There are some people whose actions have strayed so far from morality that they have smeared all that we work towards in order to be all we can. They stomp out the potential in children by introducing a destructive addiction. If the children are our future then we need to protect it. How can we expect to survive if we are alone amongst an unstoppable flow of drugs and grief.
Kill them. Without conscience. A bullet between their eyes. Death by firing squad. Prefably by the mother who buries her heroin addict son. Or the father that walks his dead daughter to the afterlife. Where she reigns in heaven. Perhaps heath ledgers dealer can explain to his child why he died. An addict myself. Someone should have shot me between my eyes when I gave my sister amphetamine whilst sitting her history SAT. A potential oxford graduate, would be poet and writer., now a two bit drunk, addict. I would welcome it
Both the level of drug abuse and drug trafficking are tiny in Singapore, where the death penalty is applied rigorously. Singapore does not allow this social problem fester into the violence and abuse seen in other countries. Nor does it pretend the problem of abuse will go away simply by legalising it.
It would send a message to all would-be drug dealers that the U.S. just isn't going to put up with this anymore. Drug traffickers cause the deaths of countless individuals everyday and are to blame for assisting a lot of other violent crimes as well. If the drug dealers were put to death, then there would eventually be so few drug dealers that mainstream society would be unable to acquire drugs and it would improve society in general.
Drugs Traffickers must go to HELL they are doing Genocide and treason to humanity ,Isn't it?
They must die because they cause other people die
1. Why are you aligning yourselves with drug traffickers and murderers instead of being on the side of law abiding citizens? 2. Setting an example for like-minded perpetrators. 3. Human rights are only for humans. Drug traffickers and murderers do not fall into this category because they are essentially evil manifested in the fresh.
While I think that it would substantially decrease the incidence of trafficking, I think that it would be a bad idea. It is my view that we should legalize most illegal drugs, and let the markets sort it out. I also think that it would be a bad idea, because it would increase the price of drugs and the violence associated with them. That said, I still think that trafficking would go down in that situation.
Prisons are already overcrowded with drug offenders, and increasingly severe penalties have done nothing to stem drug trafficking and use. People will continue to use drugs, just as they did alcohol during prohibition, because they perceive the activity as pleasurable, and because they are addictive. As a consequence, the demand for drugs remains high, and they attract an inordinately high price because they are prohibited. With such strong incentives, drug trafficking is bound to continue. Instituting the death penalty for drug trafficking will simply result in more state-sanctioned murder (essentially for a victimless crime) and do nothing to solve the problem. Legalizing drugs is the only effective solution to this problem, just as it was for alcohol (another drug) in the 1920s.
There is no denying that a potential death sentence would curtail drug trafficking, but the punishment does not meet the crime. However, if this crime carries the potential for capitol punishment, much less people will undertake the "profession." If even jaywalking carried the death penalty, much less people would cross without using a crosswalk. There would, of course, be more people in the beginning who may start trafficking drugs due to supply and demand, but in a generation, the United States would see a lot less drug use.
Yes, drug trafficking would decrease if we were just throwing people in the electric chair for being caught with drugs. It is a proven fact that in countries where penalties are greater crime is lower, for instance, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. But there is no worry of this occurring because we seem to have a hard time executing baby killers and serial murderers in this country.
Having the possibility of a death sentence for drug dealers would change things dramatically. Crimes that are now punishable by death, like robbing a gas station and killing the attendant are random, split second decision crimes with the most severe punishment. Dealing drugs is a planned, long term career for some people. If the consequences for getting busted include the death penalty, I think these individuals would look for another line of work.
Even though drug trafficking might be financially very lucrative, it does not offer one the liberty to conduct business openly. It is illegal and does more damage to human minds than possibly any other business. If one were to fear for one's life while earning their bread and butter, this business would not be one of the options.
People believe Singapore is completely drug free, however, as a Singaporean myself, I would say that many more drug traffickers go free than those caught. We can see this from the hugely disproportionate number of addicts to traffickers. I also personally know of a Singaporean who took drugs and got away with it. Now, a drug trafficker would not be doing what he does without it being necessary. They are usually in dept or have needy family members, thus, they would put others before their own lives. Lastly, the drug lord behind the operations will not be affected badly, and there will always be those willing to be their runners. Overall, I would like to say that the death penalty is not the solution, but rehabilitation to help them or life imprisonment to prevent further offences will be much more effective.
