Briton executed in China today.

studiorat

From Yesterdays Paper, saddened to read about this poor fecker.

Since being convicted Akmal Shaikh lost the final appeal last week and was excecuted today. Campagainers say his mental illness was not taken into account and he was the victim of a ruse by confidence tricksters to carry herion over the chineese border.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1228/breaking2.htm

Reprieve has said it has medical evidence that Mr Shaikh was suffering from a delusion that he was going to China to record a hit single.

Once there he was duped by a criminal gang into unwittingly carrying drugs for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akmal_Shaikh

Should drug trafficking carry a death sentance? Should anything carry the death sentance?

nyarlothothep

Drug trafficking, lame as it is, shouldn't be punishable by death. I'm opposed to the death penalty in any case. What I wonder though is whether China should have been allowed to execute a foreign national within its borders? From a political/ethical standpoint the British government should have had some influence in the sentencing, ie not death but the chinese government decided to ignore them and the UN anyway. Its a diplomatic disaster.

metrovelvet

Because China now has us all by the balls they will not be too concerned about their human rights image or international relations and we want to do business with them so we wont pressure much.↲↲My father always said it. The yellow man will rule the world.

KeithAFC

Yep. They are the biggest now. They didn't panic at all. Just went ahead and did it.

SLUSK

This is a sad story indeed. Must be a tragedy for this man's family.

Mr. Presentable

It is indeed a sad thing for the man and his family. But if that is the potential penalty it becomes a risk of the job. Lesson ; only smuggle drugs where they'll let you off.

The mental illness thing for me is a red herring. Read the Tallaght Echo and you'll find this is the defence for every crime - mentally unstable, drug addict, alcoholic and on and on. Nobody responsible for anything.

Dilynnio

Drug trafficking affects so many people........family,friends of the user. It destroys not one but numerous lives.

In Thailand drug trafficking is punishable by death whereas a person who murders someone gets life in prison.

They believe that drugs damages many more than just the life of the person using the drugs.

I can see their point......its intelligent in a way.

seamus

Tough call. Ignoring the death sentence, it would seem that the main issue is that the claims of bipolar only came after he'd been sentenced.

Imagine it in an Irish perspective:

- Foreign man gets caught smuggling a large quantity of drugs, tried and convicted.
- Gets sentenced to 15 years
- After sentencing, an appeal is made based on mental grounds.
- The appelants are unable to show any evidence of the man having been diagnosed with any mental disorder, let alone that he was treated for one.

Do you think the sentence should stand?

Yes, the punishment is clearly needlessly harsh, and it's most likely that he was duped into carrying the drugs. However, a series of events took place here which could easily have been prevented. His family and friends knew he was mentally unstable. Why had he never seen a doctor or psychiatrist? Did his family know about his trip into the middle east to record a pop song? If so, why did they let him go?

As for the Chinese, no they don't really have to bow to international pressure, and they shouldn't be required to forgoe their legal system just because the man was an EU citizen. There are plenty of EU citizens rotting for life in the cells of other countries (and no doubt China too), why aren't we appealing for their release? The execution was "lawful" (doesn't mean it was right), so there's very little in international terms that can be done in retaliation.

China might be communist, but they depend on the captalism of the rest of the world to keep them in power. Otherwise they would have ignored any appeals and just gone ahead and done it. It appears that in this case they took the time to listen to the appeals and give them due regard within the confines of their legal system. Which is exactly what any western country would do.

The death sentence is fundamentally flawed because it offers no chance for reprieve. Very few cases are decided on absolute evidence, so some space always has to be left for new evidence to acquit someone found guilty.

Saltour Sossiez

Should drug trafficking carry a death sentance? Should anything carry the death sentance?

I don't know to be honest. I'd prefer to see people who commit serious crimes suffer for a long time.

I really don't feel sorry for this Pakistani at all though. He should have known the risks he was taking.

Before anyone starts, no, I don't believe he thought he was going there to record a music single. :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

Perhaps if the UK government offered to imprison him for life in the UK (i.e. them bearing the expense) the Chinese government might have gone for it on the basis of making a diplomatic concession while at the same time saving face by him being punished.

But what alternatives were they offered? They could either have imprisoned him in China for the rest of his life (and paid the cost of imprisonment, appeals etc) or let him go.

Equally I doubt the UK government did anything other than say "Please don't execute him" without offering anything in the alternative.

As far as international incidents go, it's bottom of the barrell.

RE: death penalty I'm against it in principle but accept that it does happen in China and that its not going to change in the short to medium term.

