Death Penalty for Drug Smuggler

[Furio]

Killing drug smugglers not in immediate self-defense just raises the premium on drugs. Suppliers and dealers get richer, users get poorer.

Very smart analysis about why this can't ever work besides any moral, just like prohibitionism.

And, by the way, if your kids becomes drug addicted don't blame the pusher and expecially don't ask the state to kill him, taking your role as a father will do much more.

I agree with you both, yet still hold my position.

People don't seem to get that  the vast majority of drug users are normal people who just take drugs now en then and have a functionally life, sometimes even kids. Not everybody walks around with a needle in his arm.... again, less then 3% of people develop a problem, yet over 25% of people have trouble either with food intake or alcohol..... If you feel lik eevery drug user is a junky, governments have succeeded in their propaganda and criminalizing substance taking.... Which is as old as cavemen, maybe even older then the oldest profession

I've known enough people that snorted and/or smoked cocaine and/or heroin to know it's not the end of the world for them at that stage. They can even lead relatively normal lives. (I've even been there myself.) I've also seen what happens to people once they get into using needles. All of them were severely dysfunctional and I've never seen anyone come back from it, although I'm sure even that's possible, just extremely unlikely. Those lives were destroyed and I'd hate to see that happen to anyone, especially someone I care for. So, from personal experience I can tell you, it's not an easy thing to recover from once you head down that road, and at some point (like when you use needles) it's basically impossible. Sure excessive eating, drinking alcohol, even too much sex can become a serious problem, but I promise you, dealing with those addictions are child's play compared to coke or heroin. I'm also 99.99% positive you won't find anyone who mainlines either drug posting in this or any other forum for that matter, however I'm quite confident you'll find plenty who do like the smell of coke here.

Btw, cocaine or heroin was definitely NOT being used by cavemen. The average coca leaf contains from 0.5 to 1 % of the alkaloid cocaine, so chewing on the leaves of coca plants, which actually has some health benefits and is what South American indigenous peoples have been doing for over a thousand years, has far less potency and is not even remotely comparable to using the now common powdered form of cocaine, regardless of which method you choose.

Drug use commonly speaking is as old as the caveman, that you state that cocaine wasn't available, uuuuhm, duh, what kerosine or benzine to produce right You state a few misconceptions, alcohol and legal prescription kill far more and addict far more people then illigal drugs will ever will. Also criminalizing causes more addiction... every recent survey has shown that the countries who don't criminalize but damage reduce have far less addiction problems then say America, where you can get life for a couple of grams in some regions if it's your third time. Locking someone up for life for drug use is retarded and a violation of human rights.... same as killing people for it...

[bitkilo]

Drugs can destroy peoples lifes in many ways.
Addicts needs money for the drugs and some will turn to crime to fund their habit, this in turn affects the whole community but never should anyone be put to death for dealing/smuggling drugs.

Alcohol and tobacco is a much worse problem from all angles but they are still legal.
The governments are the biggest problem because they are addicted to the tax revenue from these products.
Death penialty for people who traffic drugs will not stop nor even slow the flow.
Governments should just legalise drugs and collect the billions of $ in taxes.

[(oYo)]

Drug use commonly speaking is as old as the caveman, that you state that cocaine wasn't available, uuuuhm, duh, what kerosine or benzine to produce right You state a few misconceptions, alcohol and legal prescription kill far more and addict far more people then illigal drugs will ever will. Also criminalizing causes more addiction... every recent survey has shown that the countries who don't criminalize but damage reduce have far less addiction problems then say America, where you can get life for a couple of grams in some regions if it's your third time. Locking someone up for life for drug use is retarded and a violation of human rights.... same as killing people for it...

I probably wasn't clear enough on my actual position on this topic, starting with my first post in this thread. I don't have a problem with mature individuals doing drugs. I'm not for the death penalty. I don't necessarily have a problem with smugglers or even dealers. My problem is mainly with the pushers and gangs, since this is often just a tactic used to drag kids into the fold and a lifestyle of crime. I pity the fool that tries pushing any hard drugs like coke or heroin on anyone I care about. Like I said earlier, love and education/communication are the best deterrent against drug abuse (I stress abuse, not use), but if I found out that someone (or some group) tried to pressure anyone I care for into that world they'd have me to deal with. And I assure you I would certainly lose my cool and I won't be merciful.

As far as statistics go. The death rates among alcohol and prescription drug users vs coke and heroin users could very well just be a matter of lifestyle and accessibility. I completely agree that locking up users is retarded and yes even a violation of their rights.

[SOAD]

Killing drug smugglers not in immediate self-defense just raises the premium on drugs. Suppliers and dealers get richer, users get poorer.

well that's the problem, though the people taking the risk for monetary gain quite literally pay with their life if caught. If you think the riches are worth it then go ahead.