You cannot just kill hundreds of people. Do you not know how many drug dealers there are in this world? That would be ridiculous. Probation and drug treatment are good enough, plus they get put in prison for five to ten years for slinging some pot, when pot is completely harmless.
Would drug trafficking decrease if punishable by death? Yes. Substantially? No. Did people back in the day stop stealing or commit crimes that ARE punishable by death? No. Matter in fact it didn't even budge the crime world, it just challenged it. Thats what a criminal committing any kind of crime wants. A challenge. Plus if its being grown then its being sold and distributed. There are always going to be people that want or need it and when theres a demand there is always a supplier right in your neighborhood. Is there any way of stopping drug trafficking? Once again no, we can have hope, faith or just believe we can eliminate it but it will always be there.
Because there would always be a demand and there would always be people willing to supply, that flow would not take a large enough impact to be considered substantial, even if trafficking was punishable by death. Though it would most likely decrease somewhat, the degree would not justify the means. Most supply does not come from the U.S.; it's from South America, so the actual suppliers would not be affected.
In countries where drug traffickers are punished by death, there is still drug trafficking. Economic desperation produces desperation among people who have to feed their families, no matter what the possible punishment.
They have lots of other things that can kill them. Drugs are a dangerous business. People are murdered every day over drugs, and the death penalty would just add to the bodies. If we're lucky, they will all kill themselves without interference.
Drug trafficking happens because people want drugs. Addiction is horrible and hard to treat, varying greatly based on the drug in question. The death penalty for dealers would be unlikely to stop the supply of drugs because the demand for drugs would remain, and profit margins are simply too huge for most dealers to think about no longer dealing. Further, such punishment would mean thousands of people that the government would have to pay to have executed.
It can take many years to actually carry out a capital sentence. This delay would make it very difficult to find a clear link for these more fluid sorts of crime, like drug trafficking. While there might be some decrease in the incidence of trafficking, it would be very difficult to make a reasonable link to the death penalty. Drug trafficking exists in the context of widespread, networked, and organized activities that can take place daily, without a great deal of open objection by citizens. That is not the case for crimes like first-degree murder. Using the death penalty to decrease these sorts of crimes simply does not make sense. It may not make much sense for murder either. It is very difficult to draw conclusions when the data sets are so far apart.
people already take a massive risk by drug trafficking some people are forced to do it or conned into it so who are we to pass judgement. It's be known that innocent people have been wrongly convicted more innocent people will be placed at risk to take the wrap. Penalties don't make any difference and have been known to make things worse unless (1920's prohibition prime failure) and who are we to decide to take someones life? we should look more at the system and find an understanding why people are willing to risk their lives.
Where ever money can be made people will do what they need to to make more of it. Murder has been punishable by death in many states in the U.S., but that doesn't deter organized crime from killing those that are in their way, nor does it prevent a man from killing his wife. The same is true for drug traffickers, who are already desperate individuals doing what they see as necessary to survive.
One thing people don't seem to know about the death penalty is that it has NEVER been an effective deterrent. There are very few crimes that people commit expecting to get caught - if they don't expect to get caught, the penalty doesn't really matter. People were murdering each-other when the punishment was a swift hanging and not much of a trial. Crime hasn't changed in nature since then, and instituting something similar to stop the trafficking of drugs changes nothing. It's too profitable.
The benefits of drug trafficking vastly outweigh the costs. The benefits of drug trafficking large amounts of tax-free money, power, and respect. The costs are death or imprisonment. Death is already a cost to drug traffickers because there are always competing gangs armed with weapons. This results in lots of deaths. So threatening to execute drug traffickers would be nothing new to them, hence it would not decrease the crime.
Drug trafficking is already a highly dangerous activity that is basically punishable by death but by other drug lords and cartels. What they can do to you and your family compared to what the state will do does not even compare. Although so lower level traffickers may stop if it was a capital crime the reward is worth the risk especially when you have your enemies to worry about much more than the police.
People live their lives with something called a personal fable - it's a person's private story of their lives. In it, there's always a happy ending. People don't like at the risks of doing something as much as they look at the rewards, because of the tendency to think that bad things will never happen to them. The death penalty might prevent some people from doing it, but not a significant number.