|
On December 31 2009 23:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ? Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S
My criticism of it is based on moral opinions. Justice has to be just. I brought up the UDHR not to hold the Chinese government to some legal code but to explain the outrage at the decision. Some people didn't understand what all the fuss was about. If the Chinese law is unjust it should be modified so that it is. That is the moral responsibility of the Chinese government.
|
On December 31 2009 23:27 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 23:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ? Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S My criticism of it is based on moral opinions. Justice has to be just. I brought up the UDHR not to hold the Chinese government to some legal code but to explain the outrage at the decision. Some people didn't understand what all the fuss was about. If the Chinese law is unjust it should be modified so that it is. That is the moral responsibility of the Chinese government.
This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
|
As one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for schoolboys and passmen, but in the original authorities of each time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime. ~Oscar Wilde
|
Urgh, Phrujbaz, I don't want to discuss the nature of law. Suffice to say, you would benefit from reading the stuff by Hart, Dworkin etc etc
|
On December 31 2009 23:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 23:19 Phrujbaz wrote:
Do you disagree with "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." ? Since when was the judicial process based on moral opinions? :-S
While the UDHR is certainly pro-human(Would be pretty bad if it wasn't, right?  ), it has a much more sound basis to be applied as law than some arbitrary rules established by a government with no real legitimation whatsoever by its people.
Also, article 3 of the UDHR("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."), seems to be overlooked here. One has to question if laws, made by a government/any sort of authority, that defy those rights, and accordinly with them the authority that made the laws, should be valid or not.
To said question there can, at least in my opinion, only be one answer: A definite no.
|
On December 31 2009 23:41 Spinfusor wrote:
Urgh, Phrujbaz, I don't want to discuss the nature of law. Suffice to say, you would benefit from reading the stuff by Hart, Dworkin etc etc
It would be awesome if we had an oracle that would always give the right answer to questions of justice. Since we don't, we have the next best thing (so far as we can tell), which is some set of laws applying our collective sense of justice. Obviously no law can codify every possibly nuance that would change the result. Because of this, and other problems, law is going to deliver justice inaccurately. That means that, some of the time, following a "good" law to the letter leads to an unjust result. We accept this as a compromise between true justice and the very important principle of "rule of law."
Despite all that, there is still a difference between a "good" law which is sometimes inaccurate and something fundamentally wrong like executing someone for drug trafficking. Such fundamentally unjust laws that disregard our universal human rights ought to be corrected, and be brought more in line with morality. Is this not a responsibility of the Chinese lawmakers?
|
On December 31 2009 15:27 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote + It's interesting to see what ordinary Chinese citizens are saying on the discussion boards. Most of these websites are state-controlled and subject to censorship but overwhelmingly the comments on those discussion sites are supportive of the Chinese government's decision. Well that just makes no sense at all!
That's not Chinese censorship of the comments, that's just Chinese people hating foreigners.
I wholeheartedly support the execution! 30 minute trial because they don't feel like wasting time on a retard! lol!
|
United States22883 Posts
If we can sift through the bullshit of Chinese nationalism and UDHR talk, can I point out that this guy was just a drug runner? A nobody.
This is not going to have an effect on drug trafficking in China because 1) it doesn't reach anyone of any importance (who likely have their hands in the government, anyways) and 2) isn't any more of a deterrent than the past treatment of drug smugglers. Death penalty or life in a Chinese prison? Is this really going to dissuade future drug smugglers any more than the previous precedent? Doubtful. All they did was kill a person with mental health issues, and drive up revenue for whoever's in charge. There's a nice, neat reason to increase prices and supply is still going to sell out.
|
Anyone actually believe he had a mental disorder and that that wasn't just hyped shit by his family + brit gov to get him out?
Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing.
He did get it mitigated, it was lethal injection instead of firing squad ¬¬
Great topic though.
|
hah pyrogenetix setting off the great firewall of china
|
On January 01 2010 00:33 Jibba wrote:
If we can sift through the bullshit of Chinese nationalism and UDHR talk, can I point out that this guy was just a drug runner? A nobody.
This is not going to have an effect on drug trafficking in China because 1) it doesn't reach anyone of any importance (who likely have their hands in the government, anyways) and 2) isn't any more of a deterrent than the past treatment of drug smugglers. Death penalty or life in a Chinese prison? Is this really going to dissuade future drug smugglers any more than the previous precedent? Doubtful. All they did was kill a person with mental health issues, and drive up revenue for whoever's in charge. There's a nice, neat reason to increase prices and supply is still going to sell out.
