Singapore to execute Aussie drug smuggler

[mr friendly guy]

Singapore snubs PM on hanging date
Thursday Nov 17 17:43 AEST
Sorrow and disappointment have again marked Prime Minister John Howard's unsuccessful attempts to win clemency for a Melbourne man on death row in Singapore.

Mr Howard says he met this week with the mother of Melbourne man Nguyen Tuong Van and found her plight "too pitiful for words".

He was "very disappointed" too that Singapore did not tell him during a meeting in South Korea on Thursday that Nguyen would be executed on December 2.

Mr Howard met Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and made another unsuccessful appeal for clemency for 25-year-old Nguyen, who is due to face the gallows at Changi prison.

However, he did not learn until after the meeting that the Singapore government had set December 2 as the date Nguyen will be hanged for drug trafficking.

The news of the execution date instead came from Nguyen's lawyer in Melbourne, Lex Lasry, who said Nguyen's mother had been advised by letter of when her son would die.

Mr Howard, in Busan in South Korea for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum, later told reporters he was very disappointed he had not been told of the execution date during his meeting with Mr Lee.

"I was not aware the letter was on its way during the discussion (with Mr Lee)," he said.

"I did not know of that fate.

"I'm very disappointed I was not told, very disappointed."

Mr Howard would not comment on what it meant for the broader relationship between Australia and Singapore, only saying: "I think it says something about this particular issue, I don't want to broaden it."

Once again, Mr Howard's appeals for clemency for Nguyen fell on deaf ears.

After meeting Mr Howard, Mr Lee said the rules concerning drug trafficking in Singapore were quite clear.

"I explained (to Mr Howard) why we were unable to accede to his request even though we understood where he came from," Mr Lee said.

Asked if there was a point to further appeals, Mr Lee said: "We will continue to listen to arguments but we have made the decision, the president has turned down the clemency petition and that's where the position stands."

Mr Howard said he met Nguyen's mother on Tuesday and described her plight as "too pitiful for words".

"Needless to say she is in a state of great anguish," Mr Howard said. "I feel desperately sorry for her."

Nguyen was caught with 396 grams of heroin strapped to his body and in his hand luggage at Changi airport in 2002.

The Australian government and Nguyen's supporters have been pursuing ways to spare his life after he lost an appeal for clemency last month.


©AAP 2005

link

Seriously, if any Aussie smuggles drugs into South East Asia without fucking knowing what everyone should know about our neighbours tough line on drugs, they should qualify for a Darwin award.

[Faram]

One drug runner gona and not a wet eye in sight.

I have sypmaty for drug users stuck in hell not the shitheads that makes cash on other peoples misery.

Hanging is to good for that scumbag.

[mr friendly guy]

He claims he was smuggling the drugs to make money so he can pay off his brother's debt. Obviously he didn't think about the consequences for himself, and for the people who will end up using the drugs.

[Lord of the Farce]

He claims he was smuggling the drugs to make money so he can pay off his brother's debt. Obviously he didn't think about the consequences for himself, and for the people who will end up using the drugs.

The irony in this: Apparently, that particular debt racked up by his brother was for legal fees... Involving drug offenses.

[Dendrobius]

I really don't understand the "outpouring of public sympathy" this case as generated in Australia.

I mean, the guy made the choice, and it's not as if Singaporean legal system's reputation for "we kick your ass if you think about looking at us the wrong way" is not well known. He did the crime, it's under their law, he should die. He's not an imbecile, he knows what he did was wrong.

I couldn't care less if they hung him right now. Frankly I'm disgusted with the way the government's been pleading for clemency. Meddling in other country's affairs...gah.

[Ubiquitous]

I really don't understand the "outpouring of public sympathy" this case as generated in Australia.

Regardless of the crime, many people are against the death penalty. I have mixed feelings about executing a drug dealer - on one hand he is profiting from the misery of others, on the other I think CP is a bad thing.

[Darth Wong]

Caught smuggling heroin into a country with a known draconian approach to such things? Hmmm ... checking the sympathy meter ... nope. The reading is zero. Fuck him.

[pellaeons_scion]

Frankly I'm disgusted with the way the government's been pleading for clemency. Meddling in other country's affairs...gah.

Thats par for the course for our Government lately. First the Bali incidents (corby, that other model person whose name escapes me) now Singapore. He smuggled drugs willingly, to a country whose penalties are severe, so, tough shit. There seems to be this idea here that someone being punished for being caught in illegal activities is a 'bad thing' I'm fairly sure our governments activities in trying to pressure these governments won't been seen in a very good light by our asian neighbours.

[Durandal]

I really don't understand the "outpouring of public sympathy" this case as generated in Australia.

Because someone is being put to death who shouldn't be.

I mean, the guy made the choice, and it's not as if Singaporean legal system's reputation for "we kick your ass if you think about looking at us the wrong way" is not well known. He did the crime, it's under their law, he should die. He's not an imbecile, he knows what he did was wrong.

So stupidity in addition to drug smuggling makes him deserving of a hanging? Do you have any concept of the punishment fitting the crime?

