.
I sent the email to Singapore's High Consul this morning. If you consider their plans to execute convicted drug mule Nguyen Tuong Van wrong, please do something similar yourself.
Their email address (in NZ) is: shcwlg@xtra.co.nz
For more information on the case read here and here.
The email I wrote (quickly and poorly) reads follows:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am sending this email to you to register my deep disappointment at your government's plans to execute Nguyen Tuong Van.
While Mr Tuong Van is, in all probability, guilty of the crimes that he is charged with, his killing by the State of Singapore will – in my mind – only be addressing his crime by committing a much greater one (murder).
It will also be imposing the punishment of a lifetime’s suffering on a totally innocent person: his
mother.
Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that such punishment does anything to diminish the drugs trade.
For all these reasons I urge your government to re-consider the death penalty in this case.
While you may consider that this is an internal issue to the state of Singapore and, as such, none of my business, I would ask you to reflect on the fact that, in today’s globalised world there are very few internal issues anymore. And that some things, such as human rights, are universal and do not stop at national borders.
Kind Regards
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Against State Killing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
> there is little evidence to suggest that such punishment does anything to diminish the drugs trade.
I have to say I am pretty dubious about this claim - because it will sure as hell reduce reoffending. It seems hard to imagine that it would not be at least somewhat effective even if it just increased the cost of drugs (and thus marginaly reduced the volume).
Hi Genius,
Dubious or not, there just isn't the empiracle evidence that the death penalty (as opposed to long prison sentances - which also reduce reoffending in the short term) reduces crime.
As for the impact on the cost of drugs: have a look at a first year economics textbook some time - demand for drugs liek Heroin is (for obvious reasons) highly inelastic.
Is this the post you refered to?
Basically
1) your statement doesnt sound like it would be correct. I will take a simple example of chasing a dog off your property (no particular reason for choosing this example)
If you chased a dog out of your yard it would be very odd logic for you to argue that that would mean there would be the same number or more dogs in your yard. It might be true but there would be an impressive burden of proof because it sounds so illogical.
Now of course it depends a litle on what you are comparing it with. You did not specifically say you were comparing it with long jail terms which are the most likely to get close but nice of you to state that is your asumption here.
As to that I also have some marginal things to dispute -
B) long prison sentances might match the death penalty in the primary effect but that would be an impressive prison. 100% rehabilitation and 100% corrected behaviour within the prison... Again sounds a bit unlikely
But my point was that you were not saying "diminish it relitive to prison"
Anyway in addition then there is of course the discouragement effect. I would think is positive even comparing death penalty with prison. Ie it might be a smal effect but how many people whoud take up the drug trade BECAUSE they might get killed as a result? as long as that never happens you only need one person to not do it because of the penalty for it to have a positive effect - again seems pretty likely.
Therefore I would suggest that a death penalty almost certainly reduces drug usage even though you might argue that it is only by a tiny amount. Then one can start debating if it is worth it (in most cases I expect it is not) but at least you will be debating on the facts. Ie I argue against you making an incorrect statement even if I might come to the same concluson baised on the actual data.
> As for the impact on the cost of drugs: have a look at a first year economics textbook some time - demand for drugs liek Heroin is (for obvious reasons) highly inelastic.
if the cost goes up it should still lower usage a little partly because it would make quite a high percentage of the poor user's income I would assume.
Is this the post you refered to?
Basically
1) your statement doesnt sound like it would be correct. I will take a simple example of chasing a dog off your property (no particular reason for choosing this example)
If you chased a dog out of your yard it would be very odd logic for you to argue that that would mean there would be the same number or more dogs in your yard. It might be true but there would be an impressive burden of proof because it sounds so illogical.
Now of course it depends a litle on what you are comparing it with. You did not specifically say you were comparing it with long jail terms which are the most likely to get close but nice of you to state that is your asumption here.
As to that I also have some marginal things to dispute -
B) long prison sentances might match the death penalty in the primary effect but that would be an impressive prison. 100% rehabilitation and 100% corrected behaviour within the prison... Again sounds a bit unlikely
But my point was that you were not saying "diminish it relitive to prison"
Anyway in addition then there is of course the discouragement effect. I would think is positive even comparing death penalty with prison. Ie it might be a smal effect but how many people whoud take up the drug trade BECAUSE they might get killed as a result? as long as that never happens you only need one person to not do it because of the penalty for it to have a positive effect - again seems pretty likely.
Therefore I would suggest that a death penalty almost certainly reduces drug usage even though you might argue that it is only by a tiny amount. Then one can start debating if it is worth it (in most cases I expect it is not) but at least you will be debating on the facts. Ie I argue against you making an incorrect statement even if I might come to the same concluson baised on the actual data.
> As for the impact on the cost of drugs: have a look at a first year economics textbook some time - demand for drugs liek Heroin is (for obvious reasons) highly inelastic.
if the cost goes up it should still lower usage a little partly because it would make quite a high percentage of the poor user's income I would assume.
Hi Genius and happy holiday season,
I was comparing death penalty use to prison sentances; I thought that would have been obvious. Remember I was refering to empiracle studies on the matter. Obviously, as almost no country on earth lets serious criminals (the sort who might expect to face capital punishment in Singapore) off with a slap on the wrist; what is being compared is the deterrant effect of the death penalty on serious crime in those countrys and states that have it versus those countries and states who lock up their serious criminals for a long time.
Your dog analogy falls down for at least two reasons: Firstly, the choice is not chase the dog off your property or not it is shoot the dog or lock it up for a very long period of time and refuse to let it back into your yard/country again. The "elimination effect" is about exactly the same in both cases. Secondly, in the case of drugs smugglers you don't actually catch every dog who enters your property - in fact you only catch a tiny number so the "elimination effect" is not the only thing you are after. You also want a deterant effect (and ideally - as this is the best solution to drugs problems you want to reduce demand). And - like I keep saying - for whatever reason the deterrant effect of capital punishment is, according to most credable empiracle studies, insignificant. (i.e for your dogs the thought of being locked up is apparently as big of a deterant as the thought of being shot).
The only caveat i might add to this is that most of the studies that I am aware of relate to capital punishment as it is used in murder cases (in the USA). Possibly capital punishment might have a higher deterrant effect on drug smugglers rather than murderers. However,this still doesn't change the fact that it is imoral.
finally, you wrote:
if the cost goes up it should still lower usage a little partly because it would make quite a high percentage of the poor user's income I would assume.
You are wrong here, as there are two other things that may "give" before drug use habits change. One is the ammount of money spent on other items (which have a more elastic demand). Two price increases can be compensated for by increasing income (theft is a good way of doing this). This isn't to say that large price increases will have no impact on demand but rather that you have to acheive significant price increases to get only small changes in demand and that, in the meantime, you may encoutner all sorts of negative consequences like increased crime.
Post a Comment