Ear candy >>> Mudvayne - Forget to Remember I’ve been inspired by Nadia’s post which led me to my 2nd post of the day. Rarely happens, so please bear with me. Firstly, I am against the death penalty simply because it is a violation of your basic right to live on this earth. Nobody should try to play God and attempt to take your life away. This isn’t about some UN Declaration of Human rights (because when it was first drawn up, it was done so by Western powers and Asian countries still today fight to draw up another version that also incorporates Asian values). It’s really about recognising your own basic rights [On that note, I have to mention that being Asian doesn’t mean in any way that the basic right to life should not be granted]. Of course, if you do not believe you deserve/have the right to live, you really shouldn’t bother reading on cos’ we’re obviously on very different wavelengths. You could however decide to get someone to hang you and not hold him accountable for it, because you believe it is all right for another to take your life, regardless of the reason. The reason is irrelevant. It is a simple yes/no issue. By saying "it depends" allows you to sit on the fence. Sitting on the fence for this issue is beyond stupid. Try literally sitting on the fence when your life is on the line. Secondly, I’m rather disturbed by certain recent letters/articles in the Straits Times that have mentioned that anti-death penalty activists seem to hold double standards. It is alleged that anti-death penalty activists in Singapore kick up a fuss when drug traffickers are hanged but are all shush-shush when murderers are hanged. I think the use of the phrase "double standards" is too often incorrectly and unfairly used. For the protagonists, it appears to be a catch-all phrase that is used too much to their convenience. Let’s consider the issues at hand. 1) Trying to abolish the death penalty here is like fighting fire with fire. 2) Drug traffickers are by far the clear majority of executed prisoners. (exact details should be on the AI website) 3) There is no evidence to prove that the death penalty lowers drug abuse rates. All are inter-related and indirectly related back to the first point. Anti-death penalty activists fight for a reason. They fight to uphold your right to life. Respect the deed because that is the only primary reason. However, in Singapore it has become notably difficult to do so. Actually, it would take nothing short of a miracle to abolish the death penalty here say, within a year. I believe the activists natually understand that (they’re fighting a losing battle) and thus plan their every move cautiously. There is a thin fine line and you have to tread it cautiously indeed. You have to have the right ammunition in this kind of battle ready at any opportunistic time. That brings me to the second point. Drug traffickers are the clear majority of executed prisoners here. That is one of the main reasons why drug trafficking cases come up almost synonymously with anti-death penalty cases. With so many drug traffickers, why mention the murderers? Let me give you an example. If consumers complain that the prices of fruits have gone up, but only the prices of apples have gone up by more than a dollar each along with the plethora of apples demanded by consumers and if the prices of pears have risen by only 5 cents and account for less than 5% of the total number of fruits on sale. Then, consumers would be dumb to mention the increase in price of pears when campaigning for lower prices for fruits (hypothetical example only) because it simply doesn’t do much to help their case. It’s not that the consumer is having double standards. Infact he may love pears a lot more than apples. But he should act intelligently. That’s the key word. Thirdly, by killing drug traffickers you’re not weeding out the root of your problem. The problem is drug abuse. [Side point: my dutch buddy, Ln once told me proudly that in holland drug abuse lowered as a result of legalisation. interesting huh?] However there is no evidence to even suggest that it has helped curb that problem. I know what you’re thinking. If we don’t enact/keep such laws how will we know right? And wouldn’t the problem of having criminals on the loose be even worse to prowl on innocent young victims? Well, I do have replies to those.The laws have been in place since I believe 1975. How many more decades do you want to wait to collect your data? How many more peoples’ lives do you want to take unjustly so as continue thinking that you’re saving lives instead? How much longer will you live in delusion? And I did not say these criminals are not criminals or that they should be let go scot free. I’m just saying you shouldn’t take away their right to life. That brings me to my last point. Somehow I like the phrase "fight fire with fire". If the law is the one that is preventing the right to life, I think we should use it to get it back. Rome wasn’t built in one day. It takes baby steps to get things right on the embroyic stage. Firstly, the mandatory death sentence should no longer be put in place. Instead, judges should be given the flexibility and freedom to impose a life term imprisonment. Judges can exercise sound judgment based on customary international law. [pls refer to legal material for more info on this] This allows case law here to build up more effectively, which in turn will help expedite the road to lesser use of the death penalty here in time to come, which really should be the way to go.