Does death penalty on drug trafficking justify?

[killer-curry]

South East Asia countries include Singapore, China and other involved countries are still having no tolerance towards drug trafficking. But, in your opinion, does death penalty justify? Does the drug trafficking is categorized as a serious crime?

 

[Entermaid]

No, drugs should be legalized. Drug trafficking should be made less profitable though legalization.

Drug users are in more danger when drugs are illicit to purchase.
Drug users are less likely to ask relatives for help when they are illicit.
Drug users are less likely to seek medical help when they are illicit.
Drug users who are victims of other crimes are less likely to seek law enforcement when drugs are illicit.
Drugs are worth more money, the more severe the offense.
Drugs traffickers would be out of business if drugs were legal.
Money spent on enforcing drug laws, legal fees, time, resources, and incarceration can be better spent on education, healthcare, and rehabilitation for addicts seeking help.

 

[Entermaid]

What drugs? Methamphetamine, opiates, heroin, cocaine, alcohol? Drugs are very different and a lot of them destroy your life. Some drugs are objectively addictive and have adverse effects so I see no reason to have them legalized. Access to drugs is not a right.

If you support the criminalization and funding to enforce recreational drug crime, you must address the effects I listed above as producing negative societal effects.

As to the point you made, certain drugs can be destructive to individuals' health. By decriminalizing recreational drugs we can finance better remedies to these negative effects upon individuals.

As it stands, enforcing drug laws in and of itself causes negative impacts on society AND we still have destructive effects on individuals, with less ability to assist those individuals.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

The death penalty for any crime has consistently been proven to not be any more effective than long term prison sentences, is generally a human rights abuse, and pretty appalling in general, so i don't support it at all especially for drug traffickers who are little more than middlemen for drug dealers

I don't support full decriminalisation though, due to the general health consensus drugs considered illegal are usually illegal because they destroy the health of the user (mental and/or physical, usually both) and cause addiction. The war on drugs was very obviously ineffective though and had basically the opposite effect.

A system like that of Sweden's- with a focus on prevention of demand and heavy investment into treatment of addiction, and community services to combat drug use as a fine scalpel rather than the heavy handed sledgehammer the war on drugs created and wielded liberally.

Limerate is actually 50/50 right and wrong about drug use in australia, with people of a higher socioeconomic status abusing alcohol and using cannabis, Ecstasy and cocaine more than people with lower socioeconomic status. BUT unemployed people were more likely than employed people to utilise methamphetamines and cannabis than those who are employed.

The thing about "native poor" seems pretty unabashedly racist, and considering they've been banned once before for being racist it'd hardly surprise me

 

[Pebbles]

i know drugs are super bad but at same time, if you do it once a year, for example, normal amount, sure it is not going to ''kill'' you..... and people are not ''forced'' to go and get into it and waste their money it
it is a choice

so if some countries have the death penalty for this, it is a bit much in my opinion
death penalty should be applied to serial killers everywhere instead etc.​

 

[gimmepie]

Whilst I don't think we should encourage the selling of severely addicting/debilitating substances, I think the death penalty is quite excessive. You can't pin the entirety/majority of the blame on dealers when ultimately the buyer is making a choice too and there can be a lot of things that cause people turn to illegal methods of producing income.

Mind you, I'm against the death penalty, period.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Pedal to the fucking metal. I like to point at Singapore's laws and famous "WARNING DEATH FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS UNDER SINGAPORE LAW"

Extreme? Yes. Effective? Yes. However, Singapore's 'Misuse of Drugs Act' needs some reworking, as it'stands guilty until proven innocent in their case. Their streets are clean, they have good economic growth, and a well understood policy in regards to the matter. The key is to be aware of your own laws and to make it known what will and will not be tolerated.

You know why they always sit you down annually to tell you about why sexual harassment is bad? Because some fucker apparently didn't get the fucking memo. Or maybe "Sexual harassment is against the law" should be on caps-lock and in red ink.

"Oh, but CoffeeDrink, what if they abuse their power?"

Singapore is consistently voted one of the least politically corrupt in the entire world. Look up Singapore on your own if you don't believe me.

Of course, in the US capital punishment for druggie and the traffickers themselves would never be on the table. So it wouldn't ever be a real debate or discussion for the US. Would never happen (at least as far as I can tell, never).

Singapore. Must be nice.

 

[someguy.fromnevada]

I think when it comes to criminal offense (regardless of the kind), it simply comes down to the impact the offense has.

Like, if you steal from a store cause you're hungry, no big deal, but don't abuse that.

If you're (more than likely) getting people addicted to heroin or crack, then you should be isolated (or killed).

