He didn't fight to clear his name.
He burrowed his way through a Rita Hayworth poster and a tunnel full of shit to escape.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Man accused of murder freed after 6 years in jail
- Thread starter MarrickG
- Start date
He didn't fight to clear his name.
He burrowed his way through a Rita Hayworth poster and a tunnel full of shit to escape.
And so his life is less worthy of saving than someone else's? You appear to have a value system similar to the PAPzis.
Then what about the victim right to live, not to mentioned right to justice?
Look this is the hard truth. U wan a rapist to marry a drug addict and raise a kid together?
There was another case - Zainal Kuning - defended by the late great JB Jeyaretnam. See http://jacob69.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/the-coffee-shop-murder-j-b-jeyaretnam-and-the-death-penalty/
Thanks. very interesting read... but Zainul Kuning wasn't convicted of murder, he was aquitted ...
But there is similarity in both cases, both brought to trial base on confessions alone, without any evidence.
The death penalty usually serves as a strong deterrent against serious crimes like murder and robbery for the electorate.
Lenient punishments would only encourage these serious crimes to grow.
I may not think the marriage of a rapist and a drug addict will result in a happy well-rounded child, BUT here's the harder truth - neither I nor anyone else can or should "minority report" any member of that family before the next crime is committed. This is because humans have consistently defied the logic of genealogical tidiness. Just think of the great people who have risen from seemingly hopeless family backgrounds!
thumbs up for his lawyer who never gave up on him
we need more singaporeans like him
we need more singaporeans like him
I did not say he should not be punished. Are you advocating "an eye for an eye" kind of justice? What happens if he kills two people? Do you kill him twice?
All I am saying is that if we deny criminals the right to live then we are no better than the criminals themselves. This certainly does not mean crime should go unpunished.
So you feel that scums like murderers and drug traffickers that pollute and poison the society should be given a right to live?
By now you should realise who you should engage for what topic.
Yes I do. Although the ones I would like most to die are child abusers, I still believe in them having basic rights. Society is defined by the value system subscribed to by the majority of its members. There is no right or wrong system. It is either acceptable or not acceptable to you.
In an ideal world, I am sure that no would envisage taking of human life thru the judicial process. It's a huge burden for everyone along the chain.
We have people in AG, judges in high court, the cabinet some of whom have sterling records, graduated from the best universities, achieved many things in life and who could have done much better in the private sector. Why would they want to soil their hands and get involved hanging someone. Why does any humane and developed society impose the death penalty.
The people along this chain that leads to the death penalty, have the money and means to stay in good and safe suburbs, in good class bungalows with high security Walls and not have to deal with riff rafts, drug addicts, and other low life. It's no skin of their back if a criminal is hanged or not. I am also sure that it's not eye for eye as their property or loved ones were harmed.
Now look at the victims. Where do you think they generally come from. Typically the general population, the vulnerable, the young and the old that cannot defend themselves. Who then defends them. Who provides the security umbrella for you and me to walk to and from the MRT, school, workplace at all hours of the day and night. Or do we let society handle it's problem on a personal level.
The death penalty is the single biggest deterrent. Take it away and the equation rapidly changes. Before the imposition of the death penalty for trafficking, drugs were freely available that it dragged the kids of the rich and poor into it's orbit. There were whole HDB blocks that were infested with drug addicts. Even Vincent Wijeysingha lost an elder brother to drugs and the father was respected RI principal. Swee Kee Chicken Rice business folded because of drugs. The rich sent their kids to overseas clinics while the poor tended to themselves. The moment the death penalty kicked in , the scenario changed very quickly.
We all can sit on our hands and watch the world go by without the death penalty but it will be a different world.
Watch the liberal European states - convicted criminals kidnapping young girls, keeping them in dungeons and then killing them. The consequence - a life sentence. Just explore the torment and torture these girls went thru before their lives were snuffed. Imagine the angst and mind of the parents after the facts surfaced.
The issue is not eye for an eye. It is the deterrent. We can't stop all but we sure can stop many more. The price of safety and peace of mind.
We have people in AG, judges in high court, the cabinet some of whom have sterling records, graduated from the best universities, achieved many things in life and who could have done much better in the private sector. Why would they want to soil their hands and get involved hanging someone. Why does any humane and developed society impose the death penalty.
The people along this chain that leads to the death penalty, have the money and means to stay in good and safe suburbs, in good class bungalows with high security Walls and not have to deal with riff rafts, drug addicts, and other low life. It's no skin of their back if a criminal is hanged or not. I am also sure that it's not eye for eye as their property or loved ones were harmed.
