Even with the death sentence, people still take the risk to do drug and smuggle drug into the country, imagine if there isn't. Have you seen the drug issue in countries like Philippines or Vietnam? I was born and grew up in Vietnam. I can remember vividly the sight of a drug abuser injecting substances in broad day light while I was going home after school. My neighbourhood street was littered with used needles. That is not the environment you want your kids to live in.
I would like to think their problem is not the extent of punishment but enforcement. Also trafficking of drugs is the only crime that doesn't involve any killing to be meted out for death penalty, like what Dan says, the consequence is unproportionate. In the strong enforcement society like Singapore, we should review on the mandatory death penalty for drugs after 20 over years of successful deterrence. One thing to note is to keep the secret society in check as drugs is their real estate, it can cause government to lose a foothold if they get any power at all. With regards to Nageathran, there are reports that states he has IQ of 69 which can be considered mildly mentally disabled, where do we draw a line? There are manslaughter cases where multiple people died and death sentence is not even meted out but trafficking of drugs of mere 250g that may not have consequences of people dying is given death. Drugs is definitely an absolute bad crime but it is time for a tight society like us to look into mandatory death sentence for it.
@@yapolloable I would disagree, the impact of drugs on the overall society is more damaging than one murder. But it’s hard to grasp that when we all look inward to ourselves only
I know people often cite rehabilitation as an alternate pathway for drug traffickers but the offence is mostly stemmed from desperation to make a quick buck rather than being addicted to drugs. In this case, how does one rehabilitate someone who is in need of money. When the offender leaves prison, he/she will still be in need of money.
Death penalty. Cos what's there to look forward to for a person sentenced to life imprisonment? And it's a waste of tax payers' money and national resources.
Hi guys, I’m a fan of the show - thanks for bringing honest, different and sometimes bold perspectives to the table. However, for topics like these, you may want to consider inviting a lawyer to explain the legal concepts correctly, and maybe also an activist who has done research on this area (eg. whether the death penalty is actually effective as a deterrence to crime). I generally enjoy your episodes but this one was slightly lacking.
This death penalty might not be a solution but it's better then providing life term jail where tax payer need to pay for the crime they did. But it's to give a stop them . Look at USA and other country who try to promote the removal of death penalty, they have a worst citizen where drugs abuse is out of control but Philippine has improved the life when the dutrate was in charge the drugs abuser rate galled of cause many people got kills
Great ep as always! Thought JP's views on how living may not be better than death could be a further discussion topic in itself. More about the meaning of life, whether or not as citizens of a first world country, we should cherish our lives more than someone living in a third world country for instance. etc, just throwing out some ideas cos I love the diff POVs you guys always bring to the table.
I feel morality is a very human concept which forms the foundation of civil law. There are other laws like military law or natural law which are pragmatically formed based on different circumstances. When we ask ourselves if something is morally right, we also have to ask if those actions or policy has a purpose/goal, or are we just trying to appease our moral/ concept
I think the podcast brought out an interesting point about the whole simulation punishment thing, it's a form of psychological torture (still science fiction), but it also lacks the full severity of the consequence of actually imprisoning someone, because only 2 seconds have passed (or a short period, whatever it may be). Usually these jail sentences come with tangible differences made to one's surrounding (which I feel is part of the punishment), such as separating from family and the outside world. Imagine someone jailed in 2000 and comes out in 2020, I think so much would have changed for them, and many experiences would have been missed, e.g. family growing up. If it was really just 2 seconds wouldn't the punishment be less severe? For crimes like rape, arson etc. Such consequences make up part of the punishment that can't be experienced with that form of psychological torture (which can also take effect if one actually serves 20 years) of just 2 seconds in the real world la
Call me selfish/inhumane... Honestly speaking, I think if one commits a crime that destroys the lives of someone else or put someone else in danger (traumatise after event), criminal like those deserve a death sentence of life imprisonment. Knowing right and wrong but still making the wrong choice, they should not be forgiven. Think of the bigger picture of how a single human can cause so much chaos to countless human beings? I've seen lives getting destroyed, culprit ends up in prison, are released, and choose to make the same decision again. Sometimes people are only forgiving because they have yet to experience such pain... I've had enough.
I guess in some sense, incentives are not used because morality is expected of humans- it’s not something that we do because we want to get rewarded, but rather something we do because we are human. The law is put in place to punish immoral acts rather than reward moral ones… so… Also, I think it is understandable why drug trafficking and consumption is dealt with so harshly in Singapore. I think a look at the impacts of the opium war would paint a rather vivid image of that.
Interestingly though, schools educates the morality aspect when kids are young and impressionable by rewarding them for doing good. In their discussion, wouldn't it be good to have both rewards and laws in place? That way it promotes leading a virtuous life while deterring rogue acts with harsh consequences in place. Like it doesn't have to be 1 or the other, could implement both. But that's just food for thought I guess, not like the government would ever take into account what we think-
I think with such a policy, there should be more nuances given for the death penalty which is a capital punishment. I think instead of giving a blanket punishment, more leeway should be given depending on the circumstances of the perpetrator. There isn't a perfect solution, but if we want to become a more humane society then adjustments need to be made for such a punishment.
