""Taiwan has its own government "
Which happens to think it is supposed to rule over Mainland China"
Erm, nope. It really doesn't.

How dare you send a Wikipedia link in my thread.. @Leon

@Leon. Do you think harsher punishments in the US would cut down on drug trafficking? People make their livings off of it. There's no way people would throw it all away because of increased risk

"Which happens to think it is supposed to rule over Mainland China"
Erm, nope. It really doesn't."

It's called the one-china policy, and both the PRC and ROC agree with it, that there is only one China, that Taiwan is not a separate nation. The difference is that the ROC says their government in Taiwan in the legitimate government over all of China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Consensus

"How dare you send a Wikipedia link in my thread.. @Leon"

It doesn't really matter, since my post primarily came from experience. I was just providing additional background with that link.

"Do you think harsher punishments in the US would cut down on drug trafficking? People make their livings off of it. There's no way people would throw it all away because of increased risk"

You're absolutely right. They will still want to traffic drugs, but they'll be in prison rather than out on the streets, so they're ability to do so will be severely diminished. Additionally, you seem to think we should just let them get away with selling drugs. You know, lots of people make their living off of thievery, and they'll continue to steal, so maybe we should just let them get away with that without consequences.

*their ability to do so

My understanding of punishment as a deterrent is that is the likelihood of getting caught rather than the severity of the punishment that drives effectiveness. That being said, I assume that extremely light or severe punishment would bend people's actions regardless of their risk of being caught.

I believe there's other ways that aren't executing anyone even loosely involved in a phase of drug trafficking.

Say what you will, Taiwan is an independent state. A democratic one. One with which the US has numerous economic ties and a legal obligation to provide defensive material and service to defend itself.

"My understanding of punishment as a deterrent is that is the likelihood of getting caught rather than the severity of the punishment that drives effectiveness."

In that case, why don't we just get rapists 6 months? It's about keeping dangerous elements off the streets and bringing justice to the victims.

"I believe there's other ways that aren't executing anyone even loosely involved in a phase of drug trafficking."

What do you mean by "loosely involved". Drug traffickers know exactly what they're doing; don't make them out to be so innocent.

Duterte doesn't care if they're lifetime sellers or first time buyers who were forced to get them for someone else. They die, no trial.

I never made any statement on what punishment was appropriate, only that the enforcement percentage is often the driver of deterrence. You are correct that deference is not the only goal of criminal punishment.

But if someone thinks they won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is execution by pulling their testicles through their mouth. Likewise, if someone knows they will caugh every time, the punishment may not have to be as severe to deter criminals.

"It's called the one-china policy, and both the PRC and ROC agree with it, that there is only one China, that Taiwan is not a separate nation. The difference is that the ROC says their government in Taiwan in the legitimate government over all of China."

That is a pretty drastic misunderstanding of the situation, although I get completely why you might think that. The government of Taiwan has had no interest in being the government of mainland China for generations, and the idea of a united and democratic China of which Taiwan is a part is a pipe dream held by an ever diminishing minority.

Taiwan subscribes to the One China policy for one reason. If they drop it Beijing will interpret it as a declaration of independence and invade. They are a democracy living with a knife at their throat.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WejSKbicS00

Edward Luttwak on strategy.

"first time buyers who were forced to get them for someone else"

Do you have any evidence of this happening?

"But if someone thinks they won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is execution by pulling their testicles through their mouth."

True, but a lot of drug traffickers are caught, but they're released back onto the streets a few months later. If I were a drug dealer and the punishment for being one becomes what you describe, I would find a new profession immediately.

"the idea of a united and democratic China of which Taiwan is a part is a pipe dream held by an ever diminishing minority."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2015/09/25/2003628550
People First Party (PFP) presidential candidate James Soong’s (宋楚瑜) proposed policy of “maintaining the ‘status quo’ under the 1992 consensus” had 36.38 percent support, while 30.89 percent said they do not support it and 32.72 percent said they have no opinion on Soong’s proposal.

The “1992 consensus” refers to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.

@ Leon
Thank you for posting an article so supportive of my point :). I'm a little confused why you quoted the bit about James Soong, though.

The 1992 consensus is basically a mutual recognition of 1 China, and a plurality of Taiwanese people support it.

Erm... I think you've misunderstood your article. To quote from the headline figures:

"According to the poll, 64.97 percent said that both sides of the Strait are sovereign entities, while 18 percent said that both sides are “two political entities that belong to one China.”

It then goes into some detail about age demographics that show that the younger generations are considerably more in favour of Taiwan being a sovereign entity. The clue is in the headline.

Both sides recognise that they are sovereign entities, but both claim they are the legitimate 'China' - the issue here isn't with recognising Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation - it doesn't claim to be independent of China - the issue is they say they ARE China. And recognising that kinda contradicts the People's Republic of China's claims to the same.

The 'One China Policy' is something both China and Taiwan both subscribe to, and Trump deciding that the US doesn't have to support it could precipitate a desatbilisation of an already touchy situation.