Now look at the victims. Where do you think they generally come from. Typically the general population, the vulnerable, the young and the old that cannot defend themselves. Who then defends them. Who provides the security umbrella for you and me to walk to and from the MRT, school, workplace at all hours of the day and night. Or do we let society handle it's problem on a personal level.
The death penalty is the single biggest deterrent. Take it away and the equation rapidly changes. Before the imposition of the death penalty for trafficking, drugs were freely available that it dragged the kids of the rich and poor into it's orbit. There were whole HDB blocks that were infested with drug addicts. Even Vincent Wijeysingha lost an elder brother to drugs and the father was respected RI principal. Swee Kee Chicken Rice business folded because of drugs. The rich sent their kids to overseas clinics while the poor tended to themselves. The moment the death penalty kicked in , the scenario changed very quickly.
We all can sit on our hands and watch the world go by without the death penalty but it will be a different world.
Watch the liberal European states - convicted criminals kidnapping young girls, keeping them in dungeons and then killing them. The consequence - a life sentence. Just explore the torment and torture these girls went thru before their lives were snuffed. Imagine the angst and mind of the parents after the facts surfaced.
The issue is not eye for an eye. It is the deterrent. We can't stop all but we sure can stop many more. The price of safety and peace of mind.
This is an excellent argument, based on logic and not simply emotion or morality.
The key points are the deterrent factor and the protection of the ordinary people, especially the innocent, defenceless and vulnerable.
Many would have found it difficult to argue this point without bringing in emotion, including the "you would not say this if you knew a victim" angle.
Although I support the death penalty, I also respect foummer littlefish's values and viewpoint. This is almost certainly his favourite topic in this forum.
Hope he replies to the post, and his arguments will be more than just the right to take a human life on moral grounds or the "do you kill a serial murderer more than once" angles.
Agree with this statement.
And I respect your values, although I may not agree with them.
Just to share a little story.
Many years ago, I worked as a newbie in a small company.
There was a supervisor there, who reported to the head of department. This supervisor was the HOD's pet, she would occasionally go into her office and gossip about the colleagues and the big bosses, including spreading rumours and whatnot. This I heard from other colleagues, and verified independently.
One day, I was at her desk discussing some work issues, when an ant crawled across our documents. Without even thinking, I pressed my finger on the ant and killed it. :o
She immediately let out a shriek, exclaiming that I should not have killed a living being on her desk. Some others in the office heard this and just laughed it off, and she didn't mention it again.
No idea whether she told this story to the HOD, but I wasn't affected by it in any way and there is probably no specific relevance.
There is however my takeaway from the story, which is that not killing living beings does not necessarily mean we do the right things and are good people. And vice versa.
Sorry dude you have your point but i don't feel that way. I am of the view that one has effectively given up one rights the minute one takes a life away in an unjustifiable manner. Granted that there may be the occasional slip up well that is for the Higher Mighty One to deal with the judge.
Last edited:
Look, if I say the maximum punishment is life imprisonment literally, with no chance of parole or amnesty (or at least for a minimum of 100 years), would it not have the same effect as a death sentence? It is the same as keeping the criminals away from society permanently. You keep saying that death penalty is a deterrent, do you have statistics to back this claim up. Note that not having the death penalty does not mean that criminals are treated softly.
What I am saying is that if it is wrong to take a life, then it is also wrong to take a life for punishment. Some rights like the right to freedom can be revoked if the person commits a crime because he is denying the rights of others but not basic rights because humans should not play God. There is already enough trouble in the world with the many gods and religions, why should one human have the right to kill another human?
Btw, I think drug addicts need to take some of the blame for their own addiction. It is not that I am soft on criminals, it is just that I don't think the death penalty will stop someone who is desperate or have murderous intent. If that person is not in those conditions, he would have thought twice due to heavy penalties.
What I am saying is that if it is wrong to take a life, then it is also wrong to take a life for punishment. Some rights like the right to freedom can be revoked if the person commits a crime because he is denying the rights of others but not basic rights because humans should not play God. There is already enough trouble in the world with the many gods and religions, why should one human have the right to kill another human?
Btw, I think drug addicts need to take some of the blame for their own addiction. It is not that I am soft on criminals, it is just that I don't think the death penalty will stop someone who is desperate or have murderous intent. If that person is not in those conditions, he would have thought twice due to heavy penalties.
Similar threads