support death penalty anything on the contrary is just idiocy. you can flaunt your morals as much as you want when you are in a rich country. in Singapore, where our economy is ENTIRELY based on human capital, a stupid move like that can crush the country. in any other country, do what you want. Singaporeans have to be mercilessly pragmatic
Thanks for speaking about this topic. Have ya'll seen Michael Moore's documentary "Where to invade next"? There is a segment in there where he goes to Norway and learns about their prison system and it blew my mind. They adopt a very progressive and humane approach, one that we are faaaaar away from and frankly may not even be ready to consider. Basically, the only punishment that is imposed on the inmates is being away from family/friends. They are provided with their own fully furnished rooms with their own key, they have kitchens with access to knives, they are free to roam around the huge natural space, and there's a sense of community. It basically resembles life in the outside world. Even in their maximum security prison, there are the same freedoms, just in a more confined space. And the amazing thing is, it works for them. They have a low crime rate and low recidivism rate too. And yes, they are a different country with a different culture and context. But is there something we could learn from them? Could we learn to respond to criminal behaviour in a way that is less aggressive, less about retribution, and even more focused on rehabilitation, yet still keeps our crime rates low? Is the fear of punishment the only thing preventing most people from committing crimes? Are there alternative ways to regulate drug-use?
I love our strict laws and caning and it is one of the factors that deters a lot more people from committing crimes = lower crime rates, as compared to other countries. Ofc low crimes not equal no crimes. Females can walk safely at night in SG, wouldn’t change tt for anything.
i dont think the strict laws are a deterrence for crimes here. i mean homogenous societies such a S.korea and Japan has exceptionally low crime rate as well but does not have such a strict laws and mandate.
Appreciate the effort to talk about this societal issue! but i do wish more was said about the ethics of it and the philosophy of it - rather than the cost of death penalty vs life imprisonment, which may not weigh the value of life to its full measure. Also perhaps the nature of the crime in relation to the severity of the penalty?
The discussion was really in-depth and definitely brings up the rationale behind the punishment that is the death penalty. However, it fails to consider the angle or intention of a prison system, which is rehabilitation. Truly death is the easy way out, as our prison system often leaves you worse off than when you entered. Be it the stigma or isolation from the outside world. Especially for crimes like trafficking, it often comes from desperation and a fix would be to address the social issues that pushes a person to do it. The death penalty is placed on the most extreme crimes, but there is a failure of society if people are regularly pushed to commit them - we can’t simply absolve our collective responsibility when a person ends up committing a crime to just survive. In that sense, death is our simple solution that fails to prevent someone else from being in that same position.
Regarding the argument brought up by Denise on death penalty being immoral because killing is immoral, I feel it comes down to the rights of someone to live? Killing someone else is taking away their rights to live, and the murderer did not have the rights to take away someone's right to live in the first place (which makes killing immoral)? And thus by killing someone, the murderer is giving up their right to live to the state to 'compensate' (for a lack of better word) for their crimes. An alternative argument would be just to accept that the death penalty is immoral (which I disagree, I think it comes down to a fundamental disagreement of justice), but is still necessary to deter killing (which we have established to be immoral). So it is deterring future immoral acts (killing) with the same immoral act (death penalty), but the difference being the life saved > life taken away by death penalty, which makes death penalty a logical punishment. Of course the contention would be whether the life saved by deterring potential killers is more than life taken, but is a killer's life really worth the same as an innocent life? I feel its more than just numbers, but definitely there would be contention here. Just my two cents :)
To be humane to the convicted criminal, we're forgetting about the damage that the crime has caused to its victims. One life of someone who chose to commit a crime versus the handful of lives of those who may or may not have chosen to suffer the damages of the crime but nonetheless, suffered.
Question at 0:25 - neither. No human deserves either if we are viewing it from their perspective. And to be honest, if we are NOT viewing it from their perspective, then this quote comes to mind. "Justice... is nothing more than socially accepted vengeance."
Death penalty will never stop drug trafficking to 0. People say drug traffickers still come into Singapore. No crime will be 0. But the purpose is that it deters most people. Drug trafficking and abuse in Singapore is so much lower. If death penalty was removed the already low amount will increase.
Indonesia Have a location called "Execuition island"...Its esentially a Island Prison where people who are going to be executed are sent to. Singapore is not the Only country in Southeast asia that is punishing people with death when they traffic drugs... Drugs in retrospect are heavily penalised everywhere around the world, Like the US sending people for life just because they have drugs...SG with death penalty etc. Murder/Injury because of death usually results in life Imprisonment.
Death Penalty must stay. It serves as a strong deterent to those who r not hardcore, but r unsure whether or not to go ahead with their evil plot. Its existence send a solid message that Justice will be carried out against evil doers.
A drug dealer released from prison doesn't necessarily mean they're going to do it again. Execution is a bit extreme. The authorities in countries like Singapore are hell bent on forcing their square mentality on others.
I found that people that do not support death penalty, lack sympathy for criminal's victims. Instead, these people see the criminal as the victim. If you have sympathy for the criminal's families. Why you do not have sympathy for the victim's families ? These people, who oppose death penalty, are just hypocrites. The research in USA about death penalty is flaw. If you look at the FBI files documentaries, you will heard these words very frequently - "The murder suspect is an ex-convict, who have histories of violent". If these violent criminals are given the death penalty instead of parole. The number of murder victims would have reduce significantly in USA. Many innocent people do not have to die. The only way the world can become a better place is to get rid of bad people. Death penalty is the solution. Don't see death penalty as evil when you enjoy the benefits of death penalty. I am also aware that many people feel that there are many wrong conviction due to police creating false evidences and force confession. Many innocence people die by death penalty due to wrong conviction. However, this issue is due to corrupted police force. It have nothing to do with death penalty. You don't fix the broken table by throwing away the chair. If the police force is corrupted, you fix the police force.
