[JCattheATM]

> Executing people guilty of serious crimes is good and just.

Wrong. It's barbaric and primitive.

> execution is no more or less "barbaric" than the alternatives

Yes, it is. People make mistakes. People have infinite possibility to grow, change and contribute to society. Snuffing everything someone is out because of an arbitrary society rule that ultimately does less harm than murder is indefensible.

> "mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."

Taken as far to defend murder it becomes nonsense.

[shell0x]

Rape, murder, drug smuggling, terrorism are not mistakes you accidentally make. These are serious crimes destroying lives and the offenders do not deserve a second chance.

It’s also a repellent.

[JCattheATM]

Drug smuggling doesn't always destroy lives, sometimes it's just giving people something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Rape can very much be a crime of passion and a mistake. Terrorism can be the result of indoctrination. Rape while less likely to be a mistake also doesn't deserve the death penalty.

Yes, all these offenders deserve a second chance. Extreme penalties to set a deterrent are not justice. Just barbarism. Very primitive people.

[HighGoldstein]

> Wrong. It's barbaric and primitive.

Source?

> Yes, it is. People make mistakes. People have infinite possibility to grow, change and contribute to society. Snuffing everything someone is out because of an arbitrary society rule that ultimately does less harm than murder is indefensible.

Putting aside statistics on actual reform instead of fantastical infinite possibility, as I understand this policy mostly serves to deter foreigners from attempting the potentially very lucrative business of smuggling drugs into Singapore. Even if Singapore didn't take the "barbaric" approach of executing them, they would have to either host them as prisoners on their already very limited land, or go through the process of deporting them to their home country, where they might not even face any consequences and just try again. Why should they bear this burden for people who have no ties to Singapore and will never contribute anything to it?

[JCattheATM]

> Source?

Do you know what an opinion is?

> as I understand this policy mostly serves to deter foreigners from attempting the potentially very lucrative business of smuggling drugs into Singapore.

So what? That's not a justification.

> Why should they bear this burden for people who have no ties to Singapore and will never contribute anything to it?

Singapore is perfectly able to control their borders better than most countries. It's not like the US where it's relatively easy to sneak in. 'They might come back' is a poor justification for murder.

[HighGoldstein]

>Do you know what an opinion is?

Cool, what makes _your_ opinion better than mine, or that of the Singaporeans?

>Singapore is perfectly able to control their borders better than most countries. It's not like the US where it's relatively easy to sneak in.

Okay, why should they? Drug traffickers are perfectly capable of not attempting to smuggle drugs into Singapore.

[JCattheATM]

> what makes _your_ opinion better than mine, or that of the Singaporeans?

Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct. Not that I'm willing to put in the effort when it already took this much for you to realize I was stating an opinion though.

> Okay, why should they? Drug traffickers are perfectly capable of not attempting to smuggle drugs into Singapore.

If you think casual murder is fine because it's convenient, I don't think there's much for us to discuss anyway. We clearly have drastically different values. I'll just take solace in the fact that Singapore likely won't survive another 100 years.

[lenkite]

> Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct.

Out of curiosity, How can your argument "be supported and shown to be objectively correct" ?

It seems the evidence is actually the other way around. After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.

I do not support the death penalty myself, but primarily for ethical and moral reasons to preserve our humanity - which is constantly under attack. But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.

[JCattheATM]

> After introduction of the death penalty in the 90s, the average net amount of opium trafficked to Singapore famously dropped by ~70%.

If we introduced the death penalty for minor shoplifting, minor shoplifting would probably drop by a huge percentage. Would that justify it?

> But not "objective ones" since the evidence clearly supports the death penalty for "objective reasons". For these positions, objectivity should be left in the gutter.

I disagree. When you evaluate all the pros and cons, I think the evidence is solidly against the death penalty.

[eli_gottlieb]

> Because I believe it can be supported and be shown to be objectively correct.

Then that's not an opinion, it's a proposition aiming at fact, and you should back it up rather than restating it loudly and more slowly when asked for justification.

[JCattheATM]

It can be both. There's such a thing as opinions that coincide with facts. Until I put in effort to support it though, I only offer it as an opinion.

> you should back it up rather than restating it loudly and more slowly when asked for justification.

It's a fair amount of work to do so, and I haven't seen anyone worthy of putting in such work. This site isn't great, from a practical point of view, for that type of lengthy debate, either.