Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

English Project Term 1 Group 2 BAO Jiaqi Brian LEE Daryl ONG Nicholas PHUNG-ZHANG.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "English Project Term 1 Group 2 BAO Jiaqi Brian LEE Daryl ONG Nicholas PHUNG-ZHANG."— Presentation transcript:

1 English Project Term 1 Group 2 BAO Jiaqi Brian LEE Daryl ONG Nicholas PHUNG-ZHANG

2 Topic Selection Philosopher: Immanuel Kant Landmark Cases: Sony Hacking Incident Revision to Singapore’s Drug Law and Death Penalty Comparative Study China vs Middle East vs Canada and Europe

3 Philosopher [Immanuel Kant] German Philosopher 22 April February 1804

4 Kantianism Two Questions 1.Will everyone act as I propose to act? 2.Does my action respect the goals of humanity rather than merely for my own purpose? Is a form of deontological moral theory ○ Actions being right or wrong are not based on consequences, but on whether they fulfil our moral duties Hence, even if everyone benefits, (e.g. bring about happiness), once against moral ethics, action should not be carried out

5 Categorical Imperative ● Kant believes there should be a supreme principle of morals ○ A ultimate set of rules to guide our actions ● Kant referred this to The Categorical Imperative

6 The three formulation of categorical Imperative 1.*Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction. 2.Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end 3.Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.

7 Moral Worth of a person ● Actions being right or wrong are not based on consequences but on whether they fulfil our moral duties ○ E.g. One give money to charity because he feels a special feeling when others are happy ● In terms of kantianism, this person is not moral worthy ○ He did it out of selfish reason--for himself to be happy ○ Not based on moral obligation--even if he will not be happy, he will still do it

8 But... ● Doesn’t mean that one cannot make himself happy ○ E.g. Someone wants to get an ice-cream because he likes it ● Permissible as it is not immoral ● However, it does not make you a morally worthy person ○ Action is ‘neutral’

9 Flaw with Kantianism ●Contradiction arises in terms of moral duty ●Example: Lying ●Based on 1st formulation (Principle of Universalizability) 1. We cannot lie ○not universally acceptable and adopted--lead to distrust and suspicion 2. We lie to save a person life ○universally acceptable--would not lead to distrust among people

10 Retributive Theory of Punishment 1. Those who commit certain kinds of serious crimes, deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment 2.Punishment itself is morally correct 3.It is impermissible to punish the innocent and to use disproportionate large punishment against an offender

11 Purpose ●NEVER to promote another good ○including benefiting the civil society ○Is not utilitarian ○not to be confuse with vengeance (revenge) ●Just to inflict a proportionate punishment to someone on the basis that a crime was committed ○moral duty and commitment to punish accordingly

12 Aspects of Punishment 4 Elements ●Offender must forfeit something in return ○Hardship, withdrawal of benefits ●Must be intentional ○E.g. Offender sentence to a jail term, family emotionally affected ○The emotional harm inflicted on the family is not part of the punishment ●Must be fair, only given when an immoral action is performed ○Regardless of race etc. ●Condemns an action ○Taxes and fees not included

13 Vengeance 2 forms 1.Paying a debt to society 2.Lex talionis However, these should be differentiated with retributive theory 1. Just measure of proportionality 2.Retributive Theory: Commitment to inflict proportionate punishment

14 Problems with retributive theory ●Excessive emphasis on the past ○Punishment given based on past mistakes, not forward-looking ●Might not have an effective deterrence effect ○Punishment not harsh enough--Social contract ○But only in theory ○E.g. Killer Litter (SG)-- residents fail to remove objects that are placed in a hazardous manner (object didn't fall off), maximum fine of $2,000+$100 per day if object not remove ●Innocent inevitably be punished ○Bound to be error in human-based system

15 Landmark Case 1 [Sony Hacking 2014]

16 Background ●Hacked on 24 November 2014 by the "Guardians of Peace" (a group of hackers motivated by political ideologies) ●Demanded that Sony pull The Interview ●Release of confidential information such as: ○Personal information about employees and their families ○ s between employees ○Information about executive salaries at the company ○Copies of unreleased Sony films 16

17 Responses ●Sony initially decided to pull the film, but announced limited release in the US on 25 December 2014 ●Requested media to stop covering hack, threatening legal action ●US intelligence officials allege that the attack was sponsored by North Korea ●North Korea has denied all responsibility, alternatively proposing that current or former Sony Pictures employees may have been involved in the hack 17

18 US response ●North Korea to blame ●Disappointed with Sony’s initial decision to pull the movie (giving in to threat from another country’s dictatorship) “expressed irritation” ●Hacking was unjustified “Human rights abuses”, “violence against theatregoers” ●Need to preserve ideology of freedom and democracy Sources: cnn.com, newyorker.com, nytimes.com, washintonpost.com