No one was claiming otherwise. Don't be silly.
|
A few facts:
The guy was carrying 4 kg of heroin (holy shit)
He claims he is bipolar, or he might be.
In all seriousness death is not the answer but he should be severly punished. 4kg of heroin is AAAALOOOOOT. He commited the crime in chinese territory and should pay accordingly. The nonsense about his mental condition is just to get him free for the most parts imo. If you can say that you have whatever condition every time you commit a crime, the judicial system would collapse. "Oh hi I'm depressed, that's why I had sex with 20 women while being infected with HIV"
One more thing: How english is a british man with a arabic name? He might have lived in England only for a year or whatever. (I didn't read the last paragraphs of the article, so if I'm a dumbass kill me)
|
The funny thing is, I don't think the drug dealer would have complained about the laws in China before he got caught and executed. He probably knew the risks, and made a reasonable determination that more risk equals more profit. There are plenty of drug dealers getting rich off of China's laws.
Liberalize the drug laws and China becomes just another Western country, with lower profit margins for dealing. Who are you middle class kids with nice families to take away a profit making opportunity from people who've been disadvantaged and poor all their lives? All you're trying to do with your liberal drug legalization campaign is to let huge corporations like CVS, Rite Aid, or Walgreens take over the drug industry.
This is just another example of the rich and middle class imposing their system on the poor to keep them down, in the guise of "human rights" and "morality." I hope you are all proud of yourselves, it takes a lot of balls to kick a man when he's down.
|
On December 31 2009 19:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2009 18:33 pyrogenetix wrote:
What's This?
ANOTHER China thread?
ANOTHER COMMUNIST CHINA has NO HUMAN RIGHTS thread?
CHINA RED COMMUNIST MAO ZE DONG WAS AN IDIOT ALL CHINESE ARE RUDE AND EAT DOG MEAT NO ONE IN CHINA CAN VOTE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH NEWS IS CENSORED BOOKS ARE BANNED SECRET NUKES SELLING WEAPONS TO SUDAN LEAD PAINT CHILD LABOUR SWEAT SHOPS LAZER BEAMS FLASHING LIGHTS FAKE ROLEXES ANIMAL CRUELTY BIGGEST POLLUTION CAUSE LONG WORKING HOURS MORE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS THAN THE UNITED STATES
pm me if I forgot anything. You forget that we also eat cat meat~!
One child policy. Plotting a NWO of Chinese hegemony. Go to Ivy Leagues so we can steal US corporate secrets. Steal other people's jobs. Overpopulate the world (despite the one child policy). Eat all endangered species. Married to Rupert Murdoch and millions of other rich white men around the world.
|
On January 01 2010 03:11 Slow Motion wrote:
The funny thing is, I don't think the drug dealer would have complained about the laws in China before he got caught and executed. He probably knew the risks, and made a reasonable determination that more risk equals more profit. There are plenty of drug dealers getting rich off of China's laws.
This man speaks the truth
This whole debacle is a farce.
|
He'll never make that mistake again.
+ Show Spoiler +It really is awful that China executes so many people. But this is something THE ENTIRE WORLD knows about. What the fuck do you think is going to happen waltzing into a country like China with drugs like that? The man had it coming to him. Obviously most countries wouldn't be as harsh, and is probably too harsh a punishment... but the fact is China is gonna kill you.
|
lol, bring drugs into china? and get caught?
tough shit
|
On December 31 2009 22:58 Phrujbaz wrote:
Would you feel the same way if someone smuggled cigarettes or alcohol (other potentially deadly drugs) into a country with the intent to distribute them? Is execution warranted? The issue here is Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I don't even know if I should respond to this since you seem to be putting heroine on the same platform as cigarettes and alcohol, but I guess I'll go ahead. Is an execution warranted? I don't know. I suppose it depends on where you are. Like I said, different parts of the world look at and treat different crimes differently. My point was that this person wasn't innocent by any means and it was his own responsibility to identify and decide whether or not to assume the risks that he did. He assumed those risks, made a wager, lost, and now he paid for it with his life. It's not as if they executed someone trying to bring aid to people...