Drug trafficking harms more people than a murder itself. It is a whole business sector on its own globally, harvesting drugs, exploitation of human in developing countries and getting people to unwillingly and willingly traffic the drugs across boarders. Therefore, to deter drug trafficking, death sentence is necessary. People will be less inclined to traffic drugs into Singapore and in turn we have peace, safety for our family and friends, country can also prosper.
At the end of the day, arguments against the death penalty for offenders who committed crimes because they were desperate to earn a buck to feed the family......in my opinion, is invalid. Remember, before committing the crime, in fact before deciding to do it, we all have a choice. Knowing the consequences if one is caught, would one still choose to take the risk? If they did, then they have to be prepared to pay the consequences. In a society like Singapore, there are always legal avenues to get financial help for basic living needs. Even urgent ones. They just need to swallow their ego and ask for help.
Sometimes people smuggle drugs without knowing the consequences. They may think they will get jail for doing smuggling but unaware of the fact that they will get death penalty. And it's not only money need because of which they do it, sometimes they have direct life threat and their life is in danger, their choose to smuggle because there is still some chance that they may not get caught while smuggling drugs, but if they did not smuggle the drugs they will surely die. They choose better option for them that is they take the risk and smuggle the drugsm
But i m sure people do think twice before trafficking drugs into Singapore as compare to other countries.. Its good money for them because the risk is high.. So if there is low/no risk, means its low pay but that would also mean the drug lord can bring in easily n sell to more people.. There will still be traffickers just tat they need to make more trips as compared to 1 trip to earn the same value.. More families n friends will be harm as compared to now.. So death penalty should continue.. Anyway, they have a choice, no one put a gun to their head to do it.. Sometimes it's the drug lords that bao toh these small traffickers to distract CNB from the big/main load..
michael franzese said that his colombo family wasnt allowed drugs too. Many enemies and goverment can use drugs on them to get information. One guy got caught selling and was arrested commited suicide before their boss manage to finish him off(i think they wanted to bailed out)
I’m not for the death penalty just because I feel like it’s better for the person to suffer and think about what they done rather than die and get the easy way out
To Dan's argument that drug trafficking being done out of desperation and Jon's argument on 1 wrong mistake, I feel you guys are overlooking the cost these actions bring to society as a whole and overly focused on how that one person's life would be ruined. Without a doubt it is very heartbreaking to hear such cases, especially if you were a family member of the offender, I think from a 3rd person's perspective it is very clear that this 1 mistake (out of desperation perhaps) brings severe consequences to society when the drugs go out of hand. Not just ruining families economically but also consider overdose, hallucinations resulting in suicide etc. All the side effects (which is very likely to occur, given addiction and how uncontrolled these substances are). So in my opinion drug trafficking should be given the death penalty
if i may offer a counter, is it not the responsibility of each individual in the society to take charge of their own health / choices and what they put into their body? in punishing the traffickers, who are undoubtedly in a lower ses / less fortunate state, are we just taking out on those who already have very little instead of the root cause itself?
Murderers be hung..Mere killing for personal gain.. No need sympathy..I don't give a f***. There's no need to elaborate on this. In fact, I will even want rapists to be hung too. When a lady is sexually assaulted, it's the same as killing that part of her. A part of her is dead. As a dad, I wouldn't have any sympathy for the perpetrator who sexually assaulted my daughter. If law doesn't serve justice, I will have no qualm in beating up the man till he's in vegetative state.
Personally, I think that there shouldn't be a death penalty not because it is not moral but because having to live in a confined room for the rest of their life is definitely more painful than that of having to die. Moreover, the justice system is put in place to deter and rehabilitate, and to kill a person just because they did something wrong is neither a deterrent nor rehabilitation because people would definitely be more motivated to do something bad without getting caught. Lastly, on the point of the financial aspect of everything, the government can definitely make the accused or prisoner pay for it especially since they wouldn't be able to pay for everything and did what they did either for money or it was an accident. A great example of this is Norway and they already have such low crimerates
"Singapore has never been involved" Bro...some of the worlds top drug kingpins are Singaporeans like the Ah Kong Syndicate. (althought based overseas not here)
I might be slightly insane but i feel like an someone like Denise's example kills someone, the punishment for them should be torture before hanging. It feels like the only way to equal the pain
I have an idea on this. How about permanent labor as a punishment till satisfactory? Like you know slaving away in a facility to just clean trash or construction (this would help the country a little in sorting recyclables, or infrastructure etc.) and be given poor food and rest facility. Suppose this was for a crime that has grey area (e.g. proving crimes like drug trafficking, outrage of modesty etc.) but for those crimes say like proven murder, you can have the affected kin of the victims to see the criminal be inflicted with quick punishments or tortures (e.g. caning, whipping) on a monthly basis till they are satisfied or a generation of family moves on from it. This way the said criminal can be retained in prison for life but be able to give back, be able to see their family and have a shot at proving innocence. I think this way the scale is more balanced? The victim gets to see justice administered and suppose the criminal is proven innocent, they get paid for the labor and live out the remainder of their life.