RE: the incident in general, if anyone is suggesting that certain issues were not taken into account then it raises the issue as to whether he got a fair trial in China. I'd be interested to see if anyone is arguing that he did not.

Iwasfrozen

seamus wrote: »

China might be communist,

Words fail me, please read up on Marx and Engels.

johnnyskeleton

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Words fail me, please read up on Marx and Engels.

Dictatorship of the proletariat then.

nyarlothothep

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Dictatorship of the proletariat then.

Dictatorship of a small elite

studiorat

Drug smuggling carrying the death penalty is an overly simplistic approach. People still need to make the decision themselves whether to take drugs or not, so in that sense they are not directly responsible for drug related deaths.

Just to play the devils acrobat on this. Drinking petrol will kill you, smuggling it carries a penalty because it deprives the government of tax income. The point being smuggling in itself is not shoving drugs down peoples throats. Perhaps because it is a link in the chain.

As for the perpetrator being delusional. I believe this is perfectly plausable. I've come across plenty of people both clinically nuts and not clinical, with similar delusions. Perhaps this is why the story appealed to me. I really could see this happening.

As for the death penalty in general I have to say I'm against it no matter what the crime. I believe a certain moral high ground can be achieved by not using the death penalty. Executing someone both raises questions such as does killing them make us any better not to mention the chance of wrongful sentancing.

deadhead13

There are 68 crimes that can be punishable by death in China.

mink_man

shockin

chocgirl

Really sad but not surprising, the Chinese don't respond to international pressure!

seamus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Words fail me, please read up on Marx and Engels.

Pedantry really. I would consider any socialist dictatorship to be "communist". I'm not entirely concerned about the ins and outs of each specific branch of socialism.

Iwasfrozen

seamus wrote: »

Pedantry really. I would consider any socialist dictatorship to be "communist". I'm not entirely concerned about the ins and outs of each specific branch of socialism.

Hence why you should read up on Marx and Engels, China is not a socialist dictatorship, it's an Oligarchy.
China stopped being socialist after it abandoned it's planned economy in 1976.

But anyway we're getting off-topic.

Bottle_of_Smoke

They had to do it. Imagine you were a chinese citizen and a brit got off like that.

Don't understand all the sympathy. He had 4kg of heroin, he'd be paid thousands for smuggling that in. I'd happily have the scumbags supplying junkies in limerick/finglas etc given the lethal injection.

spongeman

Dilynnio wrote: »

Drug trafficking affects so many people........family,friends of the user. It destroys not one but numerous lives.

In Thailand drug trafficking is punishable by death whereas a person who murders someone gets life in prison.

They believe that drugs damages many more than just the life of the person using the drugs.

I can see their point......its intelligent in a way.

Yeah I spent a lot of time in Thailand, they have the death penalty as they d'ont want to be the drug gateway from South East Asia.

Regarding the China issue it is a capital offence there. Myself I feel that when you visit other countries its always best to simply follow their laws,otherwise you are going to end up in a nightmare.

spongeman

studiorat wrote: »

Drug smuggling carrying the death penalty is an overly simplistic approach. People still need to make the decision themselves whether to take drugs or not, so in that sense they are not directly responsible for drug related deaths.

Just to play the devils acrobat on this. Drinking petrol will kill you, smuggling it carries a penalty because it deprives the government of tax income. The point being smuggling in itself is not shoving drugs down peoples throats. Perhaps because it is a link in the chain.

As for the perpetrator being delusional. I believe this is perfectly plausable. I've come across plenty of people both clinically nuts and not clinical, with similar delusions. Perhaps this is why the story appealed to me. I really could see this happening.

As for the death penalty in general I have to say I'm against it no matter what the crime. I believe a certain moral high ground can be achieved by not using the death penalty. Executing someone both raises questions such as does killing them make us any better not to mention the chance of wrongful sentancing.

I agree with you there about him being delusional. 4Kg into China ? That could only be done by somebody who was easily led.

China has had a zero tolerance policy regarding drugs from day one, and they've promoted the fact. Their Justice system is geared towards harsh punishment to prevent their country being screwed over by drugs like most Asian countries who have allowed them in.

The point is that China cannot allow any leniency regarding drug offenses, because of the makeup of the population. With such a huge gap between rich and poor, especially with the large numbers of poor, the widespread use of such drugs would be a danger to their social fabric. A social setting already under strain from changing desires from the population.