In the meantime...

Indonesia pays "blood money" to save maid from execution in Saudi Arabia

They will execute people for drug smuggling, but will pay to save the life of a murderer.

Indonesian scum.

The people in power and who make the laws are always hypocritical. Does it say what Indonesia plans to do with the maid? Prison, set free etc?

[bryant.coleman]

A few years ago, one of the death row inmates in Indonesia had his sentence commuted, after he converted to Islam. Another well known example is that of Australian model Michelle Leslie. She was arrested for drug possession. She claimed that she had converted to Islam, and the judge gave her a lenient three months sentence rather than a mandatory 15 year term.

[Krang]

A few years ago, one of the death row inmates in Indonesia had his sentence commuted, after he converted to Islam. Another well known example is that of Australian model Michelle Leslie. She was arrested for drug possession. She claimed that she had converted to Islam, and the judge gave her a lenient three months sentence rather than a mandatory 15 year term.

Why doesn't everyone just take this defense? Is it ok for Muslims to import drugs or something? Will they get away clean when they're caught "It's ok I'm a Muslim".

[BADecker]

In the U.S. and most of the other common law countries, if a man stands as himself in the court (not representing himself or being represented by another - an attorney), he can rightfully demand to face his accuser, his accuser has to have been harmed or damaged, has to prove the harm or damage, has to swear that the accused was the one who did the harm or damage, has to have evidence linking the accused to the harm or damage, and has to have an impartial, third party witness saying that he/she witnessed the accused doing the harm or damage. Standard law. http://voidjudgments.com/

If the accused does the above, and if the accuser does not appear and get up on the stand and swear or affirm the wrongdoing (harm or damage), or if there is no impartial witness, or if the evidence can't be tied to the accused, either the accused is set free, or there is a jury trial.

If the jury is a fully informed jury, they will understand that they can judge both the facts and the law. That is, they can judge the guilt or innocence of the accused, and they can, also, judge the law to be right or wrong. If they judge the law in question to be wrong, it is automatically repealed in every following case that stands on their judgment.

[jjacob]

A few years ago, one of the death row inmates in Indonesia had his sentence commuted, after he converted to Islam. Another well known example is that of Australian model Michelle Leslie. She was arrested for drug possession. She claimed that she had converted to Islam, and the judge gave her a lenient three months sentence rather than a mandatory 15 year term.

This is ridiculous!!!
What do you do if you are already a muslim? 

[RodeoX]

Drugs are not so dangerous compared to anti-drug crusaders. Those people will actually kill you... to protect you from drugs. 

[BADecker]

Drugs are never the problem. I don't care if my neighbor, knowing and understanding what he is doing, goes out and shoots himself up all over the place. The only thing that I need to know is that he won't harm anyone else with what he is doing. If he does harm someone else, then punish him according to the harm done.

Disallowing free usage of drugs is simply taking away the freedom of people. Do you want to force me for my own good? Well, my idea is to stop your forcing of me. And it will be for your own good. Because if you keep it up, there will be me and others who will forcefully throw off your bondage of us, and you won't like it when we do it.

[tss]

i wont agree or disagree with the politics but they knew the risks they were taking.  all in the name of greed.

[Madness]

This is a total violation of human rights, the fact that you wish someone dead for drugs, disgusting.....

Sure it sounds harsh from a strictly academic point of view, but you may think differently if some drug dealer was trying to get your kids hooked on crack or heroin.

I couldn't agree more mate  .
I personally think they do deserve death penalty and more (if there was anything worst then death) , Indonisia have so strict law I saw someone a Documentary about it on National Geographic pretty cool . they changed their whole living type after the tsunami that killed over 200,000 in 2004 .

[jaysabi]

My own view is it's wrong for governments to kill people, always and without exception.

[Madness]

My own view is it's wrong for governments to kill people, always and without exception.

If you don't mind my question ... why is that , it's not like goverments are the good people .
and what do you expect from goverments to do for Pedophiles who rape kids , for a serial killer ... we shouldn't kill those too ?

~ Madness.

[jaysabi]

My own view is it's wrong for governments to kill people, always and without exception.

If you don't mind my question ... why is that , it's not like goverments are the good people .
and what do you expect from goverments to do for Pedophiles who rape kids , for a serial killer ... we shouldn't kill those too ?

~ Madness.

Simplest answer: Because your right to life is absolute. No person or group of persons has the right to take it from you.

[Madness]

My own view is it's wrong for governments to kill people, always and without exception.

If you don't mind my question ... why is that , it's not like goverments are the good people .
and what do you expect from goverments to do for Pedophiles who rape kids , for a serial killer ... we shouldn't kill those too ?

~ Madness.

Simplest answer: Because your right to life is absolute. No person or group of persons has the right to take it from you.