19 North Korean response (KCNA) ●Denies all responsibilities for cyberattack ●Criticizes movie for hurting the leader of NK ●Praises the Guardians of Peace for their “righteous deed” (cited from another list of concordance; not enough space to put it here) ●US is to blame (“justice prevails over injustice”, “justifying and inciting terrorism”, “the crimes he has committed”) Source: NK official response

20 China response (Xinhua) ●Denies accusation from the US that China was involved in the case ●Opposes all forms of cyber attacks ● Prepared to safeguard peace and security in cyberspace ●Urges all parties to keep restraint (typical style of the Chinese government) ● must have full, professional and complete facts before making judgements ● need to be in line with law

21 Source: xinhuanet.com

22 UK response ●(These are not responses from the UK government) ●Neutral party -- 2 sided views from the media ● questions FBI’s logic and evidence that seems to prove that NK was behind the hacking ● questions the logic and evidence that question the FBI

23 ●US and NK: directly involved ➢ Ideological differences: ○ US: freedom and democracy ○ NK: dictatorship, Juche Idea/Kimilsungism (Kim is God) ➢ Both need to preserve own ideologies and deny threats from the other party ○ The movie: incorporates US ideology and ridicules NK ideology ⇒ NK condemning the US ○ The hack: retribution towards US, supporting NK ⇒ US condemning NK, giving new sanctions, expressing disappointment towards Sony’s initial decision; NK praising the hack ●Neutral parties ➢ China: incorporates none of the ideologies of US or NK (sounds weird, but true) ⇒ neutral stand, no support or condemnation towards either parties,no direct conclusion about the case ➢ UK: ideologically similar to US, but still keeping a 2-sided view (no preference in the news and analysis on UK media) (This is strange)

24 Cycle of retribution 24 Jan 19, 2015

25 25

26 Landmark Case 2 [Changes to Singapore’s Drug Law and Death Penalty] ●announced in parliament 9 July 2012 ●amendments to abolish the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under certain circumstances in drug trafficking cases 1. Trafficker only played role of courier, not related to supply/distribution of drugs 2. Offender must show signs of cooperation with the CNB (Central Narcotics Bureau) 3. Have mental disabilities ●Court then have discretion to sentence offender to death penalty or life imprisonment + <15 strokes of the cane

27 Prominent Case before amendment Nguyen Thuong Van--25 years old ●transporting 396 grams of heroin through Singapore airport in December 2002, en route from Cambodia to Australia ●Sentence to death, hanged on 2 December 2005 ●First Australian to be executed in 12 years ●Helping to pay off legal bills of A$30,000 (£13,000) incurred by his twin brother ●Lawyer state he was rehabilitated and reformed ●But death penalty was mandatory (once >15 grams) ●Relationship with Australia soured

28 Prominent Case after amendment Abdul Haleem Abdul Karim--29 years old ●First person to escape death penalty after revision in Singapore ● grams of diamorphine (a Class “A” controlled drug) ●Carries mandatory death penalty ●But after revision, was sentence to life imprisonment + 24 strokes of cane ●Found to be playing the role of a drug courier only

29 Singapore perspective ●Death penalty is for those who committed serious crime and is a necessary and effective deterrence ●Singapore is trying to make amendments to the death penalty moderately (Straits Times, Channel Newsasia, Today Online)

30 Death penalty is relevant in our society E.g. important, effective deterrent, continue to apply, retain in laws, maintain death penalty, necessary, reaffirmed relevance

31 Death penalty is still the best choice E.g. amendments send wrong signal, only available sentence, (crime rate) fell sharply, parliament bears heavy responsibility

32 Gentle words used (indicating change) E.g. Spared, allowing, moving away, reviewing, no longer Conditions were given for changes E.g. Certain types/instances Using conjunctions like ‘but’, ‘if’

33

34 Response on Capital Punishment (Western view--Europe and USA) 1.Usefulness and relevance of Capital Punishment is limited a.“...limiting the application of Capital Punishment” b.“relationship between Capital Punishment and crime rates inconclusive” 2.Against Capital Punishment and that it should be abolished a.“I don’t believe in Capital Punishment” b.“Capital Punishment can never be justified” c.“... Capital Punishment has come under criticism” (New York Times, The Guardian, BBC News, ABC News, Washington Post )

35

36 Response to Singapore’s Death Penalty ●Death penalty did help keep drug related offense low ●Singapore has overly harsh laws (death penalty) ●not in favour of Singapore having the death penalty

37 Key words stating the positive effect of the death penalty E.g. protecting, lowest prevalence Statistics to prove crime rates are low--proving deterrence has been effective

38 ‘Impactful’ phrases describing Singapore’s death penalty E.g. hanged hundreds of people, executes anyone, out of step, mandatory death sentence

