Down on the ground

looks like there are at least 2 more people who are going on about the Nguyen's case and the death penalty.

both try to argue based on logic, with one basing a lot of his arguments on books, philosophies, articles and the other through a clinical rebuttal of the points raised.

let's look at it from another point of view. somewhat different.

is life imprisonment of Nguyen more humane? is letting him live, caged up, knowing that his mother and brother are still suffering, missing him pining for him, more humane than a swift death? is it more humane for the mother and brother know that Nguyen is alive, but they cannot see him? why? do those who insist that life imprisonment know how it feels like to be imprisoned for life? for all we know, being imprisoned for life might feel a helluva lot worse than a quick swift death.

what is the difference between the death penalty and life imprisonment (without parole) anyways? as XH puts it, the latter is merely execution by old age. the former is far cheaper. the latter does not have as much shock factor as the former.

considering all these, would it not be more humane to let Nguyen have a swift death, preparing him mentally, assuring him that his family would be taken care of, helping him and his family come to terms with his doom? or do people insist on life imprisonment being more humane based on some philosophical, ideological assumption that we have which is not proven?

(incidentally, i wonder whether the Aussies, with all that self-righteous talk, are doing anything to help Nguyen's brother with all the debts that got Nguyen into trouble in the first place... for that matter, i think the way the reporters mobbed Nguyen's mother and brother was detestable and inhumane. but strangely, no one had any issues with that...)

i believe that a drug trafficker can redeem himself by sacrificing himself for the sake of demonstrating that a nation's rule of law is iron tight, no-nonsense, which would make MNCs more likely to invest in the nation and hence benefit the entire population.

and so, i feel that the death penalty is more than just a punishment. it is a show of a nation's will to do things her way, a demonstration of stability, a symbol of invariance.

now some would challenge me to further explain my previous point. to these people, i'd ask you to speak to constitutional, criminal and corporate lawyers, consultants, politicians and the common man on the street rather than read books.

it is important to get ideas from books. but one would never learn the intricacies of politics, policies and law being cloistered in the ivory tower of academia. one cannot argue purely philosophically, based on what one has read from books, about whether one should do away with this law or implement another policy.

why? because philosophy from books are built upon assumptions. so while these philosophies might be logically consistent in and upon themselves, the basic assumptions might not be an true.

Confucious he says:
"Learn without thinking, one is lost. Think without learning, one dies."

as i have said before, the problem with a lot of us who read philosophy is that we lose touch with reality.

so for all you smart-alecks out there who read all about philosophy, good that you are doing so. but immerse yourself in your society. find out the sentiments on the ground, empathise with the people from various sectors, classes, educational levels. understand, truly understand, the issues and appreciate the complexities of each issue. then do something. contribute. let your hands do the talking.