[linohh]

I've been in banking for quite some time of my life and hands down, there is no country in the world that makes bankers with let's say questionable skills in risk assessment and decision making more afraid. Millions in fines, maybe more? Zero fucks given. Messing with regulators in Singapore? Not worth it. Wouldn't be surprised if they send or have sent people out to tell the somewhat gory stories of the canings in Singapore.

Personally, I don't believe in preventive effects of draconian punishment, but I also don't believe in cokeheads. Being a cokehead in Singapore means risking facing the mandatory death sentence for posession of more than 30g of cocaine, which depending on the habit is a months supply max for some.

[refurb]

I would respectfully disagree. While Singapore likes to “kill the chicken to teach the monkey” they absolutely are examples of kid gloves.

The recent corruption case of a Minister taking gifts of hundreds of thousands resulted in a few months custodial sentence for the Minister and nothing for the rich “donor”.

Massive money laundering scam? Stiff punishment for the foreigners and kid gloves for the local lawyers and bankers who facilitated it all.

Singaporeans constantly complain about how being rich in Singapore protects from actual punishment.

[colechristensen]

>depending on the habit is a months supply max for some

People with substance abuse problems are generally the "get more every day or two" type not the "have a month's supply on hand" type.

And I really believe more in corporal punishment for a lot of things than the maze of fines, legal costs, and probation which really seems more like complicated inconvenience.

For drunk driving, sexual assault, and grand theft the appropriate punishment for the first offense is a public beating where they stop half way through and give you a chance to admit guilt and apologize on camera or they keep going. It would be particularly good for any fraud that nets you, say over a million dollars. Only for the kinds of crimes that have significant victims.

[casenmgreen]

> For drunk driving, sexual assault, and grand theft the appropriate punishment for the first offense is a public beating where they stop half way through and give you a chance to admit guilt and apologize on camera or they keep going.

This is obscene. It is torture. If you torture people, they usually confess, regardless of innocence or guilt.

[Viliam1234]

I wouldn't mind public torture for violent crimes (hey, if it is acceptable to torture the victim, what is it unacceptable to torture the criminal?), but the part that when they apologize they get a 50% discount is stupid.

Either the punishment is appropriate, or not. If it is inappropriate, change it. If it is appropriate, don't give a 50% discount for saying "sorry" when told to. First, it means nothing; no one reasonable will think that the "sorry" was sincere. Second, if once in a while an innocent person is incorrectly sentenced, you insist that they either apologize for something they didn't do, or get 2x the punishment an actually guilty criminal would get.

[casenmgreen]

What if you're got the wrong man?

What is the police force isn't completely honest and has a tendency to incriminate say black men?

What if the police force isn't particularly competent?

What if the man was framed?

Cruel and unusual punishment is regarded as sadistic; and how and who decides what is okay or not? I would not be wholly surprised to find the definition of "violent crime" becoming a political football.

What happens if you get an Islamic Government in? cutting off hands is okay?

What about also when people find themselves in desperate situations through no fault or their own and turn to crime to survive? we should torture them?

[colechristensen]

It isn't at the trial, it's after they're found guilty.

And yes, call it what you want but yes I'm advocating for pain in exchange for serious crime.