> But we're really getting off topic now as far as I can see.
Ah! What the heck. There's another Rip-Off Thread running in parallel. And Clubman has made a very interesting point.....
>I would argue that the retention of the death penalty has a generalised and >pervasive brutalising effect on the society of the country in question but obviously it >is hard to quantify this in objective terms.
I would have strongly agreed with you up to about 6 months ago. I have in fact strongly argued against the Death Penalty on this Forum. My reasoning being that it's benefits are questionable and the risk of being wrong is too great for such questionable benefits. I still would be against the Death Penalty, but I would not rule out living in a country that had it.
I'd be interested in an answer to this question. If Ireland introduced a Death Penalty.
(Hypothetical since it won't happen and unless we leave the EU can't happen). But go with me on this.... Would you emigrate? or stay and fight to have it repealed?
In other words is your objection to it so absolute that it would force you to leave, or only strong enough to prevent you moving to a country that has the penalty?
At the moment I'm going through a period of re-examining a few things that I've always taken for granted. Such as....
1. Very Harsh Punishment is not a deterant against crime and can in fact be counter productive.
In the US greater numbers of Police and Longer Prison sentances have actually had an effect, contrary to what I had previously thought. Check out Freakonomics by Stephen Levitt for this and other very interesting insights about crime and other issues.
In Singapore I could not find Grafitti. Including passing a railway yard which is usually the mothership for grafitti. After 3 or 4 days of searching we found a tiny bit.
Talking to the locals they said the harsh punishments are rarely required because people dont commit the crimes. That sounds like an effective deterrant to me. However I think there's more to it than that. The deterrant has to be coupled with effective policing. If you don't believe you'll get caught, the punishment is irrelevant.
Singapore locals believed that on average if you reported someone committing a crime they would be on the seen and the person would be taken away within minutes.
They also said that if a person is found wandering in a residential area the Police WILL ask that person to explain why they are there and if they don't have a good reason they'll be asked to leave. Harsh? Yes. But it would have gotten the guys who smashed my windscreen out of my neighbourhood before they did the deed. And they wouldn't be still there a few hours later and on subsequent nights.
2. Freedom of Speech and other similar rights of the individual are of paramount importance. They are the first thing that need to be guarded in a society.
This is the most troubling one. I would have once accepted this without question, and even now it makes me uneasy to think I'm questioning it. In Asia there seems to be a prioritising of the well being of the community over the rights of the individual.
We think we have this in the west but we don't. Look at the hassle and backlash when we tried to protect the rights of the group bystanders from the passive smoke of the individual. The smokers couldn't understand why their rights were being trampled on. The smoking ban was so out of character that it comsumed the nation for a year and got worldwide coverage.
So what happens if a government creates a Utopian society but can only preserve it by surpressing public dissent. My Western Liberal side bristles at the thought. But if the Society that is being protected is truly better in all other respects then am I imposing a lower quality of life in order to protect some abstract idea of freedom, by living in the West?
E.g. I have the right to park my car outside my house and not have the window kicked in. I have the right to expect such a crime to be investigated properly. In Ireland these rights are not protected, is my right to criticise the government sufficient compensation? I'd have to say no. I'd much prefer to be protected so that I didn't even need a right to critise the government.
I'd have to live in Singapore for a year or two convince myself on this, but it's a sufficiently interesting question to me that it alone would be a reason to move there.
3. It is the governments job to ensure that the least well off in society are protected by a safety net. This is best achieved by taking money from the better off through taxes and distributing it to the least well off through welfare and services.
This might be the most contentious. In Singapore if you are broke or unemployed it is the responsibility of your Family to look after you. This might mean a grown man needing to borrow from his brother to make ends meet. This would very quickly produce a pressure to get up off your ass and at least reduce the amount you need to be subsidused. Even if my brother can't ever make ends meet, I'd feel a lot better helping him out if he was doing everything in his power to make a contribution.
If my brother sat on his ass and watched Big Brother I'd be less inclined to buy him a new Jacket and Shoes.
I'm told the Welfare model does allow for people who genuinely can't rely on others for help. I'd need more info before I'm convinved. But I'm certainly intrigued by such a system.
Of course any suggestion to introduce such a welfare system here would be immediately shot down and would probably end the political career of the person who proposed it.
-Rd