|
|
|
|
|
by typon
3541 days ago
|
|
This portion of the speech reveals the main requirement for this to be successful: > Death penalty for traffickers, in our experience, has been an effective deterrent, as part of a framework of laws, coupled with effective enforcement based on rule of law. Drug traffickers stay out of Singapore now, largely, because of the knowledge: first, that there is a highly professional and incorruptible police force and there is a high probability that they will get caught; and second, there is rule of law, an independent judiciary and a high probability that, based on the laws, they will face the death penalty. So we do not have slums, ghettoes, no-go zones for the police, or syringes in our playgrounds. I don't think you can have the latter without the former. |
|
Both Singapore and Japan have low rates of crime in general, especially drug crime and gun crime -- two kinds of crimes that depend on criminals having access to items that are highly regulated or completely banned.
I think the conclusion to draw from this is that islands are able to control their borders pretty well, and they can prevent a lot of contraband from coming in. That alone is sufficient to explain the low rate of drug crime in Japan, where drug trafficking is not a capital crime. It's probably also sufficient for Singapore, which means that the death penalty explanation is probably overdetermined.