[blueyoda]

> “He was also questioned by the police without legal counsel, and said that he was denied a Tamil interpreter.”

That is concerning. Regardless of whether or not you think someone is guilty, they still deserve the best possible defense.

However, one thing I am genuinely curious about is why people condemn Singapore's solution in regards to substance smugglers. The state of their nation suggests that their solution works well.

Why should society condone the distribution of substances that ruin lives? I've seen people argue that capital punishment is unethical in this case. From the perspective of potential false-positive convictions, that is definitely a valid point. However, when people argue that the current punishment for such crime is too much, I must ask: what about the countless addicted people who lose their lives to drugs every year? Don't they deserve to live? Why does a smuggler who knowingly distributes a substance that destroys lives deserve sympathy? How can one expect such a menace to be "rehabilitated" in prison?

[friend_and_foe]

I personally am of the opinion that 1) no drugs should be illegal, and 2) corporal punishment including execution should be the norm for crimes as opposed to imprisonment. I do believe that corporal punishment is more effective than imprisonment at correcting behavior, but I don't believe there should ever be victimless crimes. A commercial transaction where all involved are voluntarily participating is a victimless crime, even if what they're volunteering for is bad for them, as long as that fact is not hidden from them.

[blueyoda]

You raise a good point - victimless crimes should not be punished. However, when someone is distributing drugs, I'd argue that is a crime with victims. The person buying it is not doing it out of their own free will, but out of addiction.

[Mawr]

> Why should society condone the distribution of substances that ruin lives?

You mean substances like alcohol and cigarettes?

[blueyoda]

I wouldn't mind them being banned as well. However, outlawing alcohol has been unsuccessful in history.

[graderjs]

China's anti-covid policy "worked" as well. One way to fix the homeless "problem" in San Francisco would be to execute all the vagrants. This would also "work".

But if it really "worked"--why would there still consistently be prosecutions and executions of dealers, traffickers, etc? If Singapore's strategy really worked, it would have stopped this. Yet it didn't. So does it work?

The humanity of the addict that drives you to want to save her in the face of her own choices to resist being saved, is the same humanity of the dealer that you ignore in your drive to want to kill her.

In another way, are they also not jointly responsible? Without addicts there would be no dealers. Without dealers, no addicts. If we're going to kill all dealers, why not all addicts, too? In a more sophisticated way, isn't drug policy the real one responsible for the harm? If drugs were not "illegal", cartels would not exist, and all the violence from them would not exist. If drugs were not illegal, purity could be controlled, and so could dosage, and so could price, and not only would illicit market be far smaller, but less lives would be ruined through drug debt, disease, social exclusion, and, jail.

Prosecutions snip the leaves, but not the trunk or root. The leaves are often driven to crime by the same forces that drive people to be addicts. The standard of personal responsibility should be equally applied: people choose to become addicts, and they choose to commit crimes.

In both cases, there are other forces at work, but we must not treat one class of people as agent-free helpless fake victims, and others as planful, deliberate, fully-responsible perpetrators. We must apply responsibility equally to all, for their choices and situations.

I think the "moral panic" argument to justify lynching is a way to hack human psychology and has always been effective (heretics, witches, slaves, and now...I guess...drug mules?).

Put it another way: what if it was your sister, who was visiting you in Singapore, but she didn't speak the local language, and the eSIM she bought at the airport turned out to have been used by drug traffickers a few months before. Then out with friends, someone spikes her drinks, her friends lost her, and police later find her wandering the street in a confused state, and arrest her for "drug consumption". While detained, she refuses drug tests, and while checking her phone, they discover the "her involvement". Despite the fact that she just landed here, a court rules that the phone number belongs to her, and she is sentenced to death for "her part" in the months-prior drug trafficking. Are you still asking "what about the countless addicted people who lose their lives to drugs every year? how can such a menace be rehabilitated" and saying "The state of their nation suggests that their solution works well." It's an exaggeration, but how plausible is it? How plausible is the guilt of the guy they will execute? What if not your sister, but you? Someone switches bags with you at the airport, in a part of the airport where no cameras are...you have no proof, and you are sentenced to death for being "such a menace"? Do you still feel "their solution works well?" I mean, did you deserve to die for something else and this is what got you?

I think it doesn't work, and even if the questionable "war on drugs" was really a good goal (and not one that ended up lining the pockets of both 'sides', while denying people access to a lot of safe mood modifiers), then a better LE strategy would be executing the leadership of the organization.

Put it another way: in human trafficking cases, do we arrest the leaves (the girls and boys who are trafficked for sex or slave labor), or do we arrest the kingpins? The socioeconomic things driving those kids to become criminals are very similar for drugs, and for sex / slave labor.

Finally, does the prosecution and sentencing of many mainly black men in USA for small drug crimes (another example of a solution whose punishment seems exaggeratedly incommensurate with the crime), "work well"? Or is the problem that it was "not tough enough" -- we should have been executing people for this stuff...? :(

[blueyoda]

> "Without addicts there would be no dealers."

"Addicts" do not consume drugs out of their own free will. They are addicts, their condition is out of their control. The dealers have free will and willingly choose to ruin society.

> Someone switches bags with you at the airport, in a part of the airport where no cameras are...you have no proof, and you are sentenced to death for being "such a menace"?

You raise a good point - and believe it or not, that is actually a fear I have of travelling to Singapore. Even though it's obviously unlikely, there is always that fear of "but what if it happens?"

This is why the defendant deserves the best defense possible, and that doesn't seem to have happened in this case. It's also why the government should absolutely prioritize a high level of certainty when assessing if someone is guilty of such a serious crime or not. Personally, I wish they opted for life sentences as opposed to execution. You can free someone from prison. You can't un-execute them.

> "Finally, does the prosecution and sentencing of many mainly black men in USA for small drug crimes"

America has for-profit prisons, corrupt police, and a long history of racism. These factors play a major role in why minorities are targeted.