Well, if Singapore throws away the death penalty, I might want to try smuggle some drugs here. Jail only what, free food somemore, Compare to poverty I faced now.
This is not a policy issue but generation one. Singapore are largely a conservative country and most importantly i think most people dont care about the death penalty hence no political party have taken it up. Except for the usual human rights activists. Dont think the cons outweighs the pros and vice versus.
Hearing JP's suggestion on incentive, maybe lifetime fine and travel ban instead of lifetime imprisonment . To ensure the offenders remain productive in society throughout their life to pay back for their harm done. 🤔
For drugs it should be death penalty no doubt about it. Remember it justice for the victim the was caused by drug abuser and drugs pusher not those been caught by been a mule , drugs addicts or drugs pusher
I feel that Law is a social contract between everyone. To avoid society to descend into primitive "everyone for themselves" situation. Hence since the criminal enjoyed what society through law and order provided, he should be made to pay when he or she disrupts that order. Otherwise we are just animals.
Check out otego corrections facility, human decency and right is given to all humans from the gov's pov. I guess they'd prefer to let the criminal face his or her own demon internally, succumb to his own pool of misery and either improve as a human or go for psychotic help.
" Eye for an eye brings -- utter darkness and utter destruction until there's just one or nobody left standing." Personally I feel the only person to take a life away is God. Life imprisonment, sure, at least give the convict some fighting chance for evidences to surface to proof his/her innocence if they are really one.
When someone kill someone, he has already given up his life to live. If the criminal is not sentenced to death, how about the victim? How about the pain the victim's families and loved ones have to go through As for drugs, SG law is well known and strictly enforced, no one can say they don't know. Like they say do whatever u want but don't get caught. So when you get caught, you face the music. It is what it is
Long comment ahead... 4:39 Many of those smuggling drugs in are foreigners (most likely), why should we let THEIR societal problems influence how we structure our law? 6:36 The law is there for deterrence, we can't change what has happened, but how we manage the offence will impact the others on whether they should take the risk. Also, morality is a very subjective issue and is another whole debate on its own, what seems moral / immoral to one may not be the same for another. 9:46 Can just take a look at the opium war. 16:31 lmao just code for 1 time, when every "user" has different behaviour 18:50 the amount of resources consumed to incentivise is going to be a lot of than to punish. How many are we going to incentivise vs how many are going through the punishment? Even if we put the resource issue aside, what about foreigners? We will definitely not be giving incentives to them under this scheme so how do you deter them then? You can also just think back to NS, if we change it to an incentive system instead of a punishment system, do you think we will have the requisite manpower? 21:52 I went to take a look at the Wiki, 36% of those executed between 1993 and 2003 are foreigners, not 36% of drug traffickers are foreigners 31:34 They are criminals, why should society accede to any of their request? $20 is generous enough 38:11 So that country is just saying "go ahead and do crime" instead of deterring it and attempting to break the cycle while providing more opportunities instead?
I found that people that do not support death penalty, lack sympathy for criminal's victims. Instead, these people see the criminal as the victim. If you have sympathy for the criminal's families. Why you do not have sympathy for the victim's families ? These people, who oppose death penalty, are just hypocrites. The research in USA about death penalty is flaw. If you look at the FBI files documentaries, you will heard these words very frequently - "The murder suspect is an ex-convict, who have histories of violent". If these violent criminals are given the death penalty instead of parole. The number of murder victims would have reduce significantly in USA. Many innocent people do not have to die. The only way the world can become a better place is to get rid of bad people. Death penalty is the solution. Don't see death penalty as evil when you enjoy the benefits of death penalty. I am also aware that many people feel that there are many wrong conviction due to police creating false evidences and force confession. Many innocence people die by death penalty due to wrong conviction. However, this issue is due to corrupted police force. It have nothing to do with death penalty. You don't fix the broken table by throwing away the chair. If the police force is corrupted, you fix the police force.
Even with the death sentence, people still take the risk to do drug and smuggle drug into the country, imagine if there isn't. Have you seen the drug issue in countries like Philippines or Vietnam? I was born and grew up in Vietnam. I can remember vividly the sight of a drug abuser injecting substances in broad day light while I was going home after school. My neighbourhood street was littered with used needles. That is not the environment you want your kids to live in.
I would like to think their problem is not the extent of punishment but enforcement. Also trafficking of drugs is the only crime that doesn't involve any killing to be meted out for death penalty, like what Dan says, the consequence is unproportionate. In the strong enforcement society like Singapore, we should review on the mandatory death penalty for drugs after 20 over years of successful deterrence. One thing to note is to keep the secret society in check as drugs is their real estate, it can cause government to lose a foothold if they get any power at all. With regards to Nageathran, there are reports that states he has IQ of 69 which can be considered mildly mentally disabled, where do we draw a line? There are manslaughter cases where multiple people died and death sentence is not even meted out but trafficking of drugs of mere 250g that may not have consequences of people dying is given death. Drugs is definitely an absolute bad crime but it is time for a tight society like us to look into mandatory death sentence for it.
@@yapolloable I would disagree, the impact of drugs on the overall society is more damaging than one murder. But it’s hard to grasp that when we all look inward to ourselves only
I know people often cite rehabilitation as an alternate pathway for drug traffickers but the offence is mostly stemmed from desperation to make a quick buck rather than being addicted to drugs.