It's the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure that nobody is subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. Insanity can and should mitigate the punishment, which in any case is cruel and inhuman to begin with and does not compare to the crime committed.
Yes, insanity could be taken into account to mitigate punishments and in this case it seems clear that they simply didn't believe that he was insane. Insanity defenses really only work when the courts believe that you're insane. The same applies here in the USA. People don't always get to plead insanity and even when they do, it doesn't always work. As for whether the death penalty is "cruel, inhuman, or degrading", that's subject to personal opinion. Some people might see eating dogs as "cruel" or "inhuman", but in other parts of the world, it's a pretty normal thing.
Drug trafficking is only a very big and serious industry because of the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs would solve many of drug-related problems. Among other things, the Mafia would lose most of their funding. The benefits of waging the very costly war on drugs seem virtually negligible in comparison to all the trouble it is causing. There is little evidence that the war on drugs is even decreasing the number of drug addicts (and some against)!
This isn't a case of someone being put to death for carrying around an ounce of marijuana so if you want to start arguing about the legalization of that substance, please don't. Have you ever seen a person addicted to heroine or cocaine? I have and believe me, they're illegal for a very good reason. If you honestly believe legalizing heroine would be better for the world, you are either really stupid or really ignorant.
Regardless of what you personally think about drugs (maybe you lost your sister to heroin), I don't think you can uphold the war on drugs as some high and noble ideal that we should be willing to make sacrifices for, like conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregard for universal human rights.
No, I didn't lose anyone to heroine, but I've seen what it can do to people first-hand. Have you? I'm not going to say that we need to start conceding our liberties or accepting blatant disregards for "universal human rights" (whatever that means), but I do believe fighting to prevent the spread of destructive substances can certainly be upheld as a noble ideal. But it seems to me that you'd rather accept the spread of them so I'm sure we won't agree on that. The legalization and proliferation of drugs seems like it'll be all fine and fun, but that's honesty a very short-sighted view of things.
On a personal note, I really don't have a problem with the legalization of marijuana if that's where you're trying to go with this simply because we already have tobacco and alcohol legalized and regulated, both of which seem to be more damaging than marijuana anyway. But under no circumstance can I believe that legalizing more damaging drugs such as cocaine or heroine will be good for society.
Which is why it can only be an argument for mitigating the punishment, not for getting off with nothing.
Personally I believe he should have been jailed rather than executed either way and if it were up to me, I would have done so. However, I'm not going to shed a tear for him because someone else felt differently. Obviously they didn't believe that he was insane or they didn't believe that it was a mitigating factor. It's quite difficult to come to any conclusions on our part with the limited information we're given so I'm not going to presume to judge them for their decision.
So you honestly cannot understand some people would consider execution for drug trafficking a cruel and inhuman punishment? Let alone the fact that this man cannot fully be held accountable for his actions due to a mental illness?
I can certainly understand that some people believe that execution is always a "cruel and inhuman" punishment regardless of the crime and I can also understand that many people believe that it might be excessive for this particular one. However, you need to understand that not everyone sees things the way you do or holds the same standards in regard to what is "cruel and inhuman" and what "universal human rights" actually means. I find it incredibly pretentious and condescending for you to sit there and blast a country just because it doesn't happen to uphold your own personal values as to what is morally right or wrong. And yes, your argument is purely a moral one in the end.
It's easy for us to sit around and spout out words like "universal human rights", but the reality is that these words have no meaning. Or rather I should say, they have a different meaning all across the globe depending on who you speak with. Human beings have no more intrinsic rights than the average animal. The fact is that we're not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These concepts are all relatively new creations in human history so no, they are not "basic" or "universal" in any way. They are concepts that we have fabricated by consensus and popular demand in Western society and have subsequently imposed on the rest of the world. However, because they are ultimately fabricated concepts rather than intrinsic ones, they are subject to interpretation by each society. Freedoms and rights are things to be appreciated not because they are things we are entitled to, but because they are things that we aren't. Do I enjoy my freedom in America? Sure, but I won't take that experience as an invitation to dictate to the rest of the world how they should live and operate. Isn't a lack of respect for the sovereignty of other nations to govern themselves exactly the kind of problem that got us into all of our current messes in the first place?
|
But... but China!
Don't... don't you get it? They're communists.
|
HeartOfTofu makes some pretty good points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
