I was taught that intent was a product of Enlightenment thought.

Yes. But so long as something is utilised in argumentation or drafting of something like law, then it’d have to be considered.

Anyway, I like what Speranza Nuova said about the difference between gambling and drug addiction.

I don’t know about all these drug thingies… But the other thing about gambling vs. drug-use is that there’re more factors that inhibit ‘pleasure’ associated with gambling as opposed to drug.

The ‘pleasure’ obtained from gambling is more or less mediated by chance. The ‘pleasure’ obtained from drugs is more or less definite. So the distinction between the two is also about the immediacy of the what the user gains from it.

The other thing is consider is opportunity-for-use. There are more opportunities for drug use than there are for gambling.

It’s not uncommon to smell someone smoking pot in place of cigarettes in Melbourne’s bars and cafes.

Thanks for rescuing my comment post from the depths of spam-filterdom.

Taking up the question of gambling vs drugs, you are correct in that both are addictive. The distinction is in mechanism and extent.

The mechanism of addictive drugs is that they act directly on the chemicals of the brain and body. In short, they mess around with the very cells and electrical impulses that make up your brain and shape your consciousness.

Gambling may give a thrill, but it does not have the same addictive potential, for the above reasons: even the most exciting million-dollar royal flush will not alter brain chemistry as a drug can. Hence gambling and sex addictions are less common – and easier to treat – than drug addiction.

This is also why drug addiction is so hard to overcome: the very biochemical basis of human desire and volitional will has been subjugated and perverted.

Granted the human spirit is more than the sum of cells and electrical impulses and biochemicals — but it sure doesn’t help the integrity of that spirit when the physical infrastructure for its mortal existence has been corrupted by drugs.

It might be of interest to you that the concept of intent, which we probably cannot do without these days isn’t something very old. I was taught that intent was a product of Enlightenment thought. Prior to that, nobody knows of the concept of intent. Everything was judged by the final action.

Your addiction argument is fair enough. The next thing I wonder is that since drugs are no good for the human health since they are addictive and deprivation of drugs can lead the abuser to do extreme things, what about other addictive things like gambling? Maybe we should also hang those that organise gambling sessions because they, like drug lords, destroy families through borrowing from loan sharks etc. Maybe stealing wasn’t testy enough for some real mental exercise.

Thanks for doing the homework though. You have been very kind to help bring up more issues for further critical thinking. Really appreciate it.

“What makes you think that stealing is any less than drug trafficking? Is that an assumption or a fact?”

Well, in the list of possible crimes, drug trafficking would be worse than stealing, because:

- Drugs create their own demand. While the initial choice to use them may be voluntary, their addictive nature removes free choice from the user.

- Because they create their own demand, they at the very least are linked (if not causative of) to additional crime and hardship, as a White House report and United Kingdom Home Office webpage state.

- The nature of injectable drug administration, unlike theft, contributes to the HIV/AIDS problem, as stated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

- Unlike stealing, the problem of drug trafficking has become the subject of International Conventions and hundreds of United Nations resolutions and reports.

To return to your question on whether drug trafficking and stealing are functionally or morally equivalent, I (and possibly even the staunchest opponents of the death penalty for drug trafficking) would have to say they are not equal.

A highly addictive drug instils in its user the equivalent of unsatiable hunger. Your 40-year old jobless man, if he were a drug addict, might steal from even his own family [see this UK Hansard link for a UK parliamentary debate citing such instances], and where would his starving kid be then?

Or, to put it differently, drug addiction deprives men and women of their dignity. It strips them of their free will — which is why those who successfully beat addiction are as respected as they are rarities.

We often criticise our Gahmen for being authoritarian. But even the most authoritarian government in the world cannot take a man’s freedom of thought. Drug addiction can.

In my own opinion, the Singapore laws are shaped according to what law makers see as a whole picture. I think it is paramount that we understand why a death sentence is appropriate for drug trafficking as compared to pilfering.

We understand that how drugs affects a man’s health. How easy we get hooked on it, and how expensive it is to get hold of drugs. Anyone can think of the possible implications that will bring if someone is in desperate need for, say Heroin.

We will see further break downs in already broken families. We will see people killing each other for money to get drugs. We will see how people die from withdrawal effects because they couldn’t curb their kicks. We see suffering. We see social instability.

Many may agree that it is for greater good, but we failed to see how this greater good is being achieved through smaller success in certain policies that are implemented in the first place.

Take an example. We are able to walk alone in the nights because there are lesser crime rates in Singapore. Crimes didn’t happen because they didn’t have to, not because they aren’t present.

Robberies, thefts and kidnaps are mostly motivated because of money. And the demand of drugs demand for cash. We can see that it’s a chain of effects which many will agree that they aren’t far-fetched.

Strict law enforcements are there not because we want to keep Singapore being a fine city, but more importantly, a safer one.

I must agree with Aaron that Tochi’s case indeed has a valid mitigating factor to consider. However, I still stand firm to strict captial punishment. What was lacking in his case was perhaps the absence of substantial evidence to prove his intent. And having said that, since all pieces of evidence point against him, it was a necessary move to sentence him to dealth.

It was hard to decide if Tochi was really unaware of the heroin. What would you do to prove your innocence if you were him? Because seriously, I don’t know. How to you prove that there isn’t a bomb found in your residence if police raided your house and manage to find one because of a tip off?

Cry foul? Doubt so.

In his case, it’s really guilty unless proven innocent.

And then of course, where the judgment is to be based on potential costs, there comes the consideration of ‘intent’.

With the current situation in place, there is insufficient consideration to the proving of intent, which is why Tochi’s case is a particular flashpoint for many.

I am not quibbling with the second part that you wrote, but I have a small question. What makes you think that stealing is any less than drug trafficking? Is that an assumption or a fact?

Ultimately, even if we change the analogy to what you proposed, is chopping off a hand brutal under any circumstance? How about doing it in the least painful way (general anaesthesia), just like how hanging is (supposedly) the least painful way to die. Would it be more palatable that way?