In this case, how does one rehabilitate someone who is in need of money. When the offender leaves prison, he/she will still be in need of money.
If he is spared, then all the dealers will know the loop hole and traffic drugs will mentally handicap persons already mah
Death penalty. Cos what's there to look forward to for a person sentenced to life imprisonment? And it's a waste of tax payers' money and national resources.
Hi guys, I’m a fan of the show - thanks for bringing honest, different and sometimes bold perspectives to the table. However, for topics like these, you may want to consider inviting a lawyer to explain the legal concepts correctly, and maybe also an activist who has done research on this area (eg. whether the death penalty is actually effective as a deterrence to crime). I generally enjoy your episodes but this one was slightly lacking.
Agree!
This death penalty might not be a solution but it's better then providing life term jail where tax payer need to pay for the crime they did. But it's to give a stop them . Look at USA and other country who try to promote the removal of death penalty, they have a worst citizen where drugs abuse is out of control but Philippine has improved the life when the dutrate was in charge the drugs abuser rate galled of cause many people got kills
Great ep as always! Thought JP's views on how living may not be better than death could be a further discussion topic in itself. More about the meaning of life, whether or not as citizens of a first world country, we should cherish our lives more than someone living in a third world country for instance. etc, just throwing out some ideas cos I love the diff POVs you guys always bring to the table.
Whoops, editor forgot to shift name supers for Denise and Jon paul’s position for this episode 😅
I feel morality is a very human concept which forms the foundation of civil law. There are other laws like military law or natural law which are pragmatically formed based on different circumstances.
When we ask ourselves if something is morally right, we also have to ask if those actions or policy has a purpose/goal, or are we just trying to appease our moral/ concept
I fucking love dan's witty/awkward responses
I think the podcast brought out an interesting point about the whole simulation punishment thing, it's a form of psychological torture (still science fiction), but it also lacks the full severity of the consequence of actually imprisoning someone, because only 2 seconds have passed (or a short period, whatever it may be). Usually these jail sentences come with tangible differences made to one's surrounding (which I feel is part of the punishment), such as separating from family and the outside world. Imagine someone jailed in 2000 and comes out in 2020, I think so much would have changed for them, and many experiences would have been missed, e.g. family growing up. If it was really just 2 seconds wouldn't the punishment be less severe? For crimes like rape, arson etc. Such consequences make up part of the punishment that can't be experienced with that form of psychological torture (which can also take effect if one actually serves 20 years) of just 2 seconds in the real world la
Call me selfish/inhumane...
Honestly speaking, I think if one commits a crime that destroys the lives of someone else or put someone else in danger (traumatise after event), criminal like those deserve a death sentence of life imprisonment. Knowing right and wrong but still making the wrong choice, they should not be forgiven. Think of the bigger picture of how a single human can cause so much chaos to countless human beings?
I've seen lives getting destroyed, culprit ends up in prison, are released, and choose to make the same decision again. Sometimes people are only forgiving because they have yet to experience such pain... I've had enough.
Denise and Jon Paul's overlays weren't right haha
I guess in some sense, incentives are not used because morality is expected of humans- it’s not something that we do because we want to get rewarded, but rather something we do because we are human. The law is put in place to punish immoral acts rather than reward moral ones… so…
Also, I think it is understandable why drug trafficking and consumption is dealt with so harshly in Singapore. I think a look at the impacts of the opium war would paint a rather vivid image of that.
Interestingly though, schools educates the morality aspect when kids are young and impressionable by rewarding them for doing good.
In their discussion, wouldn't it be good to have both rewards and laws in place? That way it promotes leading a virtuous life while deterring rogue acts with harsh consequences in place.
Like it doesn't have to be 1 or the other, could implement both. But that's just food for thought I guess, not like the government would ever take into account what we think-
I think with such a policy, there should be more nuances given for the death penalty which is a capital punishment. I think instead of giving a blanket punishment, more leeway should be given depending on the circumstances of the perpetrator. There isn't a perfect solution, but if we want to become a more humane society then adjustments need to be made for such a punishment.
support death penalty
anything on the contrary is just idiocy.
you can flaunt your morals as much as you want when you are in a rich country.
in Singapore, where our economy is ENTIRELY based on human capital, a stupid move like that can crush the country.
in any other country, do what you want. Singaporeans have to be mercilessly pragmatic
Thanks for speaking about this topic. Have ya'll seen Michael Moore's documentary "Where to invade next"? There is a segment in there where he goes to Norway and learns about their prison system and it blew my mind. They adopt a very progressive and humane approach, one that we are faaaaar away from and frankly may not even be ready to consider. Basically, the only punishment that is imposed on the inmates is being away from family/friends. They are provided with their own fully furnished rooms with their own key, they have kitchens with access to knives, they are free to roam around the huge natural space, and there's a sense of community. It basically resembles life in the outside world. Even in their maximum security prison, there are the same freedoms, just in a more confined space. And the amazing thing is, it works for them. They have a low crime rate and low recidivism rate too.
And yes, they are a different country with a different culture and context. But is there something we could learn from them? Could we learn to respond to criminal behaviour in a way that is less aggressive, less about retribution, and even more focused on rehabilitation, yet still keeps our crime rates low? Is the fear of punishment the only thing preventing most people from committing crimes? Are there alternative ways to regulate drug-use?
Is murder really a crime? I sometimes think i about it. If it is then why we kill animals?