Says who mate ? A serial killer don't give a shit about other peoples life , so why would people give a shit about his life ? If he don't care about people rights then simply people don't care about his right .
What if someone killed your father,mother , brother whatever ... you won't seek for revenge or at least make sure he die with death penalty ?
~ Madness.

[jaysabi]

My own view is it's wrong for governments to kill people, always and without exception.

If you don't mind my question ... why is that , it's not like goverments are the good people .
and what do you expect from goverments to do for Pedophiles who rape kids , for a serial killer ... we shouldn't kill those too ?

~ Madness.

Simplest answer: Because your right to life is absolute. No person or group of persons has the right to take it from you.

Says who mate ? A serial killer don't give a shit about other peoples life , so why would people give a shit about his life ? If he don't care about people rights then simply people don't care about his right .
What if someone killed your father,mother , brother whatever ... you won't seek for revenge or at least make sure he die with death penalty ?
~ Madness.

Killing doesn't undo anything that's been done, so there's no reason for it. Because all people are born equal, no person can ever assume the right to take life over another person.

[RodeoX]

Drug laws are like nudity laws. They come from people who think they should decide how I should live. They make no sense at all. That is why I can watch 20 sadistic murders on TV each night while drunk to the point of death. But I can't smoke a harmless weed or see a nipple on TV. It's mind control and the freedom to explore new ideas could lead to change. OMG, not change!

[erre]

[u9y42]

Indeed, the first line of defense against drug abuse is love and education.

<Insert unpopular opinion puffin meme here>
But, (hypothetically speaking) what if someone literally put a gun to your kid's head and made them do it with the intention of getting them addicted? (I know this sounds extreme, but it's not really that far off from what really does go on.) This degenerate is basically trying to destroy your child's life and in my eyes deserves no less than the destruction of theirs in return. It has nothing to do with being a deterrent, but more to do with ridding society of such professional scumbags. The sorry truth is that these people aren't likely to be rehabilitated and will only become worse and more dangerous over time. And, if so, why should good people be saddled with the burden of supporting the life of these people in prisons, where they hone their skills? I feel the same way towards pimps and rapists. I have more respect for the life of a cockroach rat than I do for these types of people. These are not victimless crimes. People's lives are literally destroyed by these people. If the bleeding hearts want to support and rehabilitate these degenerates, then let it be on their own dime and perhaps they should also be held equally responsible for any future misdeeds done by them.

I wouldn't use only "how effective it is" as a guideline here - there is also the issue of morality, and what other solutions might exist, that aren't being pursued. Personally, I don't think there is any justification for using the death penalty; not only in this case, but in just about any case I can think of.

its justified when not carrying it out is likely to result in damage to more people which is why many countries retain it for times or war to prevent desertion and complete destruction of the state. this is a third world country that has't got resources to imprison hundreds of thousands more people and fight a war on drugs.

Of course, as (oYo) points out, it's easy to have this view if you have no personal connection to the victims; but as harsh as it might be, in my view, that should have no bearing on the situation.

lindsay sandiford (bali deathrow woman) is sort of a family friend if that counts

Well, we're talking about penalties for civilians in custody here, not for war criminals. But without going too much in that direction, even in some of those cases you mention, like preventing desertion and such, I wouldn't support the death penalty.

Now, to be honest, I'm not all that familiar with the situation in Indonesia, but I'm not sure "a war on drugs" is the right solution. There are a few countries that either have already or are moving towards decriminalizing drug use, though probably only some types (at least initially) - is there any reason this wouldn't be a better approach? I'm not sure popular opinion there would support moving in this direction, but hypothetically...

Also, it's true they might not have the resources to handle imprisoning more people, but that just hints at a larger problem - and also to touch upon (oYo)'s idea of having "the bleeding hearts" pay for imprisonment and rehabilitation: as far as I'm aware, at least in the US, executions end up costing far more than any other type of sentence. This isn't directly because of the cost of executing someone, of course, that's pretty cheap, but rather due to legal costs during trial, appeals, and so on. And considering someone's life is on the line, I wouldn't want those safeguards to be removed, which would just lead to even more innocent people being executed than already are.

Finally, and to address (oYo)'s hypothetical situation, a couple of points:

- There are more ways than just one to deal with those situations, or at least help prevent them: removing the monetary incentive those actions have, and improving people's living conditions could be a good starting place.
- Many of those people are from very poor backgrounds, and others probably had their own lives destroyed at one point - as far as I know, you can't pin criminal activity on genetics alone. That isn't to say there shouldn't be consequences to their actions, but they aren't inhuman monsters that need to be eradicated at first site.
- I'm not sure rehabilitation doesn't work in those cases; I've never seen evidence to support that. Now, if you're talking about for-profit prisons and the like, then we have another problem altogether.