silly. They caught him and confiscated the drugs, which were - thereafter - no longer going to kill anyone. So they did the right thing: intercepting a drug trafficer; after that what they did wasn't going to save or take anyone's life. Except his, which they just snuffed out.
Presumably, you think that people dying before there time is a bad thing (why else would you write "How many 1000's of lives would his drug destoyed") so how on earth can you condone the state murdering someone? (And don't use the deterent arguement - there's no evidence to back it up).
Posted by Terence : 12/02/2005 02:50:00 PM
Anyone who considers this callous act of casual state killing a good job needs their head read. Any state which so brutally and callously takes the life of drug mule might just turn their cold beady eyes on you one day as well.
Oh yes and while I am at it - Marc Alexander is a fuckwit and it makes my skin crawl he was ever an MP.
Oh and while we are at it -
With all the fuss over the appalling and barbaric execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore its worth reminding ourselves of the ongoing and appalling human rights record of China, a country that we exercise the greatest of hypocritical deference towards in our unedifying, greedy and downright grubby pursuit of a free trade deal.
* Amnesty International recorded 1,639 death sentences and 726 executions in China in 2004, although the true figures were believed to be much higher.
* In 2002 China "celebrated' a U.N. anti-drug day by executing 64 people accused of drug crimes.
* IF anything, the west's desire to engage with China has emboldened the corrupt dictators who rule that country. There were at least 650 executions reported in local media in the months of December and January of 2004/5 alone. Both months are considered to be ‘normal’, without the peaks seen around certain public holidays, although the true figure is certainly much higher, as China refuses to publish full details of all the people it executes.
*The number of people executed in China since 1990 has been anywhere between 30,000-50,000 people.
* In 1979, there were 28 types of offences, including ``counterrevolutionary'' activity, that merited being put to death in China. But by 1995, the list had risen to 74 and incorporated an increasing number of non-violent offences, especially economic offences - i.e. China now routinely executes anyone who tries to seriously question the corrupt ruling elite and its business cronies.
*despite being a signatory to the 1988 UN Convention Against Torture, China routinely allows beatings with electric batons, rubber truncheons and bamboo whips; uses starvation, solitary confinement and excessively tight handcuffs and leg irons. Extortion is common.
* Every level of the Chinese "justice" system is overseen by the Chinese Communist Party. Given the level of corruption in the CCP and the widespread practice of "verdict first, trial second" this means due process is non-existent in China.
China isn't a nation needing to be "guided" by gentle trade engagement into reforming its appalling human rights record. It is a corrupt oligarchy where the Chinese Communist Party is bribed by business barons into allowing practically any extra-judicial activity, and clothe it under the sham garments of a rigged legal system. Only a fool would seriously believe such depraved and degraded system of government is open to the sweet voice of reason via trade.
By pursuing free trade deals with disgusting regimes like China's New Zealand is selling its soul for a few pieces of filthy silver, and I hope like mad that Winston Peters manages to torpedo the current talks. If he does, i might even vote for him.
South Africa shows that you can only force real change by forcing a country to hurt. The best way to enforce human rights reform in China is trade barriers based on human rights, rigorously enforced across the Western World.
/rant over/
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 03:55:00 PM
Taking drugs is a choice. People with addictive personalities will satisfy them, whether with legal drugs, illegal drugs or non-drug substances like solvents.
Drug dealers just help people satisfy those needs, just as brewers, tobacco companies and (inadvertently) hardware stores do. Drug dealing shouldn't be any sort of crime, the state should supply the more addictive drugs to undermine the market and the rest should just be available over the counter.
The real reason why states like SG execute drug dealers is not because they care for junkies - they want to ensure the collection of bribes proceeds smoothly.
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 04:36:00 PM
Injustice, rights to addiction and trade embargoes. All valid points I'm sure but I'd like to know something else.
Remove how the end is reached for a minute and answer this.
Is it possible for a human to reach so low a value to society that they are basically just using up oxygen best made available to someone else?
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 06:03:00 PM
Given the number of commentators, members of the public, and a few politicians I heard over the last week or two arguing that execution denies people their "most basic human right" and suggesting actions ranging from grumbling to economic sanctions against Singapore for it's practices, I wonder how many will now turn their attention to the US, who are about to execute their 1000th person since the death penalty was reinstated there.
Very likely not many.
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 09:23:00 PM
" execution denies people their "most basic human right""
the majority of people probably want a death penalty - they just dont want it for drug smugglers or barons or whatever.
Just for crimes against humanity and multiple homocides.
So those who oppose executions can gain ground as long as they dont end up standing between lets say the hutu militia leaders and an angry public.
Posted by Genius : 12/02/2005 10:33:00 PM
You have your neck broken by being snapped at the end of a rope and you live on for up to 25 minutes.
I don't think so.
The hundreds of Rabbits and Hens I killed by snapping their necks sure as I sit here were as dead as dead as soon their neck was snapped.
Hanging drug offenders is the Law in Singapore.
Posted by Anonymous : 12/02/2005 10:44:00 PM
Nguyen Tuong Van's death was a needless cruel waste. And the sooner pressure is brought to bear on those countries that execute its citizens the better.
Whilst I'm sure my sympathy of Van would be less if he was some horrendous child murderer, I still fundamentaly disagree with the death penalty. It's like trying to stop your kids from being violent by whipping them.
Even the most wicked of persons has their right to life. Although that life may be lived separated from society in order to protect it.
Posted by Muerk : 12/03/2005 12:55:00 AM
I was meaning it in this way - "murder is bad, mm'kay, oh unless we do it" and "violence is bad, mm'kay, oh unless we do it". But yes, I see your point and agree.
Posted by Muerk : 12/03/2005 07:44:00 PM
He made a conscious choice and took a risk. I suspect the alternatives for his brother made that a perfectly reasonable choice. By all accounts 'he has no thoughts for himself' and accepts that he lost his gamble and the consequences.
There is no justification for the death penalty in any circumstances, let alone these (it's not as if he did for himself or as if he'd do it again). The coward who wouldn't put their name to the 'good job' comment utterly disgusts me. My advice to them is to at least pretend to be a human being even if you're incapable of actually being so.
This is my response to reading the paper about it yesterday (yeah, yeah, somewhat inappropriate self-promotion I know, but it affected my quite a lot - I believe the white he's wearing indicates mourning).
Posted by David Cauchi : 12/04/2005 01:14:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).