i can completely understand this sentiment.... but i guess at the end of the day for me it comes down to if you believe in the death penalty or not (for any crime, anywhere) and I don't I have certainly felt crap all day because of his hanging and in the hours around his hanging i felt like I was going to be sick I am all for punishing criminals, but not by killing them, surely as a race of people (humans) we have evolved enough to think killing a person is a suitable punishment for any crime
Bang-on smeg. I'd say it's even more unsettling given the nature of this offence. (serious as some may consider it to be).
Perhaps I'm not so evolved then. An alternative would be to find a vacated island and ship all the criminals there and let them build a new colony or something.
Handing out a death penalty for victimless crime is absurd. I don't care how you feel about drugs, the fact is it is a crime with no victim. there is a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Excellent questions and sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. Yes you're correct this is an interconnected world which is why regional problems affect many countries. The problem is is that under a US hegemony while many countries might suffer it ends up being the US having to deal with it. I would hesitate to have the US as the primary agent of intervention except in the most direct threat to the US. For example Osama Bin Ladin is a direct threat to the US and as long as the Taliban sheltered and supported Bin Ladin it was necessary to remove that government. Refugees and instability in Bosnia greatly affected our allies but didn't directly affect us so it should've been up our European allies to address the situation in Bosnia. What I would like to see is not pure isolationism but more of a multi-lateral response to regional crisises where there is a shared burden with the primary burden going to the countries most affected. This doesn't mean the US doesn't participate but the US isn't the lead. As I've said before the model is East Timor where Australia took the lead in the peace keeping mission and worked through the UN since Australia was the most powerful country directly affected by it. And you're correct the PRC and other emerging powers haven't received as much flak as us because we've chosen to put ourselves in the spotlight. As I said in another thread by chosing to build and maintain a hegemony we not only burden ourselves but have created a dependency among many other countries to deal with there own problems. The PRC is far from perfect but their efforts to build international alliances IMO is a far better model than the one we undertook. Rather than seeking to project military power in far flung parts of the world the PRC is instead building a network of alliances based upon trade and mutual interests.
To say drug trafficing is a victimless crime has never had a family member or love one addicted to drugs. Drug addiction (alcohol included) destroy families. My father in law is a drug addict and the nicest guy you could ever meet, but my wife had to deal with alot just to have a normal life and outlook. The same can not be said for the rest of the family. The only thing I've seen screw a person up even more is domestic/sexual abuse.
In this scenario you propose, do you think a man like bin Laden wouldn't hesitate to attack New York anyways? The symbolism of the World Trade Center works on all levels. Plus it's the headquarters to the UN. If I was some dirtbag terrorist plotting to send out my message, I'd definitely choose New York over Paris, London, or Brussels. Afterwards, do you think the US would take a backseat approach when most of the toys and firepower would come from our side? Would our people stand it when some Frenchman or other foreigner commands a loss? Should we still help traditional allies like Israel or Taiwan when we would possibly need their opponents such as the first Gulf War or the continous efforts to contain N. Korea? These hypotheticals only serve to illustrate that as the dominant power whether officially or not, we'd be forced to make tough cuts and that no solution to this would be an easy one. The PRC's current policy is very similar to what Americans took up after the Civil War. There's a steady and increasing arms accumulation, a populace eager to adopt the slogan of Manifest Destiny and a reemphasis upon the Monroe Doctrine that seemingly protects its neighbors from foreign imperialist powers. No one knows how China will act afterwards, but I don't think they'll sustain that far better model indefinitely. We didn't even before the first World War.
If the hangman’s rope is too long, the victim’s falling body weight can result in death by decapitation. If too short, death by strangulation can take as long as 45 minutes. When the rope is correctly measured, the victim loses consciousness when his or her neck is broken in the fall. Brain death then takes about six minutes, while full body death takes a further ten minutes. According to the US-based Death Penalty Information Center: “If the inmate has strong neck muscles ... or the noose has been wrongly positioned, the fracture-dislocation is not rapid and death results from slow asphyxiation. If this occurs the face becomes engorged, the tongue protrudes, the eyes pop, the body defecates, and violent movements of the limbs occur.”
but that's not the drug dealer's fault and there are people who have done drugs that don't have family problems. I'm not saying drug dealers shouldn't go to jail, but it is a victimless crime. the actual crime, there is no victim and its not the dealers fault if someone becomes strung out. if a bartender willing serves drinks to an alcoholic that he knows is going to go home and take his problems out on his family, should he go to jail.
As long as they don't push the drugs themselves, then they don't have any direct victims. However, you cannot deny the fact that they are directly aiding and abetting people to commit the crime right?
