Thu 8 December 2005 - Was justice done?
We spend so much time, money and effort, in western society especially, trying to prolong life and prevent accidents, that to me it really jars to know governments such as Singapore’s continue to deliberately kill people.
Now, we all know Van Tuong Nguyen was attempting to smuggle drugs. A big load of heroin. He deserved to be caught (and we’re lucky he was). He pleaded guilty. He did it. He seemed sorry. He seemed to realise he’d made a mistake. A huge, stupid mistake. He deserved to be punished.
But a mandatory death sentence?
Would justice have been served with a long jail sentence? Yep, I reckon so.
Are the people who “employed” him still going about their business, with other mules? You bet.
Were there extenuating circumstances which should have come into play? Evidently, yes.
Apart from being out of work and desperately in debt himself, so was his brother, whom he was trying to help. He claims to have been threatened, and after being caught with heroin on him, willingly confessed to having more in his luggage.
Singapore has executed more than 400 people in the last 15 years, mostly for drug offences. Is it a deterrent? Apparently not, if people keep doing it.
Years ago, I lost a school friend to heroin. Nobody knew he was using it. I’ll never forget his mother’s grief at the funeral. And while the toll has dropped since its height in the 90s, it’s quite clear that heroin and other drugs remain a serious problem, and we should be fighting it rigorously.
But mandatory execution of hapless mules? I don’t think it works, and as it is, at yesterday’s service, Van Nguyen’s family were left to mourn yet another victim to the heroin trade.
Other views (some contrary):
- Kathy: drug users make a choice too.
- Suspira: They’ve made a martyr out of a criminal.
- Kristy: … killing him in one of the most inhumane ways (hanging) has established nothing!
- Amnesty International: Anti-Death Penalty Campaign
- Omeka Na Huria: He wasn’t carrying 26,000 doses. It was 6000-8000, enough for 6-8 addicts for a year.
- Highriser: I was silly enough to watch an online interview of his mother. At the end of the interview she broke down completely. It was horrible.
- Age letters
December 9th, 2005 at 8:05am
I’m afraid Daniel that this is one of those very sticky subjects and one on which there is always going to be a very divided opinions. Whilst I grieve for the loss of a son for Van Nguyen’s mother the truth of the matter is that he was found guilty of drug trafficking in a country which severely punishes you for that offence.
My daughter too lost a friend (actually ex-boyfriend) to a heroin overdose and I never in my life wish to experience the outpouring of grief which I saw first hand at his funeral. He was only 20 years old and from what we were told it was his first (and last) time using. Should the suppliers be punished - most certainly. Can they be caught - more than likely not.
Is the person who drives the getaway car any less guilty than the person who sticks a gun in the face of a bank teller and takes the money. I don’t think so.
To compound this already sad event, his best friend on seeing that he had od’d, got a gun and shot himself. Now that leads to another sticky subject - guns and who should have access to them.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:51am
Heh, I was going to write another rant, but I deleted it. I’ll just say that I agree with you, Daniel. The punishment did not fit the crime.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:29am
I disagree.
I personally don’t give a crap about the circumstances that surround it, fact is, he was looking to profit from other people’s misery.
Harsh? Maybe, but do you think for one second Van Nguyen would give a crap about people dying on the streets from his import while he’s busy counting his money? I highly doubt it.
It’s natural justice whether it offends your personal sense of justice or not. He did the crime in a country where he was aware of the penalty and paid the price. Too bad.
I feel bad for his mother, but for him? Heck, I won’t miss a wink of sleep over his demise.
I work hard for a moderate and HONEST wage in a country where I can’t even afford a home for my family. Should that mean I can resort to crime just to make up the shortfall and you should feel sorry for me if I get caught?
Pulese.