I love our strict laws and caning and it is one of the factors that deters a lot more people from committing crimes = lower crime rates, as compared to other countries. Ofc low crimes not equal no crimes. Females can walk safely at night in SG, wouldn’t change tt for anything.
i dont think the strict laws are a deterrence for crimes here. i mean homogenous societies such a S.korea and Japan has exceptionally low crime rate as well but does not have such a strict laws and mandate.
Denise's reaction to John's final meals are everything
cant believe y’all did not bring up the success of finland’s criminal justice system
Appreciate the effort to talk about this societal issue! but i do wish more was said about the ethics of it and the philosophy of it - rather than the cost of death penalty vs life imprisonment, which may not weigh the value of life to its full measure. Also perhaps the nature of the crime in relation to the severity of the penalty?
The discussion was really in-depth and definitely brings up the rationale behind the punishment that is the death penalty. However, it fails to consider the angle or intention of a prison system, which is rehabilitation. Truly death is the easy way out, as our prison system often leaves you worse off than when you entered. Be it the stigma or isolation from the outside world. Especially for crimes like trafficking, it often comes from desperation and a fix would be to address the social issues that pushes a person to do it. The death penalty is placed on the most extreme crimes, but there is a failure of society if people are regularly pushed to commit them - we can’t simply absolve our collective responsibility when a person ends up committing a crime to just survive. In that sense, death is our simple solution that fails to prevent someone else from being in that same position.
Regarding the argument brought up by Denise on death penalty being immoral because killing is immoral, I feel it comes down to the rights of someone to live? Killing someone else is taking away their rights to live, and the murderer did not have the rights to take away someone's right to live in the first place (which makes killing immoral)? And thus by killing someone, the murderer is giving up their right to live to the state to 'compensate' (for a lack of better word) for their crimes.
An alternative argument would be just to accept that the death penalty is immoral (which I disagree, I think it comes down to a fundamental disagreement of justice), but is still necessary to deter killing (which we have established to be immoral). So it is deterring future immoral acts (killing) with the same immoral act (death penalty), but the difference being the life saved > life taken away by death penalty, which makes death penalty a logical punishment.
Of course the contention would be whether the life saved by deterring potential killers is more than life taken, but is a killer's life really worth the same as an innocent life? I feel its more than just numbers, but definitely there would be contention here. Just my two cents :)
To be humane to the convicted criminal, we're forgetting about the damage that the crime has caused to its victims. One life of someone who chose to commit a crime versus the handful of lives of those who may or may not have chosen to suffer the damages of the crime but nonetheless, suffered.
Amongst many other reasons, the mere possibility of wrongful convictions should be adequate for us to rethink the death penalty.
Hello ketchup! I hope u guys can add subtitles in the future? will be easier to keep track and better able to uds what u guys are saying :)
You can turn on the caption for the videoooo
Singapore don’t have enough space to host all the criminals either… we can’t compare ourselves with population size.
I'm obsessed with the daily ketchup. Huhu
Question at 0:25 - neither. No human deserves either if we are viewing it from their perspective. And to be honest, if we are NOT viewing it from their perspective, then this quote comes to mind. "Justice... is nothing more than socially accepted vengeance."
Death penalty will never stop drug trafficking to 0. People say drug traffickers still come into Singapore. No crime will be 0. But the purpose is that it deters most people. Drug trafficking and abuse in Singapore is so much lower. If death penalty was removed the already low amount will increase.
Heart this group of people and their conversations. :)
Just a theory for why hanging vs other forms of execution: to preserve organs for donation
Indonesia Have a location called "Execuition island"...Its esentially a Island Prison where people who are going to be executed are sent to.
Singapore is not the Only country in Southeast asia that is punishing people with death when they traffic drugs...
Drugs in retrospect are heavily penalised everywhere around the world, Like the US sending people for life just because they have drugs...SG with death penalty etc.
Murder/Injury because of death usually results in life Imprisonment.
Death Penalty must stay. It serves as a strong deterent to those who r not hardcore, but r unsure whether or not to go ahead with their evil plot. Its existence send a solid message that Justice will be carried out against evil doers.
A drug dealer released from prison doesn't necessarily mean they're going to do it again. Execution is a bit extreme. The authorities in countries like Singapore are hell bent on forcing their square mentality on others.
love these kind of eps! a recommendation: can watch john oliver for some perspectives from the US side
I found that people that do not support death penalty, lack sympathy for criminal's victims. Instead, these people see the criminal as the victim. If you have sympathy for the criminal's families. Why you do not have sympathy for the victim's families ? These people, who oppose death penalty, are just hypocrites. The research in USA about death penalty is flaw. If you look at the FBI files documentaries, you will heard these words very frequently - "The murder suspect is an ex-convict, who have histories of violent". If these violent criminals are given the death penalty instead of parole. The number of murder victims would have reduce significantly in USA. Many innocent people do not have to die. The only way the world can become a better place is to get rid of bad people. Death penalty is the solution. Don't see death penalty as evil when you enjoy the benefits of death penalty. I am also aware that many people feel that there are many wrong conviction due to police creating false evidences and force confession. Many innocence people die by death penalty due to wrong conviction. However, this issue is due to corrupted police force. It have nothing to do with death penalty. You don't fix the broken table by throwing away the chair. If the police force is corrupted, you fix the police force.