Taiwan declaring independence from China, and attempting to join international bodies would likewise also destabilise the situation.

@"
You're absolutely right. They will still want to traffic drugs, but they'll be in prison rather than out on the streets, so they're ability to do so will be severely diminished. Additionally, you seem to think we should just let them get away with selling drugs. You know, lots of people make their living off of thievery, and they'll continue to steal, so maybe we should just let them get away with that without consequences."

Get away with selling drugs compared to thievery? I'm pretty sure drugs are a commodity which follows the rules of supply and demand, and the government should the taxing the trade (like it does with alcohol and tobacco) rather the prohibiting it (which wastes police time, prison cell space, customs officials energy - all of which could be redirected towards drug treatment and rehabilitation)

But maybe that's just the liberal side of me which believe in free trade and market mechanisms... (No it is the socialist side which believe in social justice and spending money to solve social problems rather than making them worse...)

If you make the crime punishable by death, only desperate people will risk handling the drugs, and organised crime gangs will exploit the most desperate people to ise as mules, growers, distributors, etc. You will not stop the trade, you will merely make it more desperate and put presure on the weakest, most vulnerable people in society. (Just like banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from happening, it merely stops safe abortions, and hurts the vulnerable in our society)

@ ora

I think you're way off the mark there. People who are pathetic and desperate enough to risk their lives and bring misery to others for some small gain will do so regardless of whether the opportunity is drug smuggling or violent robbery or some other vile crime. Thankfully these people are few and far between. Crime, at the end of the day, is a business. Make the business riskier, make it costlier, and less people will be attracted to it. Or they'll simply move their business to a different country where conditions are easier.

As for abortion, of course making it illegal results in fewer abortions. I'm amazed you can suggest otherwise. Illegal abortions will rise, yes, but by nowhere near the level that legal abortions fall.

@Oct, do you have evidence that abortion number will reduce, or are you just using 'common sense'? Do you know how to measure the number of 'illegal' abortions?

Regarding the current drug issue. There are wealth and influential people currently involved in this trade. And if it is too much of a risk for them to use 'valuable' peoppe to do certain tasks, they will move towards using more risky people (who they don't mind losing) or course this does affect their profit margins. But it also means they are forced to entrust people with drugs where they might previously have not wanted to take that risk (refering here to the desperate people who i predict will start to be exploited as mules ad distributors, rather than the current less desperate people working in this industry)

The issue brought up in Duterte's Philippines isn't just about death penalty and finding merits in that. It's also about giving people fair trial. It's not about sentencing malicious drug lords to death. It's about going into the streets and slaughtering anyone even remotely attached to drugs.

Absolutely correct @TrPado. However... would there still be controversy in the issue if everyone was given fair trial? What if it was a situation where even with a trial everyone involved was sentenced to ridiculous times or execution anyways?

Yes, the right to a fair trail is deemed a human right.

There would not he the same issue if this right was being upheld, even if other rights, like the right to life, were being suspended afterwards... Though tha is taken up as an issue by some developed nations.

@ ora

I doubt it's possible to measure illegal abortions, by the nature of them. I dare say you can get some indication by women suffering certain associated health issues, but very much pissing in the wind.

It is simple logic based upon the motivations behind abortions. It is fair to say that making abortions illegal won't persuade a woman who would previously have been happy to have a child choose to terminate it. It is equally fair to say that women who are under extreme social pressure to not have a child may largely seek out illegal abortions. Women who are motivated by not being able to support a child may seek illegal abortions, but are also likely to consider adoption. Women who would have chosen abortion because it was the wrong time for them, on the other hand, are highly likely to compromise their plans and become parents rather than seek out hazardous and risky abortions.

Whether any of this is desirable is another matter entirely, but that abortions will fall is blatantly obvious.

It is cruel irony that many of the nations with harsh abortion laws also tend to have abysmally poor records on contraception and sex education, which makes matters considerably worse. But that's very much another issue.

"The issue brought up in Duterte's Philippines isn't just about death penalty and finding merits in that. It's also about giving people fair trial. It's not about sentencing malicious drug lords to death. It's about going into the streets and slaughtering anyone even remotely attached to drugs."

As I mentioned before, drugs are simply too great a problem in the Philippines. It is an epidemic that is ripping apart the social fabric. Everyday Filipinos have spoken, and they have decided once and for all to get rid of the cancer known as drugs. The lives of innocent civilians matters far more that those of criminal drug dealers.

"sentenced to ridiculous times or execution "

No time is ridiculous, and execution is just right for a country like the Philippines. The punishment should match the damage done to society, and drugs do a great deal of damage to Filipino society.

The drugs are still there.

It's not even about drugs 100%. It's about murdering the citizens of Philippines. Duterte is being investigated for murder that took place in Davao City. There is nothing to stand on. These people are getting NO trial. They are assumed guilty without opportunity to prove innocence. You said drugs were keeping the Philippines as a "third world shithole," but what first world country would stand for this?