I've lived in China, and I've seen the pushers on the street. Oh, they're there. But they're very very careful, and stick to the main cities like Beijing or Shanghai. When i was living in Xi'an there was no drug scene.. I had friends there for three years, and had to cross the border if they wished to get a joint.. Simply put it was so difficult to obtain in the city itself. And thats a city of close to 12 million in the summer. No drugs? Athlone with a population of roughly 15k has more drugs..

I've seen what drugs have done to various countries across the world. I might not agree with the Chinese Government in many things, I think they're right to enforce their zero tolerance policy. Its their country after all. And strong measures are needed since everything else seems to have failed in the past.

johnnyskeleton

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Dictatorship of a small elite

But I think that the dictatorship of a small elite, to "show the way" to the ignorant working classes, is what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

studiorat wrote: »

As for the perpetrator being delusional. I believe this is perfectly plausable. I've come across plenty of people both clinically nuts and not clinical, with similar delusions. Perhaps this is why the story appealed to me. I really could see this happening.

This is the part that I find interesting; in Ireland if he was duped into possessing the drugs he would not be guilty of a crime. I'm interested to know whether the same is true in China. If it is, then presumably the Chinese Courts found that he was not delusional and was aware that he was smuggling drugs into the country. If not, and they executed him anyway, then it is a miscarage of justice.

In saying that, I am still against the death penalty. However, the fact that I am against it does not make the death penalty any less real in China.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've lived in China, and I've seen the pushers on the street. Oh, they're there. But they're very very careful, and stick to the main cities like Beijing or Shanghai.

Strangely enough, when I was in China I found that drugs were very easily available in the small towns and villages, particularly small touristy places in the South of China. I also found the drug dealers to be more overt than in most other countries I've been to where drugs are illegal.

Not that I indulged of course, but it was curious to see.

monosharp

seamus wrote: »

The death sentence is fundamentally flawed because it offers no chance for reprieve. Very few cases are decided on absolute evidence, so some space always has to be left for new evidence to acquit someone found guilty.

Some people deserve to die.

I wish every country in the world would adopt the Chinese law for smuggling drugs.

monosharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Hence why you should read up on Marx and Engels, China is not a socialist dictatorship, it's an Oligarchy.
China stopped being socialist after it abandoned it's planned economy in 1976.

But anyway we're getting off-topic.

And Ireland, are we not an oligarchy ? is the UK ? the US ?

seamus

monosharp wrote: »

Some people deserve to die.

Assuming that is true, it doesn't invalidate my point that the death sentence is fundamentally flawed because it's irreversible.

The key here is that if you support the death penalty, then you accept that a number of innocent people will die in the interests of terminating the life of guilty people.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Assuming that is true, it doesn't invalidate my point that the death sentence is fundamentally flawed because it's irreversible.

The key here is that if you support the death penalty, then you accept that a number of innocent people will die in the interests of terminating the life of guilty people.

And if you support current non-death systems then you accept that a number of innocent people will die in the interests of attempting to reform individuals that have no interest in being reformed, and potentially have the ability to hurt or kill more than those innocents killed under the death sentence.

I believe it comes down to individual countries, their history and their cultures. It will work for some countries, and not for others. Making a sweeping ban across all countries isn't realistic.

The death sentence is supposed to be irreversible.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

And if you support current non-death systems then you accept that a number of innocent people will die in the interests of attempting to reform individuals that have no interest in being reformed, and potentially have the ability to hurt or kill more than those innocents killed under the death sentence.

That depends on the current non-death system. If you substitute the death penalty for permanent incarceration, there's fundamentally no difference except for cost.

That is, if someone has been locked up for life (literally, not the Irish meaning), how are they any more of a danger than someone who's dead? The only difference is that at least if someone is locked up for life and you later discover they're innocent, you can give them back *something* (i.e. a big wad of cash and all the worldly comforts they could possibly need for the rest of their life).

seamus

seamus wrote: »

That depends on the current non-death system. If you substitute the death penalty for permanent incarceration, there's fundamentally no difference except for cost.

That is, if someone has been locked up for life (literally, not the Irish meaning), how are they any more of a danger than someone who's dead? The only difference is that at least if someone is locked up for life and you later discover they're innocent, you can give them back *something* (i.e. a big wad of cash and all the worldly comforts they could possibly need for the rest of their life).

Which is still irreversible... how do you give someone back 40 years of their life? And lets be realistic here... how many of those released after serving prison time (after being found innocent), received all those worldly comforts you suggest?