In sg, many people say boh bian to everything. Smlj they alsp say boh bian one
The no bed thing is insane. It is practically light torture in my opinion.
Drug trafficking harms more people than a murder itself. It is a whole business sector on its own globally, harvesting drugs, exploitation of human in developing countries and getting people to unwillingly and willingly traffic the drugs across boarders. Therefore, to deter drug trafficking, death sentence is necessary. People will be less inclined to traffic drugs into Singapore and in turn we have peace, safety for our family and friends, country can also prosper.
At the end of the day, arguments against the death penalty for offenders who committed crimes because they were desperate to earn a buck to feed the family......in my opinion, is invalid. Remember, before committing the crime, in fact before deciding to do it, we all have a choice. Knowing the consequences if one is caught, would one still choose to take the risk? If they did, then they have to be prepared to pay the consequences. In a society like Singapore, there are always legal avenues to get financial help for basic living needs. Even urgent ones. They just need to swallow their ego and ask for help.
Sometimes people smuggle drugs without knowing the consequences. They may think they will get jail for doing smuggling but unaware of the fact that they will get death penalty. And it's not only money need because of which they do it, sometimes they have direct life threat and their life is in danger, their choose to smuggle because there is still some chance that they may not get caught while smuggling drugs, but if they did not smuggle the drugs they will surely die.
They choose better option for them that is they take the risk and smuggle the drugsm
how do i become a member of this podcast?
Golden Triangle is Thailand, Laos and Myanmar
But i m sure people do think twice before trafficking drugs into Singapore as compare to other countries..
Its good money for them because the risk is high.. So if there is low/no risk, means its low pay but that would also mean the drug lord can bring in easily n sell to more people.. There will still be traffickers just tat they need to make more trips as compared to 1 trip to earn the same value.. More families n friends will be harm as compared to now.. So death penalty should continue.. Anyway, they have a choice, no one put a gun to their head to do it..
Sometimes it's the drug lords that bao toh these small traffickers to distract CNB from the big/main load..
michael franzese said that his colombo family wasnt allowed drugs too. Many enemies and goverment can use drugs on them to get information. One guy got caught selling and was arrested commited suicide before their boss manage to finish him off(i think they wanted to bailed out)
I’m not for the death penalty just because I feel like it’s better for the person to suffer and think about what they done rather than die and get the easy way out
Golden triangle is burma, thailand and laos. Get your facts right!
Part 2 of this topic please!!
To Dan's argument that drug trafficking being done out of desperation and Jon's argument on 1 wrong mistake, I feel you guys are overlooking the cost these actions bring to society as a whole and overly focused on how that one person's life would be ruined. Without a doubt it is very heartbreaking to hear such cases, especially if you were a family member of the offender, I think from a 3rd person's perspective it is very clear that this 1 mistake (out of desperation perhaps) brings severe consequences to society when the drugs go out of hand. Not just ruining families economically but also consider overdose, hallucinations resulting in suicide etc. All the side effects (which is very likely to occur, given addiction and how uncontrolled these substances are). So in my opinion drug trafficking should be given the death penalty
if i may offer a counter, is it not the responsibility of each individual in the society to take charge of their own health / choices and what they put into their body? in punishing the traffickers, who are undoubtedly in a lower ses / less fortunate state, are we just taking out on those who already have very little instead of the root cause itself?
how often are these podcasts recorded?
Murderers be hung..Mere killing for personal gain.. No need sympathy..I don't give a f***. There's no need to elaborate on this.
In fact, I will even want rapists to be hung too. When a lady is sexually assaulted, it's the same as killing that part of her. A part of her is dead. As a dad, I wouldn't have any sympathy for the perpetrator who sexually assaulted my daughter. If law doesn't serve justice, I will have no qualm in beating up the man till he's in vegetative state.
Personally, I think that there shouldn't be a death penalty not because it is not moral but because having to live in a confined room for the rest of their life is definitely more painful than that of having to die. Moreover, the justice system is put in place to deter and rehabilitate, and to kill a person just because they did something wrong is neither a deterrent nor rehabilitation because people would definitely be more motivated to do something bad without getting caught. Lastly, on the point of the financial aspect of everything, the government can definitely make the accused or prisoner pay for it especially since they wouldn't be able to pay for everything and did what they did either for money or it was an accident. A great example of this is Norway and they already have such low crimerates
Wow that last insight by John. Power.
Being a history student,this seems like Stalin's five year plan debate haha
"Singapore has never been involved"
Bro...some of the worlds top drug kingpins are Singaporeans like the Ah Kong Syndicate. (althought based overseas not here)
The death penalty is never, ever acceptable.
offtopic: nice ipad mini dan!
What about giving a death row inmate the option to donate a non-essential organ to save a life and their own 2nd chance at life?
They are given that option.
To me I will choose death penalty end things faster instead of dragging times waiting to die
I might be slightly insane but i feel like an someone like Denise's example kills someone, the punishment for them should be torture before hanging. It feels like the only way to equal the pain
I have an idea on this.
How about permanent labor as a punishment till satisfactory? Like you know slaving away in a facility to just clean trash or construction (this would help the country a little in sorting recyclables, or infrastructure etc.) and be given poor food and rest facility. Suppose this was for a crime that has grey area (e.g. proving crimes like drug trafficking, outrage of modesty etc.) but for those crimes say like proven murder, you can have the affected kin of the victims to see the criminal be inflicted with quick punishments or tortures (e.g. caning, whipping) on a monthly basis till they are satisfied or a generation of family moves on from it.
