KA24DESOneThree

He smuggled drugs.

He didn't force anyone to take drugs. He didn't hurt or kill a single person.

He initiated no force, yet the punishment was the ultimate use of force.

By any system of justice, of true justice, this was unjust, was despicable, and should have never happened. However, true justice doesn't exist anymore. It's a myth, an idealist's idle musing.

DALAZ_68

that movie is still one of my top 10 must see...its so fucken raw and real for tis time.

__________________
LOL 240... whats better than 1? 5 1's ...lol
PSN & XBL GT : Wh0pp3r68

CLUB LEXUS : Wh0pp3r

amdnivram

i think the punishment was a little harsh, but it wasnt completely uncalled for.

__________________


http://silaudrey.blogspot.com/

KA24DESOneThree

Why wasn't it completely uncalled for?

Because of the potential for the drugs to kill people who take them of their own volition, of their own free will?

Because it was for the "greater good" of society?

Enna

I actually stand behind this judgement. Anything drug related deserves this. Drugs are banned in all countries, yet these idiots still try to smuggle it in. If it wasn't deserving of the death penalty then why are they smuggling it?

Anything that can be carried and is worth money is always smuggled somewhere. Are you trying to say that w/o the proof he was mentally ill, or because he was the smuggler, that he should just go to prison for a set number of years? Its ppl like you that cause our own judicial system to fail.

__________________

HalveBlue

I think what KA24 was getting at is, why was Mr. Shaikh penalized for what is essentially a victimless crime?

The consumption of illicit substances is an inherently personal decision. No doubt there are severe risks associated with the consumption of many illegal substances. But these risks must be evaluated solely by the individual engaging in said activity.

Unless Mr. Shaikh was personally restraining other individuals and shooting them up with heroin, I do not see how he committed any crime whatsoever. Rather, I would submit that Mr. Shaikh was the victim of an arbitrary set of laws that fall in line with the PRC authoritarian principles.

Would you think appropriate to execute your local bartender for supplying alcohol to his patrons, justified on the notion that the consumption of alcohol may lead to an occurrence of DUIs and alcoholism?

ronmcdon

What we think is appropriate is entirely irrelevant.
It's futile to even try and understand China's cultural customs, laws, penalties.

About bartenders though, I'm not so sure it's the best example from a legal standpoint.
Alcohol isn't illegal to consume, sell, or transport.
Perhaps illicit drug dealer, or smuggler would be more relevant.
It's also illegal here, just as it is in China and almost every country.
It's just the legal procedures & penalties are different.

Now I'm just guessing about whats technically legal, in my casual opinion
(in case a certain somebody comes in to make a fuss)
Ethics, I could care less about.
you can pretty much say whatever you want.

HalveBlue

I vehemently disagree with the assertion that, "what we think is appropriate is entirely irrelevant". In fact, I think it's perhaps the most relevant thing of all.

By your logic, one could argue that we can't condemn the Holocaust because Nazi Germany was a different society?

While I can appreciate the moral relativist position that China is a vastly different country from the United States - with a deep and rich cultural, social, and political history of it own - and therefore has policies that do not mirror our own, it doesn't change the fact that I find the political and judicial policies of the current regime reprehensible.

In this case in particular I am dismayed that a human being was executed for an act that, in an of itself, harmed no one.

FWIW, as far as drug policy is concerned, I don't think U.S. laws are much better in some respects.

You missed my point. It doesn't really matter who the "barkeeper" is, or what he serves. Nor in which country he serves it.

At it's very foundation, the example I gave revolves around the following arguments:


- What entity or being has the right to determine what an individuals does with their body or what substances they choose to consume?

- On what basis do we assign moral superiority/acceptability of certain substances over others? Who decides this; and from where do they derive their authority?


I would say that first question is absurd because the answer is inherent: only the individuals themselves can choose.

The second is more complex. Although I would submit that as long as the use of the substance affects only the user, the user should be free to do what he wishes with the substance.



With that in mind, let me offer a simplified version of the example in my previous post:


-Person A offers to sell a product to Person B, without coercion.

