EPTBritish national executed in China - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
iloahz
United States964 Posts
| ||
|
Phrujbaz
Netherlands512 Posts
I don't believe the "sovereignty" of the Chinese government licenses it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the Chinese people, nor does the "sovereignty" of the United States government license it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the US people (nor on people overseas). In the end, governments are just a bunch of individuals that happen to run the country, not some sort of collective consciousness that can sacrifice rights and liberties on behalf of the people. They have a responsibility to respect the liberties and human rights of the individuals entrusted to them. Does that mean I think we should load up our bombers and tanks and march into China to make sure they are living by our standards? Hell no. It is the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure the Chinese laws are just, not the responsibility of the US government. Can the international community observe what is happening in China with horror and outrage? Yes. Should the Chinese government start respecting human rights? Yes. On your other points, I guess we are largely in agreement. Yes heroine is a more severe drug than marijuana. Yes heroine is damaging to people's lives, and their families and loved ones. Yes, if you agree with the concept of the war on drugs, it makes more sense to crash down on heroine than marijuana. Yes 4kg of heroine is a lot. Yes, the drug runner knew (or should have known) the law and knew (or should have known) the risks. Yes, it has to remain the court's decision whether or not the man can plead insanity. No, I don't approve of spreading heroine, I hate drug dealers about as much as I hate the war on drugs. I won't shed a tear for this man. I am not saying this particular guy shouldn't be held accountable to Chinese law, I am merely saying the law that says you have to execute people that carry drugs around is cruel and inhuman, and should be brought into accordance with our universal human rights. Sovereignty of the Chinese government simply means that they are the ones accountable for such "human rights missteps", and they are the ones who have to do something about it. It's all perfectly right and good to make some fuss about this and to be outraged. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On January 01 2010 06:37 Phrujbaz wrote: Human rights are intrinsic to every human being, wherever born. Rights cannot be "imposed" on societies, they can simply be respected or not respected, and our universal human rights are respected in various degrees across the globe. Even a "free" country such as the United States or The Netherlands doesn't always respect these human rights. I don't believe the "sovereignty" of the Chinese government licenses it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the Chinese people, nor does the "sovereignty" of the United States government license it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the US people (nor on people overseas). In the end, governments are just a bunch of individuals that happen to run the country, not some sort of collective consciousness that can sacrifice rights and liberties on behalf of the people. They have a responsibility to respect the liberties and human rights of the individuals entrusted to them. Does that mean I think we should load up our bombers and tanks and march into China to make sure they are living by our standards? Hell no. It is the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure the Chinese laws are just, not the responsibility of the US government. Can the international community observe what is happening in China with horror and outrage? Yes. Should the Chinese government start respecting human rights? Yes. On your other points, I guess we are largely in agreement. Yes heroine is a more severe drug than marijuana. Yes heroine is damaging to people's lives, and their families and loved ones. Yes, if you agree with the concept of the war on drugs, it makes more sense to crash down on heroine than marijuana. Yes 4kg of heroine is a lot. Yes, the drug runner knew (or should have known) the law and knew (or should have known) the risks. Yes, it has to remain the court's decision whether or not the man can plead insanity. No, I don't approve of spreading heroine, I hate drug dealers about as much as I hate the war on drugs. I won't shed a tear for this man. I am not saying this particular guy shouldn't be held accountable to Chinese law, I am merely saying the law that says you have to execute people that carry drugs around is cruel and inhuman, and should be brought into accordance with our universal human rights. Sovereignty of the Chinese government simply means that they are the ones accountable for such "human rights missteps", and they are the ones who have to do something about it. It's all perfectly right and good to make some fuss about this and to be outraged. Lol at pulling shit straight out of your ass. Death penalty is awesome and super duper humane. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
No one here (pretty much) is saying that there isn't a less severe (and more suitable) punishment for a man who apparently has mental problems that could be applied in this case, but Chinese culture is very different from Western culture in this aspect; if you've done something wrong, you die. Even if it was a Chinese man who was caught smuggling heroin, the Chinese public would also rally behind the judicial system's decision to execute. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
Also, unless you can demonstrate to me where Chinese soldiers, say, invaded a city, killed ten million Chinese civilians, forced tens of thousands of women into sexual slavery and raped tens of thousands of others, raped young girls and then killed them, raped teenaged girls to death, forced fathers to rape their daughters, or impaled babies on bayonets, you should probably stop comparing modern China to 1930's Japan. Just saying. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On January 01 2010 06:51 EmeraldSparks wrote: God administers the death penalty to everyone in the end. So much for our right to life. Also, unless you can demonstrate to me where Chinese soldiers, say, invaded a city, killed ten million Chinese civilians, forced tens of thousands of women into sexual slavery and raped tens of thousands of others, raped young girls and then killed them, raped teenaged girls to death, forced fathers to rape their daughters, or impaled babies on bayonets, you should probably stop comparing modern China to 1930's Japan. Just saying. Actually your body just shuts down from old age but yea..the rest of your post has a point. | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On January 01 2010 03:57 HeartOfTofu wrote: 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. You need to prove, or offer a proof, that this is not the case, that these rights somehow exist independent of humanity. That's all I'm going to say here. Regarding people who espouse that strict drug laws only cause higher profit margins for suppliers, I'd like to point out a few more factors. 