Skip to main content

When in Rome

Australia is in an uproar over the case of Nguyen Tuong Van, an Australian citizen who was arrested by Singapore authorities in 2002 for drug smuggling - 396 grams of heroin, to be exact. After being duly convicted, he was sentenced to death. Nguyen was on his way to Australia with the heroin, where it could have been split into as many as 26,000 hits, with street value of $500,000 to millions.

Australia eliminated the death penalty in 1973.

Nobody is claiming that Nguyen is innocent. They are merely arguing that the death penalty is barbaric.

Whenever this comes up, it is always discussed in terms of "we can't believe anyone in the 21st century still does this." But the question is really not is the death penalty ever justified (because it is). The questions that should be getting asked, but are not, are:

Is Singapore's criminal justice system competent and fair?
What is the likelihood that Nguyen is actually innocent?
Are there mitigating factors that should be considered?

I have seen no complaints about the quality of trial in Singapore. Nguyen seems resigned to his fate and isn't claiming that he is innocent. As far as mitigating factors, Nguyen did the trafficking in order to pay for his brother's legal bills - created by his two drug trafficking convictions.

The old adage is "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." If you're going to smuggle drugs, breaking the laws of virtually every country, you take your chances. The US State Department warns travelers that when they are in a foreign country they are subject to the laws and legal systems of those countries.

Nguyen rolled the dice, and came up craps.

If there is little doubt about Nguyen's guilt, why should Singapore pay to keep this man alive in jail for the entire rest of his natural life? Which is the worse punishment, life in prison with no hope of parole or execution?

Opiate overdose kills hundreds of people annually in Australia. But there has been no outpouring of sympathy for those who would have died from the heroin Nguyen was supplying. And with the large amount involved, people would certainly have died from that very heroin. I guess it's alright for hundreds a year to die, but not this one? If we are comparing barbarisms, heroin overdose is pretty high up the list.

I am in favor of the abolition of all drug laws, on the basis that what someone puts into their own body is their business. If they commit crimes to gain money for drugs, then punish them for those crimes, not for possession or use or sale of the drugs.

The tragedy here is that the act of drug use is still widely considered criminal, and thus the trafficking in drugs is a high-risk high-margin business, which can attract even otherwise good people to a life of crime.


Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Is Government "just the name we give to things we do together"?

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together." Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement. Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things. Churches.
Families. And these all have their own unique characteristics. If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it? If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity? What is it about government then that makes it unique? I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others. Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that. BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should not do many things, eve…