AdamSmith Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Equally, if you don't respect another countries laws, like another poster suggested, you have the option of boycotting that country and taking your holiday money elsewhere. This incident is just another example of the idiotic consequences of the (apparently) world-wide 'war on drugs'- so I'd suggest anyone who opposes that war would do well to boycott any countries who execute drug users or drug smugglers. Especially corrupt ones like this, where planting drugs on innocent tourists is known to happen. I look forward to your reply to the following post- equally if you do respect another countries laws, you dont break them especially when they have severe consequences, i an d many others have managed to visit these countries without a jot of trouble and greatly enjoyed the culture...........why i wonder........??......oh yes we respected the law of that country!! oh and who says its corrupt? no more than a drug smuggler having handwringers jumping to her defence when the evidence apparantly is overwhelming:roll: as for planting drugs what would be the point in this case? is it becuase they wanted a worldwide focus?? i think not....this is a greedy niave women who wanted to make some money simple as that and got caught...take the consequences if you cant do the time /punishment dont do the crime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 There are plenty of prior warnings about the penalty for smuggling drugs issued by countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. They are given to all visitors before landing and there must be warnings displayed all over the airports in several European languages as well as others. If greed and personal gain overrides common sense then you pay the penalty. Very simple I couldnt agree more. They knew the risk involved ,and the consequences should they be caught smuggling. Its a little late for her start with the crocodile tears now . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTWOOD141 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 They might have, if they'd looked. I'm not sure I'm as confident as you appear to be about the Indonesian justice system. Besides, she shouldn't be facing death anyway. It's just plain wrong to kill people anyway (that's why murder is a crime) especially just for smuggling drugs. They are not smugglers, drugs kill that makes them murders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 of all the garbage I've ever read on this forum that has to take the biscuit. Ever been there? Do you even know that only just over half of Malaysia's 30 million citizens are even Muslims at all? Malaysia does still have the death penalty, but in common with most other south east countries there has been a moratorium on it in recent years and hardly anybody has been executed for any reason in recent years. Of the 10 ASEAN countries, only two - Singapore and Vietnam - currently conduct, as in actually carry out, executions regularly. All the others, including Indonesia, have basically stopped executions compared to before. Only the Philippines though, out of all the 10 ASEAN countries (totalling over half a billion people), have actually abolished the death penalty for all offences. Why did you feel the need to be so defensive and slightly insulting about my post? The fact is that Malaysia is one of 7 countries that still has the legal possibility of using execution against people that don't believe in Allah. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10/the-seven-countries-where-the-state-can-execute-you-for-being-atheist/ Whilst this might seem a rather slim possibility now, while it remains enshrined in law there it could be used if the political environment changes. There were rather vocal demands to execute a Malaysian who publicly announce himself as an atheist a few years ago, before he decided rather sensibly, in the face of threats, to say he'd changed his mind. Malaysia was also quick to extradite a Saudi citizen back to Saudi Arabia for his "crime" of atheism, where he really does face the death penalty. I haven't been to Malaysia, and fail to see how that is relevant. I refuse to visit such a country, no matter how nice they dress it up for tourists, because of some of the things I have learnt about it. My question was a theoretical one, addressed to somebody who thinks it's none of our business that Bali executes drug dealers. Malaysia could theoretically execute atheists, so I was asking if that should be none of our business too if it actually happened? Personally, I think we have every right to complain when other countries abuse their laws to commit atrocities, if you don't then in theory you would not complain if another country executed somebody for being gay, or atheist, or for disagreeing with those in power. If you feel that question takes the biscuit for garbage on this forum, then I will discuss with you no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Trouble is the death penalty does not solve any problems and is not a deterrent. If it was then similar crimes would not be repeated time and time again. Neither is Prison . Locking people up dosnt stop re-offending, but we do that to criminals. So the Death penalty is no more ineffective than Prison is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 So you believe think drug smuggling should be a minor offence ? What would you like the punishment for drug smuggling to be ? Maybe a £60 fixed penalty. None, they should not be illegal and thus there would be no need to smuggle them. They should be regulated and taxed in much the same way as alcohol. They are not smugglers, drugs kill that makes them murders. The drugs in of themselves don't really, it's the lack of regulation so people have no idea what the strength is, and whatever it's adulterated with that do the killing. Both are a direct result of their illegality, which causes far more problems than it solves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 but at least indonesia backs up its laws with a strong punishment, unlike the Uk & Europe:roll: You could always move to Indonesia if you wish ab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I think I'd 'prefer' lethal injection.. as you're basically out cold before the lethal element is administered, so in theory should be the most painless... You can't have read much about it. You're paralysed, not unconscious. ---------- Post added 23-01-2013 at 21:19 ---------- There were terrorist bombs that killed scores of tourists in Bali. The perpetrators were executed. I think that sent out a better message to tourists that their welfare was paramount than a custodial sentence. You only get shot by the authorities if you do the crime. The criminals are the ones who prefer to kill the innocent. Unless you are wrongly convicted of course, then you get shot whilst innocent. And it can't be reversed 6 months down the line when they realise they got your luggage mixed up with someone elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 None, they should not be illegal and thus there would be no need to smuggle them. They should be regulated and taxed in much the same way as alcohol. The drugs in of themselves don't really, it's the lack of regulation so people have no idea what the strength is, and whatever it's adulterated with that do the killing. Both are a direct result of their illegality, which causes far more problems than it solves. Dont you think that Governments would have already legalised drugs and taxed them if they could . ? I hazard a guess that the reason they remain illegal (and rightly so in my opinion) is that drugs are so dangerous no Government could dare legalise tham as it would be political suicide. Governments dont miss a trick when it comes to taxing everything they can ,so that speaks volumes about why they will never legalise drugs. And im pretty sure the vast majority of the British public never want to see drugs legalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 You can't have read much about it. You're paralysed, not unconscious. As far as I understand in the US, 3 drugs are administered via intravenous cannula The first.. is basically an anaesthetic which is given at a dose that would basically knock out a heard of elephants. 2nd drug to be administered is the one which causes paralysis, which includes stopping the diaphragm (and hence lungs).. causing asphyxia. (however you should already be out cold by this point) 3rd effectively stops the nervous system and heart <-- this would be very painful if given initially There are claims from some quarters about the effectiveness of the anaesthetic basically because of it's dispersal throughout the body. However the drug given is also used (on it's own) for euthanasia in a dose effectively 4 times lower than the amount administered for execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.