1.) Risk is a barrier to entry. Yes, there will always be daredevils willing to accept the risk and invest here, but the fact is in every industry including this one, high risk dissuades new entrants. This means fewer people involved in the industry. Even if the monetary size of the industry remains huge, this means that every time people are caught, the industry takes higher damage. Since China's government optimally wants the industry gone, generating as much risk as possible is a wise move. 2.) Lower risks for suppliers will not mitigate heroin's damage to the consumers. a.) Some wealthy individuals will engage in this recreation, but there good reasons for suppliers to market to non-wealthy individuals as well. They are less educated and wise of the health risks, and if they don't hold high organizational positions in the government or corporate worlds, they will be under less scrutiny for this type of recreation. b.) Even if suppliers pass on the savings to the consumers, non-wealthy individuals in China are poor. Shipping and manufacturing costs still come into play, even if this were a completely legal industry. A family in poverty regardless of where they are in the globe does not have the means to consistently fund the shipping and manufacturing of heroin. c.) Suppliers have no reason to pass on the savings to consumers when they are addicted. Businesses only do this to drive demand. Best business practices include getting as much money out of consumers as they are willing to pay. Addicted consumers are willing to pay as much as they have, since their choice mechanisms are so impaired. They will lose all their money to recreation, resulting in family inviability. | ||
|
Hazard
Norway594 Posts
For emotionally disturbed people like Akmal Shaikh, the experience of imprisonment can be highly traumatic How about 4kg of heroin being traumatic for emotionally sound person even. Drugs kill people btw. And four kilos makes it around ~$250 000+ which is worth of risking your life. P.S.Light and heavy drugs is a marketing tool invented by drug dealers  | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
The part of the story that I'm hazy on is where his family was at the time he decided to travel to China in pursuit of his dream to be a pop star or whatever. Where were they while he was taking this obviously insane risk with his own life, and why didn't they interfere with it? If he was struggling with bipolar disorder, this man needed people around him who cared to tell him when things needed to stop. They can't just point the finger at chinese laws and complain about them a violation of human rights. To some extent they themselves failed to properly care for their family member, and they need to own up to that. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
Heroine is a female hero, heroin is a drug refined from opium.. | ||
|
Spinfusor
Australia410 Posts
On December 31 2009 23:57 Phrujbaz wrote: 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? Even if your ideas had practical merit, the death penalty is not exactly unpopular. 60% of people live in capital punishment countries, and China certainly > EU in population (and whereas accounts suggest a massive majority of people support capital punishment, the EU is much more even). Hell, a quick Google search, shows that capital punishment is popular with the majority in Britain. So, Phrujbaz, should we be implementing capital punishment for murder in all countries now? On January 01 2010 08:36 p4NDemik wrote: The part of the story that I'm hazy on is where his family was at the time he decided to travel to China in pursuit of his dream to be a pop star or whatever. Where were they while he was taking this obviously insane risk with his own life, and why didn't they interfere with it? If he was struggling with bipolar disorder, this man needed people around him who cared to tell him when things needed to stop. They can't just point the finger at chinese laws and complain about them a violation of human rights. To some extent they themselves failed to properly care for their family member, and they need to own up to that. I'd just add that there also isn't a shred of prior medical evidence available (and I believe this is the crux of why the court declined a psychological evaluation). | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
On December 31 2009 20:46 Robinsa wrote: True, but when you use it as a defence to kill people it's WRONG. Todays China is similar to how, for example, Japan was during the world war. When many of us saw the economical development in China starting we thought you would adapt "modern" values aswell. Somehow youve ended up with modern economics and values from 30's.  You made that sounded like Japan is the complete opposite but we can go on and list the millions things that are wrong and feudal about your country. Modern China only opened its gates to the world 20 years ago. I wonder how long it took Japan to rise from the ashses and rabbles of WWII? Systems of Law is not subjective to nationality. Death penalty for heroine smugglers has being old news for a while now. Before you say that the law is crap, let's not forget the cases of Japanese justice systems and the foreign victims not getting any considerations at all. Like the prosecution will not even start the case. How about that Cannibal Japanese guy who ate a french girl and is still alive and go on TV shows in Japan? | ||
|
ix