Instead, they're released with a little apology, and forgotten about. Oops a little mistake there. They're still going to be missing the 10, 20, 30 years of their lives, and usually its the period of ages 20-40 when they're in their prime. So they're expected to return to society after missing out the very area of time people use to base a foundation for the rest of their lives.

I can't see your way as being particularly better, unless innocence is proven with 5 years of incarceration. Does that happen often?

On a side note, from what i've heard anyone being sent to hard labor in China is likely to die anyway, or at least come back completely broken. Being killed is likely the quicker and more humane ending..

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is still irreversible... how do you give someone back 40 years of their life? And lets be realistic here... how many of those released after serving prison time (after being found innocent), received all those worldly comforts you suggest?

It's not about what has happened, it's about what *should* happen. Releasing someone after 40 years is better than killing them and turning around to their family and going "Oops, sorry about that, you'll never see your family member again, but what the hey, mistakes are made".

There's no such thing as heaven or hell, there's no going back once someone is dead.

Instead, they're released with a little apology, and forgotten about. Oops a little mistake there. They're still going to be missing the 10, 20, 30 years of their lives, and usually its the period of ages 20-40 when they're in their prime. So they're expected to return to society after missing out the very area of time people use to base a foundation for the rest of their lives.

Pretty sure I'd prefer to be released at 60 for 15 years of life than to have it cut short at 20. Prison isn't complete hell. Not in the western world anyway.

I can't see your way as being particularly better, unless innocence is proven with 5 years of incarceration. Does that happen often?

More often than it should. Do a quick google and you'll find a link to a professor who took on an "innocent project" between himself and his class who found a not insignificant number of people on death row who'd been wrongly convicted, or who'd been convicted on very unreliable evidence.

If you're going to use death as a punishment, you'd want to look at both the weight of evidence *and* the type of crime committed. Sentencing someone to death is not, as the Texans no doubt believe, a quick way of sending someone to hell.

monosharp

seamus wrote: »

Assuming that is true, it doesn't invalidate my point that the death sentence is fundamentally flawed because it's irreversible.

I don't see why that makes it flawed. Mistakes are made all the time, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do the right thing most of the time because sometimes its the wrong thing.

The key here is that if you support the death penalty, then you accept that a number of innocent people will die in the interests of terminating the life of guilty people.

I accept it.

And just for the record, I'm fairly liberal on most things but on punishment for crime I consider these so called draconian measures to be the only ones that work.

Look at Ireland for example, prison is a holiday home for 99% of these scum. They don't care they're going there, its not a punishment to them.

johnnyskeleton

One practical issue is that if it was introduced for murder it would have to be mandatory across the board. Otherwise, a system would develop where innocent people might plead guilty to a murder they did not commit and take life imprisonment rather than run the risk of a trial which carries at the end of it the death penalty.

On the other hand, it would significantly increase the conviction rate for murder so the stats would look good.

Also, there's nothing quite like a capital trial to get the blood rushing.

But think of the increased cost of buying all those black caps. Probably best to stick with things as they are.

deadhead13

monosharp wrote: »

I accept it.

I don't, I think the potential of an innocent person being executed is too high a price to pay. Whether it acts as a deterrent is debatable. Over the past 20 years, states in the US that have the dealh penaltly consistently have had higher murder rates than those that don't. While not conclusive evidence, it does suggest it is not acting as a deterrent over there,

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008

As for China - crimes that have received the death penalty include homicide. violence, rape, physical harm, aggression, human trafficing, kidnapping, corruption, embezzlement, re-sale of tax receipts, tax evasion. financial forgery, speculation, fraud, credit card fraud, extortion, blackmail, possession of contraband, defection, espionage, subversion, theft of valuable property. habitual theft, use of telephone lines without authorization, reproduction of telephone codes for profit, burglary, destruction of property, escaping or assisting somebody escaping from prison, sale or manufacture of false or harmful products, production of porn, gambling, bigamy, arson, organisation of prostitution, hooliganism, hunting protected species, spreading SARS or violating quarentine, bootlegging, drug dealing...etc...etc.

Officially just over 1000 executions take place in China each year, but independent estimates put the figure closer to 7000.

Dublinman12

Coming from the perspective of living in Shanghai for 4 years..I felt it was the safest city I have ever lived in...primarily because If you commit the crime you get severely punished..so a lot of people dont commit the crime...I saw burglary on the list there...

In my opinion burglary is a disgusting crime that our system views as a petty crime....we have lads on 45 previous convictions including a few burglaries which has an awful effect on the family...

