Reply to: Contractor finds himself agreeing with the Daily Mail

[sunnysan]

China White

1) Did he get a fair trial?
He was caught with 4KGs of heroin in his luggage so guilt did not have to be proved, there was no documentary evidence for mitigating circumstances, so yes.

2) Was China right to execute him
From a moral standpoint it depends on whether you agree with the death penalty or not. According to Chinas laws the death penalty was mandatory for the offence, so yes.

Politics is cynical and I believe that his execution was more about China flexing their muscles. The moment this case got high profile international media attention he was dead man. They may have been able to get him out the back door but it could not happen once knowledge of the case was in the public domain.

I cannot comment on the Chinese media but it seems that in the UK there is more support for the Chinese actions than our governments condemnation of it.

[threaded]

Up until 1970, there were about 7000 heroin addicts in the UK. They got their stuff from the chemists each day.

Then came prohibition and the "war on drugs" (a gift from the Septics once again) and lo! there's an estimated 300,000+ addicts.

The thing about getting it from the chemist is that the tulipe is pure, isn't cut with brick dust, drain cleaner or anthrax, and you get a consistent dose each time. And the other thing is that it's cheap.

Costs about £4 to £5 a day to keep them drugged up & happy without the need to go stealing & burgling all around the place.

That's one of the joys of a democratic system compared to totalitarianism. When a problem is solved in a democracy, TPTB have to mess with it, and generally make things worse. With drugs, everyone can see the year on year improvements from the investments they're making.

[thunderlizard]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz0b5K2ySQm

cool! We get to offer our hasty opinions on no fewer than 6 polls on that page. 6! The world will be set to rights in no time.

[Board Game Geek]

And isn't it dreadful, the way other countries criticised the application of the laws of the Sovereign Country of Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, or of the Sovereign Country of the USSR under the leadership of Josef Stalin?

And what about Cambodia? How dare outsiders criticise the actions Pol Pot thought necessary to ensure absolute adherence to the law of that Sovereign Country.

That Mugabe chap also seems to get a bad press for enforcing the laws of his country. You should write to him to express your support, given that the others are no longer available.

I thought it would go without saying that perhaps there are some things in which foreign diplomats may comment or threaten diplomatic action, or indeed countries themselves may take action.

Typically when the sovereign law of another country threatens en masse the sovereign law of another and its citizens.

Throwing in mass genocide as an example of why we should interfere is taking the action of intervention to a whole new complex level and not really in context with the example that sparked all this off.

Obfuscation is really not helpful here. Focus on the issue at hand, and that is "was China correct to apply its given jurisprudence in this issue?"

[Gonzo]

And isn't it dreadful, the way other countries criticised the application of the laws of the Sovereign Country of Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, or of the Sovereign Country of the USSR under the leadership of Josef Stalin?

And what about Cambodia? How dare outsiders criticise the actions Pol Pot thought necessary to ensure absolute adherence to the law of that Sovereign Country.

That Mugabe chap also seems to get a bad press for enforcing the laws of his country. You should write to him to express your support, given that the others are no longer available.

Yes. I find that these chaps in far off foreign lands do appreciate the white man telling them how they can live better lives.



I know that it would never occur to you to think of these things in those terms but plenty do.

Where I am now I see resentment of the european obliteration of native culture and most of the time I am inclined to be sympathetic with that.

Sometimes it worries the hell out of me but the situation is not hopeless here. At least religion does not complicate matters.

Happy New Year!

[NickFitz]

Last time I looked, China was a Soveign Country and had its own laws.

They have applied their law legally within their own country.

I don't think any other country has a right to meddle.

And isn't it dreadful, the way other countries criticised the application of the laws of the Sovereign Country of Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, or of the Sovereign Country of the USSR under the leadership of Josef Stalin?

And what about Cambodia? How dare outsiders criticise the actions Pol Pot thought necessary to ensure absolute adherence to the law of that Sovereign Country.

That Mugabe chap also seems to get a bad press for enforcing the laws of his country. You should write to him to express your support, given that the others are no longer available.

[Board Game Geek]

Last time I looked, China was a Soveign Country and had its own laws.

They have applied their law legally within their own country.

I don't think any other country has a right to meddle.

[Gonzo]

This debate has got very spirited, but given the topic it's to be expected.

It always does, but since lives get ruined that should not be too much of a surprise.

We've been round this before on here, more than once, and as a result it is tempting to stay out of it but I don't like to see the views which (to me) are too short-sighted prevail by stifling reasoned debate so I will put my head above the parapet once more...

Government regulation, decriminalisation could be a way of getting the criminal element out but no politician would ever dare do it.

I don't think that you will ever stop people from taking drugs any more than you could stop people from drinking alcohol (and I can't see any difference between consumption of either for the users, none whatsoever).

The recreational use of narcotics has effectively been illegal in the UK for ninety years now (since 1920). That's four generations and behaviour has not changed. Do you really think it ever will?

If you accept that it wont then the obvious way to reduce the undoubted harm currently being done, which I don't dispute, is to take the manufacture and distribution away from the criminals.

Current policy creates a lucrative business opportunity for criminals who don't care about exploiting or destroying people.

I am not hopeful that there will be a change of approach in my lifetime though because of people's attitudes. To me, and some others, a war is being fought that cannot be won so FFS can people not see that a different approach is needed?

[TykeMerc]

The Chinese obviously got the idea from read Larry Niven books.

I tend to agree with Larry Niven on this point, it's one way to turn habitual criminals into a benefit to society.

I'm not unhappy that the Chinese have executed a drug runner, good riddance.

[Addanc]

In China they recycle body parts of executed felons for those who need donor organs.

The Chinese obviously got the idea from read Larry Niven books.

[FarmerPalmer]

There are an estimated 20-25,000 class A middle and major drug dealers in the UK, several thousand already in prison

Currently, around two-thirds of prisoners are re-convicted within two years of release, 72% OF DRUG DEALERS IMMEDIATELY RE-OFFEND ON RELEASE FROM PRISON.

Kill them and they won't be able to re-offend. I can live with that

WHS

I think China has the right idea (in this case) - you want to kill our citizens and break down society in our country then prepare to die.

[Diver]

I can see where you are coming from Diver - problem is as quick as you bump em off more will take their place.

ok we could go on a cleansing mission but we all know the people in charge of it would use it to their own ends and it would end being more than just drug pushers who get targetted.

if you just shot all the Chavs that would make the situation a lot clearer I reckon

Ok, a caught in the act rule for second offence dealers, if they are caught dealing again, with supporting photographic evidence and witness testimony, just shoot them.

If mules are caught at the entry ports carrying, then just shoot them.

First offenders get 10 years hard labour and serve 10 years, major dealers get 20, not this pathetic 14 years and out in 6 for good behaviour.

[original PM]

I can see where you are coming from Diver - problem is as quick as you bump em off more will take their place.

ok we could go on a cleansing mission but we all know the people in charge of it would use it to their own ends and it would end being more than just drug pushers who get targetted.

if you just shot all the Chavs that would make the situation a lot clearer I reckon

[Diver]

And if half the lower estimate are dealers you would execute 160,000 people.

Get real.

There are an estimated 20-25,000 class A middle and major drug dealers in the UK, several thousand already in prison

Currently, around two-thirds of prisoners are re-convicted within two years of release, 72% OF DRUG DEALERS IMMEDIATELY RE-OFFEND ON RELEASE FROM PRISON.

Kill them and they won't be able to re-offend. I can live with that

[Cliphead]

All dealers (Except Children)

And if half the lower estimate are dealers you would execute 160,000 people.

Get real.