I’m not trying to offend anyone here by my comments, but this continual soft attitude to convicted criminals abroad quite frankly sickens me when good and honest tax paying Australians are suffering every day here at home and none of you could care less about it.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:20am
“good and honest tax paying Australians are suffering every day here at home and none of you could care less about it”
Whoa… generalisation city, DM! Many of us care about the state of the nation. Daniel’s specific comment was (I believe, Daniel, please correct me if I’m wrong) about the severity of Nguyen’s punishment, not that he shouldn’t have been punished at all. There’s a difference between being soft and being realistic. When you compare this to other crimes that are worse (IMO) yet don’t carry the same sentence precedent, it seems extreme to me.
In actual fact, DM, you echo my exact thoughts. He did the crime in a different country and is subject to those laws and yes, he was a stupid and yes he was a criminal aiming to profit from the suffering of others both here and overseas. A punishable crime, certainly - but by death? Like I said, extreme. But on all other facets I agree wholeheartedly with you.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:51am
The death penalty does not deter criminal activity, but I believe that the state (to use DM’s analogy, us taxpayers) should not be forced to keep a person in jail, fed and watered to the end of his days. The cost to run and maintain prisons is astronomical and the counter argument also is that jail does not deter criminal activity.
So if jail doesnt work and capital punishment doesnt work, then you can set aside the argument that punishment in general is a deterant.
So instead, lets look at the practicalities - a crime that takes a life or in Van Ngyuen’s case would have taken lives vicariously deserves a punishment in kind.
Death penalties for serious offenses should have serious penalties, but not because it will deter others that may follow, but rather as a real and sudden consequence to a truly evil, selfish act.
Then we look at Van Ngyuen. Was he doing an evil and selfish act that would cost the lives of others?
My answer is yes, and you should try and put aside the civil libertarian martyrdom that is being thrown at us via the media and realise that this guy was peddling death for personal profit.
Death is in my mind reasonable consequence of his actions.
It is horrible for his mother, and his brother also must be burdened by horrific guilt, but think of the nameless mothers who have not had to bury their son or daughter from heroin…
To sum up, “Harsh, but fair.”
December 9th, 2005 at 11:52am
apologies, my post is riddled with bad grammar… Daniel, we need an edit function…
December 9th, 2005 at 12:05pm
“so was his brother, whom he was trying to help.”
Me, I’ve been using Reservoir train station for nigh on 10 years (where the brother hacked up his victim with a machete). You can still see the blood stains painted over.
Woo-Hoo! Local boy! 15 minutes of fame, baby~!
December 9th, 2005 at 12:33pm
DM: I take your point, and certainly attention has been focussed on it when it could have been looking at other things, including domestic issues affecting many more people… but you could say that of any number of issues/events/stories.
And beyond the personal issues of this particular case, capital punishment remains an important issue (at least outside Australia).
TM: I think we all hope our own families never go off the rails as badly as that one evidently has.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:29pm
Yes he did deserve to hang. He broke the law in another country, so he deserves to suffer that countries punnishment for that crime. In this case that punnishment is hanging.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:54pm
Fundamentally - a civilised society doesn’t have the right to take a life. It’s barbaric.
I often say that I’m instinctually in favour of the death penalty for violent homicides only, but intellectually opposed to it in all circumstances.
And for smuggling drugs? Geez. He’s just providing a service to the community….
December 12th, 2005 at 4:54pm
By the same token, Australia lags even behind the US in terms of capital punishment. Does this make us better people or simply ignorant?
I personally can’t see how in our current Australia, we consider ourselves a civilised society when we cry about a crim getting hung whilst happily tow the Johnny line as our troops march to war as an aggressor.
It’s a matter of perspective really, but I’m getting off track.
I’m hard on this guy, sure, because I most definitely think the punishment fit the crime. How can you plead unfair when you know what the penalty for the act is before you go ahead and do it? It makes no sense.
But that’s the problem I feel with attitude in this country - far too much ignorance - far too much belief that people can do as they wish, but to kill them is ‘barbaric’ - far too much of a soft line to what we really should be cracking down hard on.
No wonder our nation is considered a ’soft target’ for criminals…