Singapore has conducted its first execution of a woman in 19 years and its second hanging this week for drug trafficking.

Singapore conducted its first execution of a woman in 19 years on Friday and its second hanging this week for drug trafficking despite calls for the city-state to cease capital punishment for drug-related crimes.

  • Finn@lemm.ee
    0·
    1 year ago

    Singapore hanging its weight on an antiquated, inhumane justice system while the world evolves towards rehabilitative models is downright disturbing. Death penalties for drug offenses are an archaic, blunt instrument to tackle a complex issue, punishing the vulnerable pawns rather than the kingpins of the trade.

      • Finn@lemm.ee
        0·
        1 year ago

        No one is forcing Singapore to execute those who the rest of the world views at petty criminals.

        We’re not talking about drug kingpins here.

        • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
          02·
          1 year ago

          So? Singapore doesn’t want any drugs in the country, and put up draconian laws. Just don’t break those laws.

          If I tell you that I will brutally murder you if you come to my house wearing a red tie, and you do that… Your death is at least partly on you. Because you had absolutely no good reason to do that.

          There is absolutely no positive outcome to selling or consuming heroin. Just don’t do it. It’s not a hard rule to follow…

          • Finn@lemm.ee
            1·
            1 year ago

            All I take from what you’re saying is that it is easy for you to morally justify murdering someone that you don’t know, much less harmed you.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              12·
              1 year ago

              That’s because that’s literally exactly what this commenter is stating, and nothing else. They leave a reasonable person no choice but to judge them as bloodthirsty and heartless

    • barnsbauer@lemmy.world
      01·
      1 year ago

      31 grams of pure heroin. I think it’s worth mentioning.

      While Singapore has doled severe punishments for possession of paltry amounts of cannabis in the past, the drug in this particular case is incomparable to weed.

  • wahming@kbin.social
    01·
    1 year ago

    Biased title. Why should gender matter in law? This is a blatant attempt to tug at emotions. And they try to focus on ‘31 grams’ instead of ‘a year’s supply’. Take that clickbait back to reddit.

    Edit since a lot of people think I’m discussing the sentencing. I’m not, I’m discussing the article itself. My reasoning:

    Why I find the headline objectionable:

    1. Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she’s female, or how long is it’s been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It’s not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it’s a device to invoke emotions.
    2. Choice of wording about the quantity. ‘A year’s supply’ would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.

    Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).

    • Ktheone@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      Are you an incel by any means? Because clearly if its a women, the title will obviously be that. If it was a man, it wouldve been that. Keep your incelish shit somewhere else man.

      • wahming@kbin.social
        01·
        1 year ago

        It’s incelish to point out a headline is exploiting gender politics for clicks? Ok.

        I’m not sure you know what an incel is, BTW. Here’s the definition for your reference: “a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active.”

        Now tell me which part of my statement is hostile towards women, or in any way at all related to sexuality. You’re merely using the term as a hammer against viewpoints you disagree with.