-The product offered has the potential to both benefit and/or harm Person B.

-Essentially, Person A is offering Person B a choice: Buy the product, or do not buy the product.

Logically, Person B, is the only individual that can decide whether the potential benefit or harm of the product justifies its purchase.


On what grounds can we justify punishing Person A for offering Person B a choice?


Could you elaborate on this? Especially the last part in bold.

kingkilburn

He knew he was committing a crime and I would assume he had a good idea of the punishment for said crime.

Giving that he understood all that I feel justice was served.

The analogy of the bartender and drug dealer is flawed. The drugs are illegal the alcohol is not. You can't hold a legal merchant responsible for what his legal clients do with their belongings.

Any moral compass any of us use does not apply to Chinese laws and customs. The philosophy and ideology the laws are based on are too different from western culture in general. German culture on the other hand is part of the same over arching culture as our own.

Btw are you saying that Jews are no better than drug dealers or drug dealers are no better than Jews?

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

zylvia213

^^^^

__________________

HalveBlue

The law is arbitrary.

You defend Mr. Shaikh's punishment on the notion that because it's the law, and because he broke it, he deserves the punishment.

The real question however is, by what logic do we consider the act he committed (smuggling heroin) criminal?

Mr. Shaikh killed, nor injured, anyone. He didn't stick a syringe filled with heroin in someones harm and pump them full of smack.

No, he took a package of powder from one country to another. That's it.

What exactly is the criminal part of the crime he committed?

I guess, "it's bad because we said so" is a believe that some people subscribe to.

I'm not one of them.

So which cultures can judge which other cultures? What are the guidelines you would propose we use?

You say that (according to you) German culture is similar enough to ours that it falls within our purview to judge the Holocaust.

But we cannot judge the Greap Leap Forward or the Cambodian Genocide because these events occurred in societies that don't share a similar cultural background to ours?

Sorry, but that's where you and I disagree.

Bad shit is bad shit. Millions of innocent people dying = bad shit. Regardless of where it happens.


What?!

Neither.

I was using (or at least tyring to use) the Holocaust as analogy to demonstrate moral relativity is a farce. At least when applied to certain principles.

kingkilburn

Genocide and drug smuggling aren't even in the same neighborhood. By comparing the two you lose all credibility in my eyes. You seem to want to make it a black and white issue by pushing it to a far extreme instead of just discussing the issue at hand.


When comparing western morals to eastern morals you aren't comparing apples to apples. You are looking at their punishment of a crime through western lenses. I'm sure in a totalitarian zero tolerance judicial system it works just fine. They don't have to deal with rehab because they are trying to kill the messenger before he give his message.

I wish we adopted this type of policy. You don't have prisons full of petty theft and minor drug charges when you deal with the inflow of drugs absolutely.

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

luftrofl

While I can't say I support this type of punishment... I feel that one should know the punishments (and be prepared to accept them) in different areas of the world if one plans on breaking the law.

__________________
Engrish is funny in Japan. In America, it's for stupid fanboys.

ronmcdon

What I was saying that the legal system & ideals there in China are very different from the US system.
I'm just not interested when it comes to discussions about cross-cultural ethics.
imo, it's very personal & depends a lot of vague interpretation.

Did the executed guy in question harm anyone?
I think that's debateable.
Directly, probably not.
Indirectly, it is probable.

China thinks illicit drugs are harmful.
There is always the possibility that hard drugs can cause death.
China thinks the prolifertation of illicit drugs are harmful.
China, therefore imposes a set of penalties to discourage this.
The USA (and pretty much the vast majority of countries) do the same.

As Slider2828 mentioned,
China's history did include a particulary destructive period caused in part by the influx of Opium.
It's reasonable that China would go through measures to make sure this doesn't happen again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

To me, it's a reasonable policy.
However, it's not unthinkable that others may not find it reasonable.
Replace 'illicit drugs' with another illegal substace that can cause harm,
say rocket launchers, biochemical weapons, national security secrets, etc.
The same could reasonably apply.