This way the said criminal can be retained in prison for life but be able to give back, be able to see their family and have a shot at proving innocence. I think this way the scale is more balanced? The victim gets to see justice administered and suppose the criminal is proven innocent, they get paid for the labor and live out the remainder of their life.
Never been this early
No
interesting that they bring up the digital prison, with all this talk about a metaverse
I always thought, in SG smlj also boh bian one right? No meh?
You guys should cover the SMU scandal where the guy got convicted, the theme could be about consent or sth. You guys could def make it funny!
Well, if Singapore throws away the death penalty, I might want to try smuggle some drugs here. Jail only what, free food somemore, Compare to poverty I faced now.
This is not a policy issue but generation one. Singapore are largely a conservative country and most importantly i think most people dont care about the death penalty hence no political party have taken it up. Except for the usual human rights activists. Dont think the cons outweighs the pros and vice versus.
Hearing JP's suggestion on incentive, maybe lifetime fine and travel ban instead of lifetime imprisonment . To ensure the offenders remain productive in society throughout their life to pay back for their harm done. 🤔
Malaysia also have death penalty anyhow..
Prison in US chance of getting stabbed higher
A person’s history might be the cause of their present behaviour. If counselling can help then perhaps they deserve a chance.
What you do is what you get
Whats goes around comes around
We should just have life imprisonment for them, too 便宜 for these people to not be punished for the things they did.
For drugs it should be death penalty no doubt about it. Remember it justice for the victim the was caused by drug abuser and drugs pusher not those been caught by been a mule , drugs addicts or drugs pusher
I would chose to most probably to get a job for people with learning difficulties
I feel that Law is a social contract between everyone. To avoid society to descend into primitive "everyone for themselves" situation.
Hence since the criminal enjoyed what society through law and order provided, he should be made to pay when he or she disrupts that order. Otherwise we are just animals.
Check out otego corrections facility, human decency and right is given to all humans from the gov's pov. I guess they'd prefer to let the criminal face his or her own demon internally, succumb to his own pool of misery and either improve as a human or go for psychotic help.
Green mile just kept playing in my head shucks!
Guillotine most painless
feedback! john talking damn soft. but great podcast anyway
Is life in prison not enough ?
" Eye for an eye brings -- utter darkness and utter destruction until there's just one or nobody left standing."
Personally I feel the only person to take a life away is God. Life imprisonment, sure, at least give the convict some fighting chance for evidences to surface to proof his/her innocence if they are really one.
What if that is God's plan for that person who trafficked drugs, and death was his destiny? Stop using religion for such reasoning lolol
God lmao
Easy to say that. If someone were to murder your kin,would you still say the same thing?
When someone kill someone, he has already given up his life to live. If the criminal is not sentenced to death, how about the victim? How about the pain the victim's families and loved ones have to go through
As for drugs, SG law is well known and strictly enforced, no one can say they don't know. Like they say do whatever u want but don't get caught. So when you get caught, you face the music. It is what it is
Long comment ahead...
4:39 Many of those smuggling drugs in are foreigners (most likely), why should we let THEIR societal problems influence how we structure our law?
6:36 The law is there for deterrence, we can't change what has happened, but how we manage the offence will impact the others on whether they should take the risk. Also, morality is a very subjective issue and is another whole debate on its own, what seems moral / immoral to one may not be the same for another.
9:46 Can just take a look at the opium war.
16:31 lmao just code for 1 time, when every "user" has different behaviour
18:50 the amount of resources consumed to incentivise is going to be a lot of than to punish. How many are we going to incentivise vs how many are going through the punishment? Even if we put the resource issue aside, what about foreigners? We will definitely not be giving incentives to them under this scheme so how do you deter them then? You can also just think back to NS, if we change it to an incentive system instead of a punishment system, do you think we will have the requisite manpower?
21:52 I went to take a look at the Wiki, 36% of those executed between 1993 and 2003 are foreigners, not 36% of drug traffickers are foreigners
31:34 They are criminals, why should society accede to any of their request? $20 is generous enough
38:11 So that country is just saying "go ahead and do crime" instead of deterring it and attempting to break the cycle while providing more opportunities instead?
Algooooo
I found that people that do not support death penalty, lack sympathy for criminal's victims. Instead, these people see the criminal as the victim. If you have sympathy for the criminal's families. Why you do not have sympathy for the victim's families ? These people, who oppose death penalty, are just hypocrites. The research in USA about death penalty is flaw. If you look at the FBI files documentaries, you will heard these words very frequently - "The murder suspect is an ex-convict, who have histories of violent". If these violent criminals are given the death penalty instead of parole. The number of murder victims would have reduce significantly in USA. Many innocent people do not have to die. The only way the world can become a better place is to get rid of bad people. Death penalty is the solution. Don't see death penalty as evil when you enjoy the benefits of death penalty. I am also aware that many people feel that there are many wrong conviction due to police creating false evidences and force confession. Many innocence people die by death penalty due to wrong conviction. However, this issue is due to corrupted police force. It have nothing to do with death penalty. You don't fix the broken table by throwing away the chair. If the police force is corrupted, you fix the police force.
Should’ve discussed the fact that the Singaporean justice system is about to hang an intellectually disabled man for cannabis…. 🙄
First!