I firmly believe that the only reason why crime even exists is cause criminals are not afraid of the consequences. Truth be told, I want the consequence to be as SEVERE as possible, even torture if necessary. The only reason why criminals do what they do is because their biggest worry prison rape, and even then, that isn't as common as the TVs make it to be.

I've been a pen pal with a few people from my local prisons and in the end, the one thing all of them have pretty much agreed is that "crime exists because there is no consequence".

Our governments are too easy on them, they have nothing to be afraid of. Heck, the only law enforcement you should be afraid of are the "foreign" ones from say... China or something, I don't know. But here in America (as well as in Canada and UK), you don't really have to worry about much.

Not to mention, prison food isn't as bad as people make it out to be (unless you're in one of those really crappy prisons, then yeah, it sucks).

 

[Aliencommander1245]

I think when it comes to criminal offense (regardless of the kind), it simply comes down to the impact the offense has.

Like, if you steal from a store cause you're hungry, no big deal, but don't abuse that.

If you're (more than likely) getting people addicted to heroin or crack, then you should be isolated (or killed).

I firmly believe that the only reason why crime even exists is cause criminals are not afraid of the consequences. Truth be told, I want the consequence to be as SEVERE as possible, even torture if necessary. The only reason why criminals do what they do is because their biggest worry prison rape, and even then, that isn't as common as the TVs make it to be.

Pedal to the ****ing metal. I like to point at Singapore's laws and famous "WARNING DEATH FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS UNDER SINGAPORE LAW"

Extreme? Yes. Effective? Yes. However, Singapore's 'Misuse of Drugs Act' needs some reworking, as it'stands guilty until proven innocent in their case. Their streets are clean, they have good economic growth, and a well understood policy in regards to the matter. The key is to be aware of your own laws and to make it known what will and will not be tolerated.

The problem is, the death penalty ISN'T effective, not more so than the long term prison sentences given in countries like the us or australia.

Study after study shows that the death penalty, despite what you'd think based on the normal rationale presented, simply does not deter people from committing crimes, and generally only continues to contribute to the strange trend of dehumanising people in the prison system

https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/st...not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent
https://www.journalnow.com/news/loc...cle_f9a85245-f6cf-5e02-8ba0-e3ca079b6526.html

 

[CoffeeDrink]

First, the links you provided were lacking in stating their controlled study grouping. The second article could be labeled hearsay, as the article does not provide links to the study that was done.

Second, in relation to the second article, since there is no basis or reference to his studies I am loathe to believe that the death penalty is 'racially biased'. If a murderer is a murderer then they're a murderer. Stating in court as a defense "This ruling is racially biased!" Will get you a proverbial smack in the back of the head.

The racially biased argument even sounds incredibly weak. Since I don't have access to the professor's study, I have to assume he got his numbers by asking inmates, inmates families, and the court itself. Of which it would most likely result in a 2/3 slide.

Thirdly, the death penalty is not more expensive than life prisoners. The calculations like to be slanted and skewed to no end.

The main argument is the endless appeal process. Life sentences also have appeals. Yearly. Charles Manson, sentenced in the sixties, still files them annually. So this argument is largely opinionated and invalid.

Another argument in the case of the death penalty being too expensive is the drugs that they use. Irrelevant. As recent as 2010, the US (Utah state) saw the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner, by firing squad. In 2004, Utah had abandoned the firing squad method but has since brought it back as a solid back up method. Even the most expensive ammunition is cheaper than the cheapest drugs.

Fourth, I never fully stated that the death penalty did prevent crime, but while we're on the topic...

Fifth, the studies you pulled were not accurate in regards to Singapore. Citing studies that take place in the US and comparing the effectiveness of our system to theirs doesn't mean much of anything (which is why I chortle at British folks telling us how to solve our gun problems).

Again, I will state that this will never be an issue [drug trafficking = death] in the United States, so much of the argument is a moot point anyway.

I just like looking at Singapore's fascinating governmental structure.

 

[Esper]

Second, in relation to the second article, since there is no basis or reference to his studies I am loathe to believe that the death penalty is 'racially biased'. If a murderer is a murderer then they're a murderer. Stating in court as a defense "This ruling is racially biased!" Will get you a proverbial smack in the back of the head.