However if you know that you will get severely punished for committing some crimes, some people will refrain. Im not saying we should employ the death sentence but you get my point. If a chinese guy committs aggravated burglary theres a good chance he could be executed (huge deterent). Whereas over here he gets a 2 year suspended sentence only to committ again and again.

I've lived in both Xi'an and Beijing and I felt safer there at 3 am than in any western country... Never had any issues. Whereas I have been beaten up by 7 guys at one time in Ireland. Getting compensation is nice, but I kinda wished for something more. I can't really knock the Chinese system having seen the pluses. Don't get em wrong, I know from both my own experience and from Chinese friends the negatives, but it works for them. I can't say the same for the liberal system we use in Ireland or the majority of the western world.

southsiderosie

monosharp wrote: »

And just for the record, I'm fairly liberal on most things but on punishment for crime I consider these so called draconian measures to be the only ones that work.

Look at Ireland for example, prison is a holiday home for 99% of these scum. They don't care they're going there, its not a punishment to them.

Well, on the other hand, you have the US which has draconian drug possession laws and the highest incarceration rates in the industrial world, and yet drug dealing and use is rampant (as is homicide). I think things go beyond just the state - culture plays a role as well. I don't know about the Chinese case, but in the inner city U.S. there is little to no social shame for going to jail; in some quarters it is almost a rite of passage. Might there be more social stigma in China for committing these kinds of crimes? I don't think the state can do it all - even a state that is as heavy-handed as China.

evercloserunion

I don't think the death penalty is a great idea, but knowingly smuggling drugs in a country which executes people for smuggling drugs makes you a contender for the Darwin awards. The only difference between doing that and playing Russian roulette is that drug smugglng, particularly heroin smuggling, causes immeasurable harm to individuals and communities so it's hard to find sympathy. Same with when that British woman got thrown in a Turkish jail for smuggling heroin. Served her right tbh.

Of course if it really was the man's mental illness that compelled him to do these things that's a different story.

evercloserunion

evercloserunion wrote: »

Of course if it really was the man's mental illness that compelled him to do these things that's a different story.

Why? He still performed the action. And I can't see how a mental illness would compel him to smuggle drugs.. rather that it might prevent his understanding of the seriousness of the action.

TBH I don't get this whole mental illness excuse when a person does a crime. There's plenty of cases where people have been murdered and the murderer gets a less sentence due to some mental illness or other such claptrap. Full sentencing should be assigned to people regardless of their mental health.

Pushtrak

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? He still performed the action. And I can't see how a mental illness would compel him to smuggle drugs.. rather that it might prevent his understanding of the seriousness of the action.

To me, sentencing should be aiming to rehabilitate rather than a punishment. If a person commits a criminal offense and due to mental illness genuinely does not understand the seriousness of their crime, how is the traditional punishment justified?

In many cases, people with mental illness can be given treatment and go on to live healthy lives, so what you suggest here seems to come from an angle of lack of understanding of mental health issues.

Iwasfrozen

monosharp wrote: »

And Ireland, are we not an oligarchy ? is the UK ? the US ?

I don't remember commenting on Ireland, the U.K or the U.S.

Pushtrak

Pushtrak wrote: »

To me, sentencing should be aiming to rehabilitate rather than a punishment. If a person commits a criminal offense and due to mental illness genuinely does not understand the seriousness of their crime, how is the traditional punishment justified?

And if they do indeed understand the seriousness of the crime? And lets be clear here... if they don't understand the seriousness of the crime, what are they doing out in the big bad world in the first place?

In many cases, people with mental illness can be given treatment and go on to live healthy lives, so what you suggest here seems to come from an angle of lack of understanding of mental health issues.

Not really. I have a fair grasp of mental health issues. I'm not an expert, but I'm quite well read, and have encountered people both through work and personal life with some minor problems. Mental illness can be treated in a variety of ways, depending on the manner of the illness.

Lastly, you haven't provided anything yourself which suggests that my stance is lacking understanding of mental health. My not being sympathetic doesn't count.

evercloserunion

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? He still performed the action. And I can't see how a mental illness would compel him to smuggle drugs.. rather that it might prevent his understanding of the seriousness of the action.

TBH I don't get this whole mental illness excuse when a person does a crime. There's plenty of cases where people have been murdered and the murderer gets a less sentence due to some mental illness or other such claptrap. Full sentencing should be assigned to people regardless of their mental health.

