6 ms·

Singapore Just Sentenced a Drug Trafficker to Death via Zoom

26 points by doppp 6y ago

mberning 6y ago
There are signs on the border with Malaysia that say drug smuggling is punishable by death with minimal prosecution.
crankylinuxuser 6y ago
I would think the closest analogy would be to the death penalty in the USA surrounding lethal injections. Every company that is knowingly being used for the cocktail to kill someone has made the supply gone. They refuse to supply to any state that diverts to executions. Sure, the executions are 'legal' (removing jurors who are ethically against death penalty is a whole different issue).... But the companies manufacturing these chemicals don't want anything to do. I wonder how Zoom is going to handle this in the future? Even though they obviously had 0 input for Singapore executing a citizen, the article makes it sound like Zoom was somehow, peripherally complicit with state sanctioned murder.
parsimo2010 6y ago
I gotta be honest, delivering a sentence over Zoom isn’t an issue for me. Amnesty International is right (IMHO) in arguing that a death sentence for a drug offense is extreme, but let’s not pretend that the judge being in a different room somehow changes the nature of the sentence. It’s not like the judge put on a clown costume or told jokes during the sentencing. Maybe there is an argument that a trial conducted remotely loses some human emotion and makes a court more likely to find someone guilty of a crime, but the act of delivering a sentence after all that could just as easily be done via a letter in the post.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  I agree with you. However: >Maybe there is an argument that a trial conducted remotely loses some human emotion This argument not only exists, it is entirely why we face a jury of our peers in person. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to avoid the more obvious problem of negative bias by hiding the defendant entirely (justice is supposed to be blind, after all).
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    While that's similar, the distinction here is that conducting a trial over Zoom doesn't hide the defendant; you can still see them. Zoom is admittedly lower fidelity, but does it actually matter? Zoom certainly degrades the experience when timing matters, such as telling a joke. But with testimony and legal arguments, timing isn't as important (as long as people aren't talking over each other). Also, with Zoom you could dedicate an portion of your screen to watching the defendant; in person you would have to move your gaze around the room, with Zoom you could see a defendant react to a witness' testimony without looking away from either of them. So the question remains whether the net effect of Zoom's differences changes the court in a positive or negative way. I don't think that you can say Zoom is bad just because hiding the defendant is bad.
wayneftw 6y ago
I am constantly in awe that we live in a society which has no clue what consciousness is or when it begins in a human and despite that we've made abortion legal while at the same time making getting high and putting what you want into your own body illegal to the point of executing offenders. How (and why) is it that almost the entire world is dancing to the same tune with regards to the War on Drugs? I'm convinced that the people who keep drugs illegal are profiting immensely from these policies. Otherwise, why wouldn't we arrest people only when they commit a victim-ful crime or potentially victim-ful crime, e.g. arresting people for drunk driving rather than just for drinking...
- mc32 6y ago
  Other places maybe, but Singapore is one place where I think they do it out of conviction and aren’t doing it for some corrupt profit motive. They pay politicians (members of the cabinet) a good salary to make corruption less attractive.
- tomohawk 6y ago
  Legalize drugs and let people do what they want and be responsible for their own actions. -or- Have a welfare state Pick one. You can't have a welfare state and at the same time let people do whatever they want with their bodies, because the cost will be borne by everyone.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    That makes some sense, but I don't see why I have to pick one. How do you feel about making it illegal to generate new humans (have babies) and do drugs if you're on welfare? I don't see why it's logical that we can only enforce the law for everybody or nobody. Anyway, whatever we have now is not working. Drugs are illegal but I can still get them.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    >the cost will be borne by everyone This is how a welfare state works in all scenarios. The question is not "is there a cost", but "how high is the cost". Your comment is written under the assumption that legalizing drugs would create a cost that is too high, but you don't actually say that or explain why you think that.
morninglight 6y ago
-- Death by Zoom -- I can't think of a more inhumane and painful way to die.

26 points by doppp 6y ago

There are signs on the border with Malaysia that say drug smuggling is punishable by death with minimal prosecution.

I would think the closest analogy would be to the death penalty in the USA surrounding lethal injections. Every company that is knowingly being used for the cocktail to kill someone has made the supply gone. They refuse to supply to any state that diverts to executions. Sure, the executions are 'legal' (removing jurors who are ethically against death penalty is a whole different issue).... But the companies manufacturing these chemicals don't want anything to do. I wonder how Zoom is going to handle this in the future? Even though they obviously had 0 input for Singapore executing a citizen, the article makes it sound like Zoom was somehow, peripherally complicit with state sanctioned murder.

parsimo2010 6y ago

I gotta be honest, delivering a sentence over Zoom isn’t an issue for me. Amnesty International is right (IMHO) in arguing that a death sentence for a drug offense is extreme, but let’s not pretend that the judge being in a different room somehow changes the nature of the sentence. It’s not like the judge put on a clown costume or told jokes during the sentencing. Maybe there is an argument that a trial conducted remotely loses some human emotion and makes a court more likely to find someone guilty of a crime, but the act of delivering a sentence after all that could just as easily be done via a letter in the post.

happytoexplain 6y ago
I agree with you. However: >Maybe there is an argument that a trial conducted remotely loses some human emotion This argument not only exists, it is entirely why we face a jury of our peers in person. Otherwise, there would be no reason not to avoid the more obvious problem of negative bias by hiding the defendant entirely (justice is supposed to be blind, after all).
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  While that's similar, the distinction here is that conducting a trial over Zoom doesn't hide the defendant; you can still see them. Zoom is admittedly lower fidelity, but does it actually matter? Zoom certainly degrades the experience when timing matters, such as telling a joke. But with testimony and legal arguments, timing isn't as important (as long as people aren't talking over each other). Also, with Zoom you could dedicate an portion of your screen to watching the defendant; in person you would have to move your gaze around the room, with Zoom you could see a defendant react to a witness' testimony without looking away from either of them. So the question remains whether the net effect of Zoom's differences changes the court in a positive or negative way. I don't think that you can say Zoom is bad just because hiding the defendant is bad.

wayneftw 6y ago

I am constantly in awe that we live in a society which has no clue what consciousness is or when it begins in a human and despite that we've made abortion legal while at the same time making getting high and putting what you want into your own body illegal to the point of executing offenders. How (and why) is it that almost the entire world is dancing to the same tune with regards to the War on Drugs? I'm convinced that the people who keep drugs illegal are profiting immensely from these policies. Otherwise, why wouldn't we arrest people only when they commit a victim-ful crime or potentially victim-ful crime, e.g. arresting people for drunk driving rather than just for drinking...

mc32 6y ago
Other places maybe, but Singapore is one place where I think they do it out of conviction and aren’t doing it for some corrupt profit motive. They pay politicians (members of the cabinet) a good salary to make corruption less attractive.
tomohawk 6y ago
Legalize drugs and let people do what they want and be responsible for their own actions. -or- Have a welfare state Pick one. You can't have a welfare state and at the same time let people do whatever they want with their bodies, because the cost will be borne by everyone.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  That makes some sense, but I don't see why I have to pick one. How do you feel about making it illegal to generate new humans (have babies) and do drugs if you're on welfare? I don't see why it's logical that we can only enforce the law for everybody or nobody. Anyway, whatever we have now is not working. Drugs are illegal but I can still get them.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >the cost will be borne by everyone This is how a welfare state works in all scenarios. The question is not "is there a cost", but "how high is the cost". Your comment is written under the assumption that legalizing drugs would create a cost that is too high, but you don't actually say that or explain why you think that.

morninglight 6y ago

-- Death by Zoom -- I can't think of a more inhumane and painful way to die.