39 Repetitive description of Singapore's Laws with regards to capital punishment E.g. Strict, stiff penalties, mandatory, tough stand

40 Strong and harsh words used E.g. ultimate denial, shameful use, mandatory sentencing regime, authoritarian

41 Conclusion ●Western View ○Singapore one of the most developed cities in the world ○Capital punishment is ‘uncivilized’ and undemocratic ○Hence, Singapore must scrap death penalty to be in line with global development ●Singapore View ○Death penalty necessary deterrent for society ○Fulfill social contract ○Will try to make some compromises ○BUT, will not scrap it

42 Comparative Study China vs Middle East vs Canada (Et. EU) 42

43 What are we comparing China (strict laws, Death penalty used) Middle East (Strictest laws, Death Penalty used) Canada (lax laws, death penalty not used: like Europe)

44 CanadaYes Years before asking for parole: 25 years minimum for 1st degree murder; 10 years minimum for 2nd degree murder Max: None Definite crimes High treason, murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity Possible crimes: Various crimes including armed robbery, extortion, and most offenses resulting in death under 12: Never prosecuted12-13: First degree murder – maximum 10 years (maximum six years in custody and remainder in the community with conditions and under supervision). Second degree murder - maximum seven years (maximum four years in custody and remainder in the community with conditions and under supervision). Serious indictable offences - maximum three years (for a crime where an adult might receive up to life in prison). 14+: Yes Can be released? Abolished in 1976

45 People's Republic of China Yes Years before parole: 10 years for non-violent crimes; never for murder, rape, kidnap, arson, explosives offences, putting hazardous materials or other organized violent crimes Max: None Definite crimes: non existant Many crimes Minors can be jailed Release?: By courts Death penalty Yes

46 Middle East Life without parole exists Death exists some publically executed Crimes: drugs, witchcraft, homosexuality, murder, treason, terrorism, rape, kidnapping, violation of Islamic Law, espionage Can NOT request for parole Minors CAN be jailed Note: some countries do not use Life imprisonment. They just use capital punishment

47 Effectiveness e.g. Rape Summary: There is much less crime in countries where there are strict laws.

48 UNODC murder rates most recent year CountryRate per CountRegionLocationYearRank Honduras90,47.172AmericasCentral America Iran3,93.126AsiaMiddle East Libya1,7103AfricaMiddle East Canada1,6543Americas Northern America China1, AsiaEast Asia Germany0,8662Europe Northern Europe Saudi Arabia0,8234AsiaMiddle East Singapore0,211AsiaHome

49 Interesting countries to note Liechtenstein, Monaco Both have abolished the death penalty. Murder rate=0 USA Murder rate is 4,7 ranked 111 It has the death penalty though

50 Context - China Japanese invasion Communist rule China has been a historic strong power with strict laws. E.g. Stealing will get your hands chopped off Corrupted during Chiang Kai Shek’s regime: need to root out corruption Large with ⅔ mountainous regions :Hard to enforce Emigration and immigration now balanced out

51 Context – Canada and EU Classic European lifestyle and culture WW2: witnessed the massacre and mistreatment of people (Germany too) Relatively peaceful countries Democratic Canada: Large with dense south sparse north: very efficient enforcing Europe: a collection of small countries that are very developed: mostly flatland Immigration widespread

52 Context - Arabia Strict Islamic Laws e.g. stealing will warrant hands being chopped out were colonies: viewed colonial powers as mistreating them desert landscape with highly dense urban centers : hard to maintain law and order e.g. Cairo in Egypt Note: most countries are dictatorships even though these countries are more orderly than ‘democracies’ e.g. Ex Libya vs present day Libya Mass emigration to Europe and America

53 Context - Singapore Malayan Emergency (1947 to 65) Student protests (1959) Conservative center-right government (PAP) However, supposedly follows british law Small Land Space: easier to enforce (701 sq m)

54 Conclusion Smaller and more developed countries have laws that are easily enforced Countries with a civilized history have more kind laws More human rights There are exceptions 54

55 Human rights evaluation Canada: the most protectorate of human rights. e.g. very lax drug laws and no death sentence China: somewhere in between. While torturing is illegal nowadays, and chopping of hands do not exist, Death sentences are regularly commuted e.g. Death for drug crimes and corruption Arabia: Revenge seeking nations e.g. the murderee's family has the right to kill the murderer or to let him go

56 Laws-Canada/EU Murder: life imprisonment Rape: 18 months to 10 years (CA) 1 to 10 years (EU-DE) Drug possession: 6 months (Eu not very certain) can openly criticize the government.

57 Laws-China Murder: Death Rape: death (normally) some loopholes exist Drug possession: Death cannot openly criticize the government.