It's partially to do with the fact that in order to be convicted of a crime you need to have the requisite mental state; ie you have to intend to commit the crime, or be reckless as to whether or not the crime is committed, or whatever the requirement is depending on the crime. If your mind is imbalanced at the time of the crime due to a mental illness, it could be that you don't actually intend to commit the crime, or that the thoughts running through your head at that time could not really be considered "yours".

There is also the point raised above about a rehabilitative system.

evercloserunion

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's partially to do with the fact that in order to be convicted of a crime you need to have the requisite mental state; ie you have to intend to commit the crime, or be reckless as to whether or not the crime is committed, or whatever the requirement is depending on the crime. If your mind is imbalanced at the time of the crime due to a mental illness, it could be that you don't actually intend to commit the crime, or that the thoughts running through your head at that time could not really be considered "yours".

Well, thanks for clearing that up.. In that case, I would reaffirm my belief of equal assessment in sentencing for everyone committing said crime. I see absolutely no reason to give special treatment to anyone who has committed a crime. I wouldn't expect any for myself. If I ever committed a crime, my mind would indeed be imbalanced because I would be going against over 30 years of my own experience in life. Judge me as per the law. Judge everyone as per the law.

aidan24326

studiorat wrote: »

Should drug trafficking carry a death sentance? Should anything carry the death sentance?

No. There is no justification for the death penalty. Nobody has the right to kill another person, 'lawful' execution is really just state-sponsored murder. Vengeance solves nothing, it doesn't bring back the person who's already been killed.

Dilynnio wrote: »

Drug trafficking affects so many people........family,friends of the user. It destroys not one but numerous lives.

In Thailand drug trafficking is punishable by death whereas a person who murders someone gets life in prison.

They believe that drugs damages many more than just the life of the person using the drugs.

I can see their point......its intelligent in a way.

No it isn't. The drug laws in Thailand are ridiculous, and in any case that country's legal system is hopelessly corrupt.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd happily have the scumbags supplying junkies in limerick/finglas etc given the lethal injection.

Believe me I don't generally shed too many tears when some drug gang scumhead gets blown away, but the people who make the choice to take hard drugs like heroin are equally to blame. There wouldn't be a market for the scumbags without consumers. At this stage every man and his dog knows what a dangerous and destructive drug heroin is, so as far as I'm concerned the minute you stick that needle in your arm you've lost the right to much sympathy.

monosharp wrote: »

I don't see why that makes it flawed. Mistakes are made all the time, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't do the right thing most of the time because sometimes its the wrong thing.

I accept it.

Of course you do, you're not the one being strapped into the electric chair for a crime you didn't commit. As others have said, a life sentence can be revoked with new evidence, an execution can't.

And just for the record, I'm fairly liberal on most things but on punishment for crime I consider these so called draconian measures to be the only ones that work.

Thing is, draconian measures usually don't work. The USA has far tougher sentencing than we do, and it hardly does much to prevent cities like LA and Miami being red-rotten with gun-toting gangs, drug trafficking etc etc

Lanaier

Deleted User wrote: »

I've lived in China, and I've seen the pushers on the street. Oh, they're there. But they're very very careful, and stick to the main cities like Beijing or Shanghai. When i was living in Xi'an there was no drug scene.......... Athlone with a population of roughly 15k has more drugs..

The pushers you see on the streets in Beijing and Shanghai cater exclusively to foreigners.
The local crowd are supplied via connections and people in nightclubs etc, never out in the open.

I've lived in big and small Chinese cities and I guarantee you there are drugs even in small towns, let alone cities like Xi'an.


I'm wondering about the whole "mental deficiency" thing...and just how relevant it is...and at what point do we "The West" let someone off on such grounds?
Am I wrong in believing that the US executes people with an IQ lower than 80?
As far as I can see the only reason this gains any ground with the media is that this guy is British. Not whether or not he is guilty, and may not have had a fair trial.

How many Nigerians with supposed mental problems have been executed in China for drug trafficking?
I would guess that number is not small at all, yet I suppose we're not supposed to care about Nigerians.


You have to realize that there is a very nationalistic thought process behind China's approach to drug trafficking.
Like it or not, they'll never let up on historic incidences of wrongdoings towards China by other countries, no matter how long ago.
Don't be surprised if many cite the East India Company and the Opium Wars of the 18th century when justifying execution of drug traffickers today.

I'm not saying that it's right, and though I personally am not against the death penalty I wish there was more transparency in China's dealings, and that there was some assurance that he had a fair trial.


Guilty or not:
Rest in Peace.