I couldn't care less if they hung him right now. Frankly I'm disgusted with the way the government's been pleading for clemency. Meddling in other country's affairs...gah.

Yeah! Trying to save one of its own citizens from being executed in a foreign nation! What the hell is that government thinking anyway?

If this was an American citizen, I'd expect the government to bust its ass to get him back on our soil so he could serve a sentence here rather than be executed by a bunch of barbarians.

[Darth Wong]

I really don't understand the "outpouring of public sympathy" this case as generated in Australia.

Because someone is being put to death who shouldn't be.

Do you say this because you oppose the death penalty on general principle, or do you say this because you think that heroin smuggling is not a sufficiently serious crime to warrant capital punishment?

So stupidity in addition to drug smuggling makes him deserving of a hanging? Do you have any concept of the punishment fitting the crime?

Please explain how you have arrived at your objective determination of what punishment fits this crime.

If this was an American citizen, I'd expect the government to bust its ass to get him back on our soil so he could serve a sentence here rather than be executed by a bunch of barbarians.

That's because Americans are like that: they think their own citizens carry the American Bill of Rights around with them wherever they travel on the planet.

[The Kernel]

Please explain how you have arrived at your objective determination of what punishment fits this crime.

You yourself have agreed that drug use is a victimless crime, so I don't see how drug smuggling is any different. Do you think that the death penalty fits for a victimless crime?

That's because Americans are like that: they think their own citizens carry the American Bill of Rights around with them wherever they travel on the planet.

There is no question that Singapore has the right to punish people within its borders however it sees fit. However, considering that an Australian or American citizen isn't used to Singapore's laws, there is room for compromise and it's not unheard of for countries to send foreign citizens home for sentencing for this reason.

Put it another way, would you also have no sympathy for someone who the Chinese arrested for talking politics with locals?

[Surlethe]

You yourself have agreed that drug use is a victimless crime, so I don't see how drug smuggling is any different. Do you think that the death penalty fits for a victimless crime?

You don't see the difference between selling drugs and using drugs?

[The Kernel]

You yourself have agreed that drug use is a victimless crime, so I don't see how drug smuggling is any different. Do you think that the death penalty fits for a victimless crime?

You don't see the difference between selling drugs and using drugs?

If using drugs is victimless, how is smuggling them any different? Unless you are selling them to children, then I don't see the harm in providing drugs to people who want them. The only person who can get harmed is the addict themselves.

[Durandal]

Do you say this because you oppose the death penalty on general principle, or do you say this because you think that heroin smuggling is not a sufficiently serious crime to warrant capital punishment?

The latter. On principle, I am for the death penalty.

Please explain how you have arrived at your objective determination of what punishment fits this crime.

No one was killed, injured or even affected in any way as a result of his actions, so I can't see how the death penalty even enters into the realm of possibility.

That's because Americans are like that: they think their own citizens carry the American Bill of Rights around with them wherever they travel on the planet.

I criticize my government a lot, but I can't bring myself to see the wrong in my government doing what it can to protect its citizens abroad.

[Darth Wong]

Do you say this because you oppose the death penalty on general principle, or do you say this because you think that heroin smuggling is not a sufficiently serious crime to warrant capital punishment?

The latter. On principle, I am for the death penalty.

Please explain how you have arrived at your objective determination of what punishment fits this crime.

No one was killed, injured or even affected in any way as a result of his actions, so I can't see how the death penalty even enters into the realm of possibility.

Heroin is not a harmless drug. And justifications for the death penalty depend on what ethical philosophy you subscribe to. If you can show that such a strong deterrent can actually be justified by success and some indication of the damage prevented (speaking hypothetically; I don't know enough about Singapore to know whether this is the case for them), then it's conceivably justifiable.

Your (unstated) premise here is that causing death through criminal action warrants the death penalty. But few would argue that drunk driving fatalities warrant the death penalty even though that causes death, so I submit that it is more complicated than that. Americans put a great deal of stock in one's emotional state at the time of a killing; a "cold" premeditated murder is for some reason less acceptable than a "heat of passion" murder even though both victims are just as dead. And treason can potentially carry the death penalty even if no one dies. To be honest, I don't think anyone can really justify their beliefs as to what does and doesn't constitute a capital offense.

That's because Americans are like that: they think their own citizens carry the American Bill of Rights around with them wherever they travel on the planet.

I criticize my government a lot, but I can't bring myself to see the wrong in my government doing what it can to protect its citizens abroad.

Even when they shit on other countries' laws and expect to carry some sort of pseudo-diplomatic immunity around the planet wherever they go, just because they're Americans? Why do you think so many people in other countries hate Americans, when its tourists have this kind of attitude?

[Durandal]

Heroin is not a harmless drug.

And walking into an airport with it doesn't harm anyone. Of course he had intent to sell it, but most reasonable people would agree that intent to commit a crime and actually committing it are two different things.

EDIT: You sly man, you edited your post!

