| sundin13 said: Okay, I wasn't really expecting that suggestion. First of all, I would like to say that decriminalization almost always focuses on decriminalizing mere possession, not dealing (or "intent to deal" with possession of larger amounts of the illegal substance). I don't think anyone is suggesting that dealers get a free pass, just that focusing criminal resources on users instead of dealers is a waste of resources. The argument for decriminalization exists almost exclusively on the side of demand. If anything it frees up resources to work against the supply side. Second, pretty much everyone in the international community believes execution for drug crimes in a huge human rights issue and even a violation of international law. Third, does it even really work? The consensus in the criminal justice field is that death penalty as a whole does little to deter crime. Then, you start looking at the countries where it is implemented: Iran: Death penalty failing to deter drug trafficking - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-rights-executions/death-penalty-failing-to-deter-drug-trafficking-in-iran-official-idUSKCN1120A8 China: Drug use has been steeply rising for years, at greater rates than the USA. They estimate about 1.5million heroin users, which is roughly the same amount as in the USA. Despite their heavy crackdown on drugs, little effect has been seen in recent years. Singapore and Malaysia: In a study examining drug prices (using supply/demand to estimate that if the death penalty was a deterrent, supply would decrease and cost would increase), they found prices to be lower and drug use to rise in Singapore and Malaysia compared to Indonesia who did not have the death penalty for drug offenses. Singapore is now slowly moving away from mandatory death penalties. Finally, I'll leave you with this quote: Many governments in Asia who impose the death penalty for drug crimes claim that they do so as a way to combat crime, since the harshness of the death penalty will deter those who may consider engaging in drug crimes. However, there has been no conclusive evidence presented to date to suggest that the death penalty has any deterrent effect against drug crimes. There is no statistical data proving that the death penalty has had a direct impact in reducing drug crimes. There are no studies that have been able to prove conclusively that the possible threat of death as punishment has been the reason why potential drug offenders or re-offenders have refrained from committing drug crimes. The fundamental assumption that the death penalty will deter criminals and reduce drug crime is therefore not supported by any existing reliable evidence. In fact, some data analyses show that there is no significant difference in the rate of drug crimes between States that execute people for drug crimes, and those that do not. In fact, it has been shown that, in some countries where the death penalty is abolished, drug crimes are even lower. Secondly, the “deterrent effect” argument ignores the complexity of why many individuals engage in drug crimes, and that the threat or risk of punishment may not be the decisive factor when someone is considering whether or not to engage in a drug crime. Some individuals might consider that the potential benefit they may gain out of such a crime outweighs the risk of being punished. This is especially so for individuals in particularly vulnerable situations. For example, those who are economically marginalized constitute a large number of those who engage in low-level drug crimes. Their economic prospects are often so limited that engaging in drug crime presents a worthwhile risk, even if it carries the risk of the death penalty. Without analyzing the motivations and situations of those who are most often convicted of drug crimes, it is impossible to judge whether any given punishment, including the death penalty, will have a genuinely deterrent effect. Thirdly, there is no proof to show that the death penalty is a more deterrent punishment against drug crime than other consequences such as imprisonment or rehabilitation. https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/asia_death_penalty_drug_crimes_fidh_wcadp_report_oct_2015_pdf.pdf
One More: It is unquestionable that the narcotics trade in many countries (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Malaysia) is still increasing despite the introduction of mandatory death sentences for these crimes [13]. In Malaysia, although there had been more than 200 people executed since 1975, the 2004 report from INCB indicated that the availability of heroin in Malaysia had increased, due to the rising demand for the drug [13,23]. Amnesty International further points to the Malaysian Inspector General of Police’s report published in 1985, noting that the death penalty was considered to be an ineffective deterrent on narcotic traffickers, evidenced by the increasing number of drug traffickers entering the market [1]. Colman Lynch similarly notes that the death penalty is less likely to have a deterrent impact on illicit drug traffickers in Indonesia, since it is a crime providing high profits [10]. They also observe that when Indonesian law enforcement agencies focus more attention on one illicit drug over another, traffickers simply change their focus toward other types of drugs. As a result, Lynch suggests that the best way to address narcotic problems is to focus on it from the demand side rather than the sanction side [10]. |
Frankly, we wouldn't need to decriminalize possession of drugs if we could effectively control the external sources ...
"International law" is empty and the UN can't tell a sovereign nation what to do. Yes, enforcing death penalty for drug crimes does work according to UNODC's compiled data ...
Nations such as China (0.25%), Vietnam (0.27%), Thailand (0.2%), Saudi Arabia (0.06%), Singapore (0.01%) and Indonesia (0.16%) have low opioid prevalence rates between the ages 15-64 ...
For comparison nations that don't give death penalty for drug crimes and/or have more lax laws such as Costa Rica (2.8%), USA (5.9%!), Afghanistan (2.92%), Russia (1.64%), Ukraine (1.16%), Estonia (1.52%) and New Zealand (1.1%) have relatively high opioid prevalence across age ranges 15-64 ...
The only reason why death penalty doesn't work in Iran is when their neighbors from Afghanistan are constantly smuggling drugs inside that territory. If Afghanistan ever enforces death penalty for drug dealers then prevalence of opioid usage will also drop ...
There might be some nations who have better rates while decriminalizing drug usage but most of those nations actually do worse than the listed East/South East Asia nations and most developed nations are especially sad in that regard when a similarily developed nation such as Singapore with as comparable resources per capita are running circles around them but most important of all is that they still hand out death penalties for these crimes ...
