Kostya

Am I to understand it that you think justice changes relative to one's physical location on the globe? That is to say, if there existed an uncharted island nation named Vali that believed eating poultry was a 'big deal', and punished it with death, than that would be fine? To us eating a chicken is no biggie, but to the Valinese it's a big deal, so anyone who goes there and eats chicken deserves to die apparently...

Indubitably Nguyen's actions were far from noble, but this doesn't mean he is any more deserving of death. People who were hung for stealing bread in the 1800's didn't deserve to die, though their crimes lacked nobility. Moreover, I hardly think that the responsibility for the deaths of Singaporeans or anyone else from drug abuse is as straightforward as you seem to think. By this logic, so too am I probably guilty for selling cigarettes to pregnant, but negligent mothers when I used to work at a grocery store. I am not sure if there is a death penalty for gun running, but by this logic their ought to be, since I think you will agree guns are generally used to kill people. I for one don't think that the person who brought the guns into Australia that Martin Bryant used to kill folk was guilty of anything. Now, to be sure, bringing drugs into a country is to be discouraged, but let's not get carried away and suggest that culpability for the deaths of drug abusers is wholly in his hands. Don't the lower and higher of the dealing community, the manufacturers, and the drug abusers themselves all contribute to the situation as well. Frankly, the connection between Nguyen and the possible deaths is tenuous at best, and not something that I think really constitutes direct responsibility any more than the deaths of obese folk are on the hands of the pimply teens at McDonalds.

Quite so, quite so. That was precisely my point. You clearly said, 'you do the crime, you do the time' suggesting that knowledge of the consequences meant that someone deserved whatever punishment was stipulated by Law. I am saying to you that this is not so, or if it is so, then you also support Rosa Parks being punished according to the letter of the Law, regardless of the injustice of that Law. You also apparently advocate the view that people who eat chicken in Vali, our hypothetical island community of poultry haters, deserve to be hung. I don't think that Nguyen ought to walk free, and I don't think his foreknowledge of the possibility that he might hang means that he ought to hang, I just think it makes him a very large risk taker or a complete fool. Gambler or fool, I still haven't seen any arguments that show any valid reasons why anyone should support him being executed.

Yes I have thought that. I think there are two distinct legal considerations to take into account on this note. First, should we devise punishments based on disincentive? Second, if so, does the introduction of the death penalty actually produce a disincentive towards drug traffickers?
In the first case, I do not think that this is a very good legal edifice. Firstly, if you take only the need for disparaging would be criminals as your basis for devising punishments, you might find yourself philosophically railroaded to advocating legal provisions both absurd and brutal in equal measure. For instance, I think you will agree that many people speed today, and that we currently have fines as a means of punishing offenders. By the disincentive method, the fact that many people still speed suggests that we ought to devise a new punishment that will make people less inclined to speed. Now, if it so happens that people continue to speed for whatever reasons, then you must continue to ratchet up your punishments until the punishment for speeding reaches a level that is enough to stop speeding. I doubt this would reach as high as the death penalty, but if it did, you would have to consent that it is a just law, because the government obviously thought that the fines weren't enough disincentive, and hanging those who transgressed the laws against speeding from streetlights was a good way of preventing speeding.

I for one do not advocate the disincentive principle alone, on this very account, because I do not think firstly that people ought to be punished purely on the basis of regulating the behaviour of others, and secondly because I think it is quite possible for this principle to lead to grossly inflated levels of punishment, because now you're not punishing a person because of what they did, but rather purely to discourage other people.

Now, disincentive is all well and good, if it is clearly subordinate to a number of qualifying provisions that clearly keep punishments within clear bounds. For instance, nobody should be killed for speeding, even if that punishment is remarkably successful at discouraging other drivers.

Again, Mr. Nguyen's case is not so outrageous, but the same principles apply. The Singaporean government are not punishing him on the basis of his crime, but on the understanding that applying the death penalty will make others disinclined to follow him. Firstly, I don't think that this disincentive policy works in an industry that can easily up the financial or coercive incentives against drug mules to match the ultimate disincentive, that is death. There will always be a massive demand for illicit drugs, and while the disincentive of the death penalty is well and truly enough to discourage many people, it simply means that the drug barons will have to dig deeper into their pockets or threaten people with a bigger stick, both of which they will do, increasing the price of their product to cover the extra expense and nothing changes.

More to the point, the death penalty cannot be accepted by anyone who admits that the judiciaries of the world are flawed, liable to make mistakes however rarely, and that it is therefore possible for an innocent person to be killed for a crime they did not commit.

In summary, I do not accept the disincentive argument, since it fails to produce a legal system that adequately fulfills its function of administering justice.

Well the whole point is he doesn't have to die, not on Friday anyhow, though we all can agree that there needs to be some punishment, I am arguing that the death penalty fails on all counts to qualify as the punishment that can rationally be accepted.