And justifications for the death penalty depend on what ethical philosophy you subscribe to. If you can show that such a strong deterrent can actually be justified by success and some indication of the damage prevented (speaking hypothetically; I don't know enough about Singapore to know whether this is the case for them), then it's conceivably justifiable.

See above. There is no doubt that he had intent to sell, which could have easily resulted in harm, but intent to perform a harmful action and actually performing that action are different things.

Your (unstated) premise here is that causing death through criminal action warrants the death penalty. But few would argue that drunk driving fatalities warrant the death penalty even though that causes death, so I submit that it is more complicated than that. Americans put a great deal of stock in one's emotional state at the time of a killing; a "cold" premeditated murder is for some reason less acceptable than a "heat of passion" murder even though both victims are just as dead. And treason can potentially carry the death penalty even if no one dies. To be honest, I don't think anyone can really justify their beliefs as to what does and doesn't constitute a capital offense.

With the exception of treason, your examples involve cases in which people were killed, but there were mitigating circumstances. This mitigation enters after its been established that capital harm has been done. In this case, there's nothing capital about strolling into an airport with some heroine and intent to sell.

Even when they shit on other countries' laws and expect to carry some sort of pseudo-diplomatic immunity around the planet wherever they go, just because they're Americans? Why do you think so many people in other countries hate Americans, when its tourists have this kind of attitude?

So because American tourists tend to flout other countries' laws, there are no legitimate circumstances in which the American government could seek extradition of one of its own citizens for punishment?

[pellaeons_scion]

I criticize my government a lot, but I can't bring myself to see the wrong in my government doing what it can to protect its citizens abroad.

Theres nothing wrong with a government protecting its citizens if they have been falsely accused, or on trumped up charges. But he was caught with the evidence. I always thought that when you went overseas that you were a visitor in that country, and thus beholden to their laws for your actions. I dont see how you can go to another place, and not obey their laws, regardless of how barbaric or wrong they seem. Especially if your guilty of the crime.

[Darth Wong]

Heroin is not a harmless drug.

And walking into an airport with it doesn't harm anyone. Of course he had intent to sell it, but most reasonable people would agree that intent to commit a crime and actually committing it are two different things.

Not from the standpoint of utilitarianism and deterrent. It all depends on how you plan to justify your position, other than "well, this is what people sort of consider reasonable based on what Mr. Gut Instinct says".

Even when they shit on other countries' laws and expect to carry some sort of pseudo-diplomatic immunity around the planet wherever they go, just because they're Americans? Why do you think so many people in other countries hate Americans, when its tourists have this kind of attitude?

So because American tourists tend to flout other countries' laws, there are no legitimate circumstances in which the American government could seek extradition of one of its own citizens for punishment?

You mean "extradition of one of its own citizens to AVOID punishment".

[Durandal]

Not from the standpoint of utilitarianism and deterrent. It all depends on how you plan to justify your position, other than "well, this is what people sort of consider reasonable based on what Mr. Gut Instinct says".

My position is based on the person's mental state and the outcome of the act.

I'm curious. If an American woman in Saudi Arabia was about to be stoned to death for flashing a man in the street, would you simply sit back and say, "Hey, she knew the rules" and then decry the American government if they tried to get her out of there?

You mean "extradition of one of its own citizens to AVOID punishment".

To avoid a specific punishment. If Singapore just wanted to lock the guy up for a few years, I doubt anyone would be making a fuss. And the extradition would almost certainly stipulate that the offender serve an appropriate sentence in an American prison.

[HemlockGrey]

If this was an American citizen, I'd expect the government to bust its ass to get him back on our soil so he could serve a sentence here rather than be executed by a bunch of barbarians.

Extra-territoriality has gone out of fashion lately .

[Surlethe]

You yourself have agreed that drug use is a victimless crime, so I don't see how drug smuggling is any different. Do you think that the death penalty fits for a victimless crime?

You don't see the difference between selling drugs and using drugs?

If using drugs is victimless, how is smuggling them any different? Unless you are selling them to children, then I don't see the harm in providing drugs to people who want them. The only person who can get harmed is the addict themselves.

You answered your own question: selling drugs harms the people buying the drugs.

[weemadando]

"Wah, wah, wah!"

That's all I fucking hear on this kind of thing. It pisses me off.

He was smuggling drugs into a fucking Asian country - the death penalty is STANDARD throughout Asia for smuggling.

I'm not sorry to see him go at all - if anything these idiots should get Darwins.

[Durandal]

You answered your own question: selling drugs harms the people buying the drugs.

And they don't qualify as "victims" because they willingly use drugs.

[Darth Wong]

If using drugs is victimless, how is smuggling them any different? Unless you are selling them to children, then I don't see the harm in providing drugs to people who want them. The only person who can get harmed is the addict themselves.

You do realize that the addict and the seller are not the same person, don't you? The addict's behaviour is "victimless" because the only victim is himself. The seller does not have that excuse.

[Darth Wong]

You answered your own question: selling drugs harms the people buying the drugs.

And they don't qualify as "victims" because they willingly use drugs.

Once someone is a heroin junkie, he is no longer making rational decisions, therefore his willingness is of questionable importance.