Oh sure, everyone is totally free to condemn (or support) anything.
Just not everyone, always agrees what to condemn and what not to.
For instance, I don't condemn the death penalty,
and I don't condemn penalizing the distribution of hard drugs.
Ppl condemn the politicians in their own country every day.

Oh I agree it' absurd for governments to decide who can do what,
with regards to one's own body.
It's also hard at times to determine what's ought to be legal based on what substance (or anything really) is more harmful.
We can, and should voice our opinions.
In the USA, it makes sense to express our opinions.
We can vote, write to our politicians, use the media, etc

In China, it's all for nought as it's not the same polical system,
Public pressure, media pressure (thanks to censorship) don't acheive the same.
Ppl everywhere inside China, or outside have condemned it.
Economically it's changed.
Politically, it still runs with an iron fist.
It's not going to change anytime soon, most likely.


Just about anyone can judge anything.
But so what?

Whether the party who expresses approval or dissaproval makes a difference, is another matter entirely.
I doubt any of us here would have much leverage over China's policies.
Im more interested in what's practical, rather than what's moral.

Matej

Foreigners always think they are above the law in other countries.
No matter how stupid or obscure the law is, chances are you will be subject to it if you commit a crime.

ronmcdon

^^^ Especially Americans imo.
Of course, anything must always be beneath our moral excellence.

lewisfk

Pretty cool, its plain and simple in China! Get caught and die! Wow 9 lbs where did he hide it?

HalveBlue

[QUOTE=kingkilburn;3226427]Genocide and drug smuggling aren't even in the same neighborhood. By comparing the two you lose all credibility in my eyes. You seem to want to make it a black and white issue by pushing it to a far extreme instead of just discussing the issue at hand.[quote]

No, I was using the holocaust to underscore that moral relativism is a poor argument to use to defend what is an inherent injustice.

That's why I cited the Great Leap forward as a further example; and there are plenty more.

What you don't seem to realize is, it's not the details that are important in this analysis, it's the underlying logic, which applies universally.

The argument here doesn't revolve around whether or not crime should be punished. It revolves around the question of whether or not the law criminalizing a certain action is founded upon rational principles.

Whatever. You seem to believe that simply because an injustice was committed in another country or culture that the issue is therefore above reproach. I disagree with this.

As further example, I'll point to the issue of political speech, which is heavily censored in China. Now, obviously, the CPC has a vested interest in suppressing dissident political movements and has enacted laws to do just that.

Do you support what the CPC is doing?

Or, we could just decriminalize actions which fall into the spectrum of personal choice and responsibility.

HalveBlue

That's fine. Although, again, I disagree.

This goes back to the earlier argument I made with the barkeeper example.

You wouldn't hold the bartender responsible if one of his customers decided to drive drunk.

Why, would hold the drug dealer responsible if one his customers overdosed?

This, I can agree with.

Obviously, I can not change the laws in China.

That does not, however, mean that I can not criticize their laws.

s14_driver

I completely agree with you
If a person gets caught smuggling into America the drugs get confiscated and the smuggler goes to jail/or cuts a deal and walks but then the person who set him up for the job would be pissed so they either have him killed or make him pull another job to make up for the money that they would have made on the first deal
If America doesnt want to execute people cause it takes like 30+ yr to do it in California they should just take away peoples citizenships and kick them out of the country

__________________

kingkilburn

It's not personal choice and responsibility when others have to deal with the repercussion of your actions.

Now you can then decide to NOT take care of the people in your community and close down all rehab and AA type programs, get rid of DARE and other preventative programs. Personally I would rather not live in a third world drug slum.

I know we can agree that hard drugs that can and will kill you are bad. The culture and economy surrounding them are bad. Why then, can we not agree that trafficking these drugs not also be bad?

__________________
G O L D E N B E A R R E P U B L I C

flip3d

The last thing China needs is a drug problem. That shit would spread like a wildfire among the 2 billion people.

China doesn't fuck around with that shit. They have work to do.

We should start doing that here too so we can get off our asses and start paying them back. :P

__________________