United Kingdom184 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 01 2010 06:37 Phrujbaz wrote: Human rights are intrinsic to every human being, wherever born. Rights cannot be "imposed" on societies, they can simply be respected or not respected, and our universal human rights are respected in various degrees across the globe. Even a "free" country such as the United States or The Netherlands doesn't always respect these human rights. I don't believe the "sovereignty" of the Chinese government licenses it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the Chinese people, nor does the "sovereignty" of the United States government license it to impose arbitrary cruelty on the US people (nor on people overseas). In the end, governments are just a bunch of individuals that happen to run the country, not some sort of collective consciousness that can sacrifice rights and liberties on behalf of the people. They have a responsibility to respect the liberties and human rights of the individuals entrusted to them. Does that mean I think we should load up our bombers and tanks and march into China to make sure they are living by our standards? Hell no. It is the responsibility of the Chinese government to make sure the Chinese laws are just, not the responsibility of the US government. Can the international community observe what is happening in China with horror and outrage? Yes. Should the Chinese government start respecting human rights? Yes. On your other points, I guess we are largely in agreement. Yes heroine is a more severe drug than marijuana. Yes heroine is damaging to people's lives, and their families and loved ones. Yes, if you agree with the concept of the war on drugs, it makes more sense to crash down on heroine than marijuana. Yes 4kg of heroine is a lot. Yes, the drug runner knew (or should have known) the law and knew (or should have known) the risks. Yes, it has to remain the court's decision whether or not the man can plead insanity. No, I don't approve of spreading heroine, I hate drug dealers about as much as I hate the war on drugs. I won't shed a tear for this man. I am not saying this particular guy shouldn't be held accountable to Chinese law, I am merely saying the law that says you have to execute people that carry drugs around is cruel and inhuman, and should be brought into accordance with our universal human rights. Sovereignty of the Chinese government simply means that they are the ones accountable for such "human rights missteps", and they are the ones who have to do something about it. It's all perfectly right and good to make some fuss about this and to be outraged. Universal implies everyone agrees on the issue. When a country with 1/6th of the world population doesn't agree on the issue, it's no longer a "universal" consensus. Rather, these are some ideas that a random group of Euros got together and decided sounded good and over time convinced some other Euros that it was tight. Then they fought a bunch of wars to try to bludgeon the people who disagreed with them into agreeing. See how similar this process is to sovereign rights? Amazing! After they had those ideological scuffles known as revolutions, the winning side coined their ideas as "universal" and tried to impose it on the rest of the world. If you can't see the hypocrisy here, then you probably haven't earned the right to be outraged or patronizing to any government. There was no "collective consciousness" that determined universal rights. Hence why you don't have a majority of people, even on this rather liberal and Western-educated forum, agreeing with you. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 01 2010 08:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Why is everyone spelling it "heroine"? Heroine is a female hero, heroin is a drug refined from opium.. We got a lot of misogynists on the forum. It's a sad state of affairs . Women get blamed for everything QQ! | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On January 01 2010 10:07 haduken wrote: You made that sounded like Japan is the complete opposite but we can go on and list the millions things that are wrong and feudal about your country. Modern China only opened its gates to the world 20 years ago. I wonder how long it took Japan to rise from the ashses and rabbles of WWII? Systems of Law is not subjective to nationality. Death penalty for heroine smugglers has being old news for a while now. Before you say that the law is crap, let's not forget the cases of Japanese justice systems and the foreign victims not getting any considerations at all. Like the prosecution will not even start the case. How about that Cannibal Japanese guy who ate a french girl and is still alive and go on TV shows in Japan? Actually it was a dutch girl, but it was in france. It's actually a hilarious parallel of this story. That cannical japanese guy got some super top lawyers and was found to be legally insane. Fastforward a couple of years when he's back in Japan and he's evaluated to be completely sane - it was all an act to get out of his murder crime. They should've just executed him. Just like this drug mule. Not bipolar, just full of shit. And dead, now. | ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
On January 01 2010 10:31 psion0011 wrote: Actually it was a dutch girl, but it was in france. It's actually a hilarious parallel of this story. That cannical japanese guy got some super top lawyers and was found to be legally insane. Fastforward a couple of years when he's back in Japan and he's evaluated to be completely sane - it was all an act to get out of his murder crime. They should've just executed him. Just like this drug mule. Not bipolar, just full of shit. And dead, now. Not to completely derail the thread, but that story disgusts me to no end. The fact that he's now a minor celebrity there makes me lose a considerable amount of faith in humanity. | ||
|
MetalMarine
United States1559 Posts
On December 31 2009 15:12 Athos wrote: As much as I would love to think this is China getting revenge for the Opium wars, I just don't see it. This guy is just a fucking moran. The End. I agree with what you said.. but sorry I couldn't give up the opportunity to post this picture with your sentence there.. lol... ![[image loading]](http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j125/nicktran1125/get_a_brain_morans.jpg) | ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
edit -- also, Heartoftofu, there's nothing wrong with moral normativity. Despite it being a "moral" argument, there's a certain degree of civility that tends to be more reasonable than others. Obviously cavemen had fewer, or, as you say, "different" morals to most of modern culture, but societal advances tends towards The Golden Rule (treat other as you would be treated). Death for drugs isn't, by any stretch, logical, reasonable, or, in moral context, anything less than barbaric. You can rationalize barbarism as just "different culture." But when it's at the ill-being of literally over a billion people then it's hard to just pass it over as a cultural difference. There's almost never justification to end a non threatening criminal's life because, if you put anyone else in the world in that situation, they too would value their own life over drugs. Death is not a punishment, it's just mob mentality seeking revenge. | ||
| ||