58 Laws-Arabia Murder: Death by cruel methods. eg stoning or revenge Rape: death (by cutting of genitals and other cruel methods) Drug possession: Death cannot openly criticize the government (Tunisia excepted)

59 Specific cases-murder Singapore: Death by hanging China: Death by either shooting or lethal injection Arabia: Varied forms of death, including stoning, hanging falling from height and flogging. nb. Public executions exist in Saudi Arabia and Iran Canada/EU: Life imprisonment with all human rights met. Parole sometimes granted after 25 years. 59

60 Specific cases-Immigration Singapore: Strict emigration laws for males Not an immigrant country China: Harsh laws Virtually no immigration or emigration Arabia: Emigration in droves to Europe and America virtually no immigration Canada/EU: More free but problems arise when locals do not like the immigrants and vice versa 60

61 Suggested Method of Law and Order 61

62 Suggested method for Singapore Singapore, being a small country and having a safe environment, should consider using Canada’s model, but retaining the death sentence for extraordinary cases This would ensure that death would not be deprived of those deserving. While at the same time giving those who had made rash decisions a second chance

63 Detailed evaluation for Singapore The police force is already very effective in singapore already. To ensure that crimes do not repeat, double the sentence for repeat offenders. For drug related crimes, we would like to commend Singapore’s death sentence in managing the drug trafficking despite being in the Golden Triangle. We would also like to compliment Singapore’s tough anti corruption laws and low corruption rates. 63

64 However, we would like to criticize Singapore's harsh laws on the discharge of firearms. Currently,this warrants the Death Penalty. We recommend Probation and prison sentences. Repeat offenders or if caused hurt, will be commuted to life w/o parole We would also like to criticize the inability to express one self. Singapore, being a first world society with no security problems like China, should be allowed free speech e.g. In 2010 British author Alan Shadrake published his book Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, which was critical of the Singapore judicial system. Shadrake was arrested whilst promoting the book in Singapore and Charged with criminal defamation and Contempt of court. He was detained first for 2 days Without any charge by the district attorney. 64

65 Smoking laws are advised to remain. Environmental protection laws to remain Advises the government to focus more on saving the environment E.g. China spends 9 Billion on planting trees, have strict (sometimes violating American version of Human Rights) Laws on pollution (i.e. Cars with odd and even plates to cycle thru the week) and ban all cutting of trees. Eurozone and Canada also focus on the reforestation. However, Singapore, Being a first world nation, Has made NO effort to do this. (conversely, singapore prefers to mow down large tracts of pristine forests to build Rail Lines, Highways and New Towns) 65

66 Immigration laws are advised to remain, preventing mass immigration yet keeping the talents in Singapore at the same time and also keeping the population in Singapore constant. Singapore should look towards other countries to see what we can do to improve. 66

67 Conclusion

68 Law In Singapore in comparison Every law in the world has its pros and cons Singapore’s law is commendable such that they are mostly fair However, Singapore overlooks certain points of development and also suffers based on low land space 68

69 Good location and size of Singapore. Good for enforcement We have a lot to learn from other countries but their solutions may not work here. Immigration may cause problems to traditional society= present immigration already causing problems, we should not encourage further amounts of immigration. Nb. Immigration is necessary for Singapore 69

70 Sources ▪http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H8http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H8 ▪http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_philosophy ▪http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant ▪http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htmhttp://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm ▪http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Third_Formulationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_Third_Formulation ▪http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ ▪http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#177http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#177 ▪http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/#LexTalPayResKinhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/#LexTalPayResKin ▪http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice ▪http://www.redwoods.edu/instruct/jjohnston/Philosophy10/CaseStudies/RetributiveTheoryofPunishment.pdfhttp://www.redwoods.edu/instruct/jjohnston/Philosophy10/CaseStudies/RetributiveTheoryofPunishment.pdf ▪http://www.slideshare.net/ascohen2/november a-comparison-of-utilitarian-theory-and-retributive-justice-1- 1http://www.slideshare.net/ascohen2/november a-comparison-of-utilitarian-theory-and-retributive-justice-1- 1 ▪http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MjY4NA%3D%3D-9UYtY1flAog%3Dhttp://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MjY4NA%3D%3D-9UYtY1flAog%3D ▪http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/execution-slated-for-9am/2005/12/01/ htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/world/execution-slated-for-9am/2005/12/01/ html ▪http://www4.uwsp.edu/philosophy/dwarren/IntroBook/ValueTheory/Deontology/KantSummary.htmhttp://www4.uwsp.edu/philosophy/dwarren/IntroBook/ValueTheory/Deontology/KantSummary.htm ▪http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/kant/strengths_weaknesses_kant.pdfhttp://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/kant/strengths_weaknesses_kant.pdf AGC chambers Official Canada Law Website

71 Thank You 谢谢 Merci Danke Grazie Terima Kasih


Download ppt "English Project Term 1 Group 2 BAO Jiaqi Brian LEE Daryl ONG Nicholas PHUNG-ZHANG."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google