Some numbers on death row in America:

RACE OF PRISONERS CURRENTLY ON DEATH ROW
BLACK: 1,371 (41.58%)
HISPANIC: 374 (11.34%)
WHITE: 1,475 (44.74%)
OTHER: 77 (2.33%)

RACE OF DEFENDANTS EXECUTED IN THE U.S. SINCE 1976
BLACK: 393 (34.6%)
HISPANIC: 78 (6.87%)
WHITE: 643 (56.6%)
OTHER: 22 (0.62%)

Source: https://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=54

Based on data like this which shows disproportional numbers of black people on death row relative to the ratio of black people in America, I can see two conclusions one can draw. 1) Black people are being put on death row at a disproportionate rate, either because they are receiving as a whole harsher treatment or scrutiny or non-blacks are receiving lighter punishments, or 2) black people are committing more crimes warranting the death penalty.

Since I find it difficult to believe that black people are more likely to commit murders to such a degree I can only assume that there is more effort being put into punishing black offenders. Since this is not case-by-case it's hard to know where the bias is and whether an individual sentence is the result of bias or racism. What makes it even more difficult is that part of the discrepancy could be something entirely separate from the courtroom, in that it might represent more effort on the part of law enforcement to investigate or arrest when a suspect is black than when a suspect is white. The number of factors could be quite large.

 

[Melody]

In no way should the death penalty be justified for anything less than Murder.

For these statistics; let me point to the race of defendants executed; where White Defendants are executed at a rate significantly higher than any other (56.6%). This points to the fact that there isn't actually a bias in justice; just a skew in stats for population. Let me also point out that the current skew of death row doesn't mean blacks are prosecuted more stiffly.

I believe it's been said/shown that a higher amount of blacks end up suffering from poverty; thus making it more likely they do something illegal. Sadly this is something society might ought to work on correcting. But poverty does affect crime and arrest rates amongst the races for certain.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

or 2) black people are committing more crimes warranting the death penalty.

Since I find it difficult to believe that black people are more likely to commit murders to such a degree I can only assume that there is more effort being put into punishing black offenders. Since this is not case-by-case it's hard to know where the bias is and whether an individual sentence is the result of bias or racism. What makes it even more difficult is that part of the discrepancy could be something entirely separate from the courtroom, in that it might represent more effort on the part of law enforcement to investigate or arrest when a suspect is black than when a suspect is white. The number of factors could be quite large.

Before we get started, using a biased organization as a source will always raise eyebrows.

There is very little biased or racism in the death penalty. Let me point you to the wonderful world of gangland.

Gangland crime rates in America amount to 13% of all homicides https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems

Further more, the article you found had its basis rooted in California, which would now make the entire basis of the argument now defunct. Or it would have, if the court would make up their mind. 2014 had it removed by Carney (a selfish man, in being that he decides, not the people) and reinstated by a panel of three judges. 52% of California chose to keep the death penalty on the table.

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Capital_Punishment/history_of_capital_punishment.html

Most of the US gang problem lies in California. But that isn't to say that there aren't gangs elsewhere.

The Hell's Angels started in Fontana way back in the late 40's. They have about 90,000 members globally if I remember the last estimate correctly

The Bloods (20-25k members) and the Crips (30-35k members) took off in the projects of LA in the 80's

The Mongols MC booted up in Montebello

The Vagos MC grew from San Bernadino county

MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) spawned in the 80's as well from LA (70k members)

18th Street started in LA also 'round the same time period. (60k+)

There are roughly 33,000 gangs currently operating in the United states, and they are predominantly a mixed bag, meaning the majority of these street gangs aren't white, they're Hispanic, and races other than hispanic/not latino. Sure, there are white gangs like the AB, but their numbers are small.

Homicide by way of furthering a gang is punishable by death in California. This is legal, this is law.

Most murderers on DR aren't serial killers (the FBI estimates there are about 26-35 of those operating at any one time, but I digress) they're gang members. Most gangs aren't white, even though there are more whites people in the US. It makes observational sense to put to death as many gang related murderers as you have gang related murders roll through your court. He'll, it makes sense to roll the murderers straight to DR.

Further more, every single prisoner on death row is a convicted felon. 100% of 'em. All of 'em.

Murder is not smoking dope. Murder isn't stealing a car. Murder isn't shoplifting. Murder is murder, and murderers get put down. You don't keep a rabid dog alive in a cage, you shoot Ol' Yeller in the face if need be. All it takes is one victim to become a murderer.

I don't agree with taking a stance on color, to be honest. I take the side of the court of the people. And the people say that murderers are bad and I just so happen to agree. It doesn't matter if you're yellow, green, or purple once you kill someone intentionally you're a murderer.

I think people forget that the court is just ... there. There is a jury of 12, made up of a mix of people like you or I that decides what becomes of the accused.

PS: I've been typing this on my phone and it likes to auto complete my words, so pardon the gobbledygook.