Brit to be Executed in China

While I agree that the punishment in this case does not fit the crime, I do believe strongly that China has every right to make and enforce their own laws, including those with which we may not agree.  There are limits to that, and though this one may approach that, I think they were within their rights. They choose to take a hard line in the interest of protecting their people from the evils of illegal drugs - I have a hard time faulting that.

----------------------------------------

Drug trafficing is not a victimless crime.  How many lives could have been lost or ruined over nine pounds of heroin?  How many more crimes committed? The fact that he did not succeed marginally lessens the severity of what he actually did, but the intent to deliver was there and that's plenty serious.

----------------------------------------

Penalties for unsuccessfully attempting a crime should (and in most places do) carry a lesser penalty, but that's a slippery slope. If too light, there's little or no deterrent effect and the wrongdoers take their slap on the wrist and try again for whatever they perceive to be the brass ring.  If the crime that was attempted is sufficiently harmul, the penalty should be nearly as severe as that for succeeding at it.  Bombing airliners is a great example. 

----------------------------------------

There's a real dilimma with people who have mental illnesses.  They can't all be locked up, nor should they be, but it's not right that they should be absolved from obeying the law or from harming or attempting to harm others without consequence. Often crimes committed by persons with mental issues happen because they stop taking the prescribed medications.  Maybe that's the crime.  They make a conscious decision to not take the medicine and then lose control, but they were in control when they made that decision.

----------------------------------------

In this particular case, I feel strongly that if this guy was so dim-witted that someone could convince him that smuggling heroin into China, given their legal system and the severity of the crime, he was incapable of caring for himself.  Anyone that gullible is a menace to himself and sooner or later is going to be used by someone to do something awful. 

Personally, I'm not buying the mental illness defense in this particular case.  I believe he knew what he was doing and was going for the big score.  He was no doubt offered a sum of money that was, in his opinion, worth the risk. His infirmity, whatever it may have been, may have made him more gullible, but it seems incredible to me that he could have been so out of touch with reality that he thought that what he was attempting was OK.

----------------------------------------

...until he was murdered.

That's an interesting way to look at it.  A sovereign nation with laws on the books forbidding this act and proscribing the penalty for it does not equate to murder. Injustice, perhaps; cruelty - that too; murder is a stretch, legally speaking.

----------------------------------------

This man did commit a crime, and for that he should be assigned a punishment. But his mind was not sound, it should have been taken into account.

Agreed, and in a less autocratic and more human-rights oriented nation, yours and mine included, that would certainly have been the case. 

He put himself beyond the reach of clemency by his actions.  It's tragic, but life is not always fair.

----------------------------------------

But his mind was not sound, it should have been taken into account. Had this been done, I am absolutely sure he would not have received the full punishment.

In China? His mental condition might not have mattered there, regardless of how much consideration it was given. 

Perhaps the only thing really left to discuss now is the hypothetical.  What punishment should have been assigned?  If China's answer was too swift and too severe, which I believe it was, I strongly suspect that the one he'd have received here or in the UK would have been too little.  The legal eagles would have had him absolved of any responsibility under the law for what he did and he'd be treated and quickly released to sin no more. 

He would not have been made better in any way.  He'd have escaped the consequences but the causes would still be there and would manifest themselves again in due course, to his own detriment and to the detriment of others.  It happens over and over again. Who benefits?

If a person whose mind is unsound has proven himself capable of attemting a serious crime, what should be done?  Has not government and the medical profession a responsibility to assure that he doesn't get carte blanche to keep trying, or to try other things until he succeeds in doing harm to himself or others? 

I don't know the answer to this one, but people whose illness makes them capable of deluding themselves or of being deluded into attemting heinous things that harm society should be constrained from doing so.

----------------------------------------

Martin simply stated this fact, no guessing.

Saying something does not necessarily make it a fact.

When I criticise someone on this forum for supporting Israel's horrific actions in Gaza for example, it's not because I think they are in any way responsible or involved...

You might consider whether criticizing a person for their opinions is proper.   Argue with opinions, criticize actions.

One of the worst things about this forum is the personal attacks and slurs that are leveled against one if certain people disagree with them.  I've probably gotten into the feeding frenzy myself at times, but try to remain above that.  That behavior kept me away for a while and will probably drive me away again. (Take heart, Martin, you may be rid of me yet.)

-------------------------------------------

With respect to the Chinese, it's their house and they get to run it unless they run afoul of international law, which they did not. Human life is cheap there, and he placed himself in their control.  The only way he was going to escape was if they decided it was in their (not his) best interests.  China caught the guy red-handed, and they obviously figured his life was worth less (to them) than the cost (again, to them) of the perceived weakness and the encouragement it would have offered to other potential drug smugglers if they'd been lenient.  If anything gave them pause it would have been fear of a strong adverse international reaction and I suppose they evaluated that and judged that they could weather that storm.

I believe many western nations, the US and UK included, are too soft in terms of allowing criminals off with wrists slapped or off completely on the thinnest of excuses.  Thousands of lawyers make very good livings exploiting that and returning people to the streets who will probably commit their next crime within a week.  Judicial revolving doors really bother me.  Deterrence is a vital element of criminal punishment and weak punishment dillutes deterrence.

Many, including many who are not ill at all, escape the consequences of having committed crimes by pretending to have "problems".  Paid "expert witnesses" can be had to support such stories if the money is right - some believe in what they are doing and do it free.  In any case, it's often very easy to get a person who's committed a serious crime off with community service, time served and a few doctor visits, regardless of whether they have any problem or not.  That's a travesty of justice.

A harder question is what to do with people who do have a problem and whose medical/mental condition causes them to commit crimes.  First you must separate the truly sick from the charlatans - not all that easy, though there are probably 20 of the latter for every one of those with genuine issues.

Secondly, it is in my opinion, impearative to protect the rest of society from the troubled person who has already transgressed or who is judged very likely to because of a clinically diagnosed condition.  I don't know exactly where the bar should be or how to do that.  The answer is probably different for each case.  It may be medication, analysis, therapy or institutionalization in some combination, and maybe some other things.  I don't know.  In the main, I mistrust the practitioners of the psychologial science anyway because they are so prone to absolving everyone from responsibility for everything. I take responsibility for my actions and so should most everyone.  The rest of us should not have to be at risk from those who are truly not able to be responsible.

Two things about the current state of things bother me...

1) Criminals who escape justice because they claim to be troubled but who are simply criminals hiding behind a convenient flaw in the system

2) Troubled people who have demonstrated or are judged likely to demonstate harmful, anti-social behavior, but who are permitted further opportinities to do so anyway at the peril of the rest of us

An innocent person killed or harmed by someone like that is more of a tragedy than the death of man who, probably with at least some level of consciousness that what he was doing was wrong, managed to get himself legally executed by a foreign government for a capital crime on their soil.